SAN FRANCISCO | Fairmont Residential Tower | 373 FT / 113.7 M |
 

http://www.socketsite.com/Fairmont%2...%20Project.jpghttp://www.socketsite.com/Fairmont%2...ed%20Tower.jpg
Source all images http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ding_as_p.html

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ding_as_p.html

Ha! Just posted this in the rundown thread -- didn't think about looking for a thread over here. Anyway, Heller Manus sure has a recognizable look. Regardless, the lowrise part is a huge improvement on the existing structure.

:previous: yes, Heller Manus does have a "look" which comes in for a lot of criticism among us, but it has often occurred to me that the "look" they have is a lot like most of the Vancouver residential towers that get so much praise. I don't dislike it as much as many, but I do have to admit that alongside better work like what Arquitectonica did at the Infinity it doesn't look so good.

The corner of the podium is definitely boring, but the tower is definitely an improvement

Was this the building used in a 'Dirty Harry' movie?

so theyre tearing down a 317 ft blah tower to erect a slightly taller 373 ft blah tower?

blah

it's quite uninspiring, like the metropolitan. the podium looks okay to me though.

The highrise portion needs to be much more exciting while still complimenting the main building in a contemporary way, something which the current tower never did (especially before its gold tiles were covered about 15 or so years ago). This Heller Manus tower rendering is a total bore, bordering upon an insult, IMO.

My first job after graduating with a hotel degree from a university back east was at The Fairmont, so I know it quite well.

i agree. of all the new san francisco skyscrapers, none seem so poorly imagined as this proposal. at least 555 washington looked like the person who designed it put a lot of effort in. the intercontinental isnt so bad since it didnt ruin a masterpiece next door. with the fairmont, on the other hand, we'd be stuck with this (another) fugly monstrosity for 30+ years until someone decides to replace it with something else blah - the only thing that can get approved. not to mention the prominent location.

im honestly embarrassed this is one of the few threads we can muster for san francisco. has all skyscraper talk been reduced to speculation on when the transbay tower will start construction and replacing the fairmont rez with a HELLer manus cookie cutter piece of crap!?! :whip:

/end rant

I agree with everything that you stated--rant on whenever you feel like it! Your baby has a together father. :tup:

It seems as if some people would prostitute themselves just to get anything built, as long as it is a highrise. We should demand higher standards! Modify the plans for 555 Washington to fit the site and put it up there.

First of all, this tower is apparently a few feet shorter than what it would replace, not taller. Hence there is no one "prostituting" themselves except possibly the owners/managers of the Fairmont who apparently believe spending quite a few millions on a high end condo tower is going to make them that amount back and much more.

Given that it's just about the same height as what's there and will have the same impact on the skyline, and the condos in it will be well out of my price range we can all be sure (the view alone will be well outside my price range), I don't really care much whether it gets built or not. But also considering how ugly the existing tower is, I don't mind if it is built--at least it won't be a classic example of one of the worst eras of American architecture like what it replaces (just a very mediocre example of a somewhat better era).

The bottom line, though, is that I don't really see how the city can turn it down given that its the same size and use as what's there now and at least the podium won't have the big, ugly blank walls of the existing podium. Maybe they can push to get it prettied up a little, though, like they did the Infinity.

yea, it never made sense to me to hire an architecture firm from clear across the country to modify the design so it actually looks good, when u couldve gone with them in the first place. y do people even hire hellar manus these days? infinity-ize it!

It may not look great, but I think it's a big improvement over what's there now.

The Fairmont is not even in the top 20 ugly towers in this city. I'd have to say Fontana or that eyesore on Washington and Laguna top my list for hideous residential towers.

Maybe we should start a list

^The Hilton at Washington and Kearny and the Holiday Inn on Van Ness probably top my list of ugly towers, but nothing is as ugly and disgraceful to its surroundings as the Market St Safeway, except for maybe the Trinity Plaza buildings (slowly being torn down piece by piece).

On this project? Meh. Nothing great, but it looks like at least the street level will improve a bit. The current blank wall is pretty hideous.

I agree that blank wall that is there now is the equivalent of an overweight high school bully

For anybody interested I started a new thread of the most vile San Francisco skyscrapers
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...93#post4821693

how nice it would be if fairmont gets infinity-ized by arquitectonica! and a collaboration between fairmont and arquitectonica isn't too far fetched since it wouldn't be the first time that the two would be working on a project. the upcoming fairmont makati (in the philippines) is designed by arquitectonica:)

I actually think the design is an improvement on what's there, so if building a tower of the same size, pencils out for them, that's cool.

Not to get off topic, but out of state and/or country architectural firms--need to partner with a local company. This is common practice throughout the US--due to regulations I believe. For example, a Portland firm with a project idea for San Jose, has to partner with a local firm. A Vancouver firm building in San Diego, would partner with a

I actually think the design is an improvement on what's there, so if building a tower of the same size, pencils out for them, that's cool.

Not to get off topic, but out of state and/or country architectural firms--need to partner with a local company. This is common practice throughout the US--due to regulations I believe. For example, a Portland firm with a project idea for San Jose, has to partner with a local firm. A Vancouver firm building in San Diego, would partner with a SD or CA firm.

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...10/story8.html