HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 4:58 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
I wish that I could feel more positive regarding this proposed development.

To me, on the plus side:
  • It could indeed properly preserve that grand hotel.
  • It would eliminate the hideous gray brick blank wall along Powell Street.
  • It would replace an at best nondescript tower that is probably seismically unsafe.
  • It would inject new life into Nob Hill and The Fairmont.
On the negative side:
  • The lower portion that replaces the current Grand Ballroom, garage and roof garden, rises much higher than what is there now. The result will be that significantly more of the east flank of the historic building will be hidden from view.
  • The proposed new tower is bland, common and should be of a modern landmark design in its own right, while not detracting from the grand historic hotel.

In general, we as the public, and Nob Hill as a premier section of San Francisco, deserve better.

Last edited by viewguysf; May 8, 2010 at 6:43 PM.
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 6:23 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Sums it up pretty accurately. I guess I'm the only one who doesn't mind the old tower. Other than the elevator shafts on the western side, I think it looks fine (ie: from the east). If it is seismically unsafe, that's another story.

As for the new tower, Heller Manus did such a nice job on 555 Washington. I wish they could have come up with something equally inspired for this site.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 1:10 PM
Infernal_Elf's Avatar
Infernal_Elf Infernal_Elf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: enjoying life in Tønsberg the coolest little town in Norway
Posts: 354
i think they should go for a more different design the proposed building is very much a look alike to the old one id say
__________________
We set our visions higher
Its never to tall just way to small

My flickr photo stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/infernal_elf/
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 7:09 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
By going for a building no taller than the current one and with similar bulk, I assume they hope to stay clear of the swamp of SF NIMBYism. Nothing, of course, is logical in the world of SF development and planning, but you have to wonder what arguments the "build nothing anywhere, ever" crowd will muster under these circumstances. I'm sure they'll think of something, but perhaps it won't be convincing. Anything that looked radically different up there on Nob Hill would almost certainly provoke opposition in proportion to its differentness.
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 7:02 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
John King chimes in today. Nothing much to add that hasn't already been discussed here, except he mentions the architect is actually Miles Berger from Tiburon. I picked up Heller Manus from SocketSite, but that is incorrect despite it looking very much like their work. I confirmed that Miles Berger has it on their website and don't see any mention of it on HM's site. Sorry for spreading bad information before.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 7:05 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Fairmont makeover a chance for S.F. to shine
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Friday, June 18, 2010



In a pristine world, no tower would sully the rear of the Fairmont Hotel. That sparkling 1906 classic would stand in regal isolation on the crest of Nob Hill.

Instead, as the owner seeks to demolish the hotel's 1961 addition and erect an even larger one, the Fairmont illustrates a 21st century challenge faced by cities such as San Francisco: Can new buildings help repair the damage done by wrongheaded "progress" after World War II, or should mistakes be left intact for fear of making things worse?

Wrongheaded progress


There's no pat answer in a case like this where the newcomer must measure up to one of our true architectural icons - and so far, what's proposed falls far short.

The proposed makeover has attracted attention mainly because the developers want to do away with the Tonga Room, a rock-walled lagoon of Polynesian kitsch complete with rainfall on the hour.

But the project also would involve perhaps the largest building demolition in San Francisco history, removing a 317-foot tower at Powell and Sacramento streets as well as a low podium along Powell that contains meeting rooms and parking.

In their place would rise a residential shaft of the same height, though with extra girth on the lower floors, and a 105-foot condominium mid-rise where the podium now stands.

Unless you're a staunch defender of modern architecture, the removal of the 1961 piece is no cause for dismay . . . .

The catch is that the proposal calls for addition as well as subtraction. And if what's proposed isn't as bleak as what's there now, it lacks the commanding joy of the Reid Brothers-designed original.

Won't make waves

The design by Tiburon architect Miles Berger for the hotel's owners - led by investment group Maritz Wolff - reads like what it is, a development deal smoothed and buffed to make minimal waves. The tower is pale limestone with square windows and a vertical strip of balconies at each corner. The mid-rise would be gray stone, pulled in slightly at the 55-foot mark to appear less imposing to pedestrians.

These moves are toned down from what surfaced at hearings last fall, and the changes are for the better. Gone are the glassy horizontal bands that made the podium replacement look like a hospital. The tower has been thinned a bit, with a less fussy skin, and townhouses along California no longer push within 8 feet of a 1906 facade.

All of which is ... serviceable . . . .

The city's Historic Preservation Commission, meanwhile, goes so far in a letter as to suggest that since the 1961 addition was "completely inappropriate," any proposal involving demolition should be judged as if there was an empty site (in other words, turn back the clock) . . . .

A new structure along Powell can be designed to bring ground-level life to a block that now is grim. As for the skyline perspective, you can imagine an exquisitely detailed tower as an ethereal counterpart to its robust neighbor; a glass oval, perhaps, rising from a stone base along Powell.

The 1906 building would define the edge of Nob Hill, magisterial and strong. The new piece would be the downtown skyline's soft fade.

At the very least, the current approach can be made more inviting . . . .

The tower should be a clean shaft, losing that lower-floor bulge the developers would fill with super-sized condos. The mid-rise could be reshaped as a compact block that allows ample views of the Fairmont's east-facing facade.

