SAN FRANCISCO | Intercontinental Hotel | 340 FT / 104 M | 31 FLOORS

[fflint]

The Intercontinental is a visual disappointment. The renderings were clean and slick; the actual building looks tacky and cheap.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by mthd

this one is definitely shaping up to be a new ugliest tall building in soma - although that's a VERY elite prize these days.

I think SOMA Grand wins the prize.

It doesn't apply to SOMA, but you probably heard of Helmut Jahn's charactertization of North Michigan Avenue in Chicago: "Every new building is the worse."

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by fflint

The Intercontinental is a visual disappointment. The renderings were clean and slick; the actual building looks tacky and cheap.

We were duped!! I would much rather settle on the silver streaked look instead of white concrete everywhere. But the rest still looks really nice and inventive.

[tyler82]

I'm sorry naysayers, but this is an Awesome building and quite dramatic. The architect of this one is very inventive. I think it is the most glamorous building in the city that is currently under construction.

Earlier in the day the fog and clouds were drifting in and out, and the color of the building changed accordingly, which you can see in the pictures which I took at different times.







New rendering:




The best glass in town:




The roof is starting to take shape:

[fflint]

Such a disappointment. That thing is fugly.

[BTinSF]

It's kind of jolting but that neighborhood needs a jolt--along with some real color--and I wouldn't call it ugly. It sure draws your eye down 5th St. And my guess is once it's finished the tourists will love it as much as they love the Marriott.

Bottom line: I don't at all mind seeing San Francisco get some controversial architecture not approved by a committee of growth-haters.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

It's kind of jolting but that neighborhood needs a jolt--along with some real color--and I wouldn't call it ugly. It sure draws your eye down 5th St. And my guess is once it's finished the tourists will love it as much as they love the Marriott.

Bottom line: I don't at all mind seeing San Francisco get some controversial architecture not approved by a committee of growth-haters.

I love the Mariott myself. When I was a kid visiting SF coming in from the Bay Bridge it was the only building (besides BofA and Transamerica) that stuck out of the skyline to me (in a good way).

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I love the Mariott myself. When I was a kid visiting SF coming in from the Bay Bridge it was the only building (besides BofA and Transamerica) that stuck out of the skyline to me (in a good way).

Well Tyler, that explains it all. I think that the Marriott is one of the grand prize winners for being the most unsightly building in the City...actually hideous, revolting and repulsive are words that also come to mind. IMO, it's not only tacky, but the poor quality of the building materials (including the windows which send streaks down the equally inferior facade material) also makes it look very cheap. It's no wonder that you like the Intercontinental! It's grand by comparison.

Actually, I can understand fondly remembering something that you saw as a child (you were seven years old when it opened in 1989, right?), but look at that sorry piece of architecture and construction objectively now as an adult. Try viewing it from Nob Hill or somewhere from the north. Fortunately, the Four Seasons blocked the view of it from Grant Avenue. When the Maryrot opened on the day of the Loma Prieta earthquake, many people were comparing it to a rectal thermometer. The interior was equally bad--it looked like interior design done by a committee that couldn't agree on much.

On another note, your pics above were nicely done!

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

IMO

And that says it all, as well!

[Reminiscence]

I think the Intercontinental is still a visually pleasing building, despite the fact that the preliminary renderings suggested otherwise. The new rendering made known to me (thanks to tyler82 ) looks more like what is being built than any other shows. But I wonder, would we all have reacted differently before had we seen this rendering instead of the others? One thing is for sure though, its clearly an improvement over what was there before.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

The interior was equally bad--it looked like interior design done by a committee that couldn't agree on much.

IMHO the interior of that building (the Marriott) is much worse than the exterior. It looks really 70s-vintage cheap in a totally plastic sort of way. I'm afraid the Intercontinental could have the same syndrome. I could learn to like the exterior, shocking blue-green glass and all, but the white-painted sheet metal does not reassure me about what we will find inside when we can enter.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

IMHO the interior of that building (the Marriott) is much worse than the exterior. It looks really 70s-vintage cheap in a totally plastic sort of way. I'm afraid the Intercontinental could have the same syndrome. I could learn to like the exterior, shocking blue-green glass and all, but the white-painted sheet metal does not reassure me about what we will find inside when we can enter.

Mariott is on a completely different level than Intercontinental, brand wise. I doubt Intercontinental interior will be anything less than chic.

[mthd]

the marriot comparison is actually a good one. they are both tacky, ugly, totally lacking any sense of composed three dimensionality, and really badly executed. that neon green glass already looks dated.

the worst thing is that it wont be covered up anytime soon since it's so far south and west relative to current development. :cry:

[roadwarrior]

I actually like the art-deco look of the Marriott. Also, the bar at the top (View Lounge) has the best view of the city, IMO. However, I would agree that the interior does look tacky, but that isn't unique to THIS Marriott.

I also like the look of the Intercontinental. Its such a nice change from the bland cement buildings we find far too many of here in the city.

[BTinSF]

I couldn't help but notice that from this distance and viewing angle, it makes a nice frame of City Hall along with the new Federal Building and the glass colors (which are quite different close up) even match:


Photo by ColDay, posted in his SF thread

[tyler82]

The coolest buildings are always the most controversial. The hate/ love relationship between Intercontinental is probably similar to the Federal Building.

It's the ones that EVERYBODY agress on that are the most boring

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I guess if you live in Dubai you NEED great architecture, because what the hell else are you going to look at over there??

Anyway, I'm not at all jealous of Dubai or impressed with what I've seen with the Burj Dubai. The tall buildings are just tall, clunky, and the skyline and surrounding area just doesn't look like a world class metropolis.

nevermind

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Mariott is on a completely different level than Intercontinental, brand wise. I doubt Intercontinental interior will be anything less than chic.

I agree with you--they are different companies, but Intercontinental has changed significantly since they bought Holiday Inn. For a while, they had actually merged the traditional Intercontinental brand with Crowne Plaza, splitting the Holiday Inn brands into a separate grouping. That didn't work since most Crowne Plazas are not up to Intercontinental standards; one would have thought that was obvious in the first place (just look at the ugly CP at Sutter and Powell). All in all though, I'm betting with you that the interior of this property will be chic. I know the new General Manager and he'll do his best to develop an excellent restaurant too since he's definitely a foodie.

On another note, I was looking at the new hotel from the upper floor of a building on Sacramento and Octavia last night. It confirmed my main problem with it, that it turns its back on the City, presenting its best side to the freeway. The back is unattractive to me with its wide swath of white going all the way up to the mechanical penthouse. Try looking at it now from that angle.

As for the new rendering, it looks to me like something recycled from an earlier tacky era. At least the Intercontinental seems to be constructed of better quality materials than the Marriott (which has, by the way, two "r"'s).

Yes Tyler, it's all just opinions.

[SFView]

For a while, I've been thinking the Intercontinental reminds me of something I've seen in Reno. Then I checked and found this:

Circus Circus Reno (image: courtesy travelnow.com)

[BigKidD]

I feel the building could be much better, but it's at least an improvement over a parking lot.