Another option, sure to ruffle feathers: cap the height along Powell at what's now there and extend the terrace garden designed by Lawrence Halprin, but allow a bit more height for the tower if the architecture earns it. There's little real difference between 317 and 350 feet . . . .
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN081DSS27.DTL
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 7:08 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 9:12 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
yea - good eye bt. now it looks even worse. the crowns look awkward. AND it will block views of the historic building even more.

i actually agree with john king - the tower needs to be slim (if it has to be there at all).

so much potential, and we get stuck with mediocrity.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2010, 6:51 PM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 9,318
It's a shame the existing tower is planned to be demolished! I think it is a pretty classy looking tower. It is well proportioned, and the turret and flagpole on top are quite distinctive.

The new tower planned to replace it is completely generic.

What is the most distinctive building in this photo?


I have no idea where this photo originally came from, but it is worth posting
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2010, 4:37 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
I think that John King's review is right on target and agree with everything he has written below:

"A new structure along Powell can be designed to bring ground-level life to a block that now is grim. As for the skyline perspective, you can imagine an exquisitely detailed tower as an ethereal counterpart to its robust neighbor; a glass oval, perhaps, rising from a stone base along Powell.

The 1906 building would define the edge of Nob Hill, magisterial and strong. The new piece would be the downtown skyline's soft fade.

At the very least, the current approach can be made more inviting . . . .

The tower should be a clean shaft, losing that lower-floor bulge the developers would fill with super-sized condos. The mid-rise could be reshaped as a compact block that allows ample views of the Fairmont's east-facing facade.

Another option, sure to ruffle feathers: cap the height along Powell at what's now there and extend the terrace garden designed by Lawrence Halprin, but allow a bit more height for the tower if the architecture earns it. There's little real difference between 317 and 350 feet . . . ."
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2010, 6:58 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Dylan - I agree with you.
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2010, 12:58 AM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 743
The current mid century tower is far more iconic. The new design has a very bland corporate feel to it and is totally out of place on Nob Hill. I doubt the project will go though due to the economy and opposition from the planning boards.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 6:45 PM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 320
Unlike some commentators, I could care less if they keep the current tower and would gladly welcome its demolition. Opportunities to build new towers in this city are few and far between, so I really think it should not be wasted.

With that said, in my opinion, this tower is big "meh." Its not god-awful, but certainly not inspiring. I really don't have a problem with height and would welcome a well-designed tower that is taller. Ultimately, I think any new tower should reflect the standards of the community. Not only should it be seismically sound, but also it could excel at being green.

Encouraging more energy efficient buildings and structure is a solid argument against NIMBYs
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2010, 6:55 AM
tommaso tommaso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 396
Fairmont Hotel will be buzzing with bees
By: JOHN UPTON
June 14, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — Bees will buzz this Thursday through the historic hallways of the Fairmont Hotel.

The Nob Hill hotel’s executive chef is overseeing the planting of a 1,000-square-foot culinary garden, which on Thursday will become home to four beehives.

The hives are scheduled to be carried, wrapped in burlap, through the hotel’s lobby at 8 a.m. Thursday to the new garden, where they will be installed.

The bees will be free to gather pollen from lavender and other plants in the Fairmont Hotel’s gardens.

“Ultimately,” hotel publicists wrote in a statement Monday, “the homegrown honey will be served to hotel guests as part of The Fairmont’s commitment to serving local, organic, sustainable cuisine.”



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Fair...#ixzz0uxR08GiC
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2010, 4:33 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommaso View Post
Fairmont Hotel will be buzzing with bees
By: JOHN UPTON
June 14, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — Bees will buzz this Thursday through the historic hallways of the Fairmont Hotel.

The Nob Hill hotel’s executive chef is overseeing the planting of a 1,000-square-foot culinary garden, which on Thursday will become home to four beehives.

The hives are scheduled to be carried, wrapped in burlap, through the hotel’s lobby at 8 a.m. Thursday to the new garden, where they will be installed.

The bees will be free to gather pollen from lavender and other plants in the Fairmont Hotel’s gardens.

“Ultimately,” hotel publicists wrote in a statement Monday, “the homegrown honey will be served to hotel guests as part of The Fairmont’s commitment to serving local, organic, sustainable cuisine.”

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Fair...#ixzz0uxR08GiC
Well that does it--they can't tear it down!
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 11:30 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 451
think of the bees! for gods sake someone please think of the bees!
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 6:41 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
This is up for EIR approval by the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions on Thursday. Looking over the evolution of the design, I'd still prefer to just keep the existing tower. The lowrise part is an improvement, but only because the existing structure is heinous. I wish they'd start over.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 11:36 PM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
This is up for EIR approval by the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions on Thursday. Looking over the evolution of the design, I'd still prefer to just keep the existing tower. The lowrise part is an improvement, but only because the existing structure is heinous. I wish they'd start over.
Yep, the design for the new one is lackluster, and that is being nice.
This is the project I am least excited about.
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2010, 4:15 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
From the Examiner: Planning failed to approve the EIR last night, 3-2 (it needed 4 votes to pass). It will have another go in 3 months.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2011, 11:03 PM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 743
any updates?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:43 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.