My earlier post regarding this issue. This post, total case in point.

:leek: (midwestern bumpkins)

I like the idea of the park and the symphony and it makes sense to have an iconic art installation or landmark there. My problem with these are that these wings serve no purpose. If you want to use opera house, Eiffel tower, etc - they all serve a purpose/function. This is just out of scale art.

Exactly. There are ways to bring artistic designs to the waterfront that complement the landscape and the view, rather than clutter it up with "sculpture" like this giant sort thumb or the "Sailor Kissing Girl" thing that looks like something dragged from grandma's attic. Our waterfront is starting to resemble a flea market.

That's exactly how I feel about this sculpture. It's like someone just came up with that design off the top of their head.

What's the purpose of the Eiffel Tower and the Arch?

Just observation decks?

Put an observation deck on here and boom it has a function.

Looks like giant insect wings...unbelievable

lol sky area with what looks like the moon looks like something out of a syfy movie =] the moon aint that big haha

I'm actually in San Diego right now. I come here a lot, but normally stick to Coronado and the immediate downtown area. I think, this time, I'll branch out a little. Is there anywhere that I should go that would have attractive modern architecture and good urban design? Thanks!

Not really? La Jolla?


:(

Hmm attractive modern architecture? I guess the UCSD campus has some pretty cool stuff that has been built in the last few years. San Diego is just like LA Illithid Dude, any cool stuff is few and far between and scattered all over the place. There is no area where you can walk for blocks and marvel at nice architecture and an "urban environment". If you can list the neighborhoods you have visited it could help.

The best design is usually residential homes unfortunately. So you have been to Bankers Hill/Hillcrest I'm assuming right? Maybe you should go down to Tijuana and mix it up a bit. :cheers:

I've been pretty much all around Coronado and Downtown, but haven't really been outside of those two areas with the exception of going to Fashion Valley Mall or a movie.

I second Banker's Hill/Hillcrest. BH has a lot of nice, large, homes basically in between 1st and 4th and south of Brooks/North of Laurel. It's a nice walking path with a couple of historic pedestrian bridges.

If you have some $$ consider eating at Cucina Urbana. It's not super pricey but it is super good. (I live around here now having moved three blocks south from Hillcrest into BH).

Hillcrest has some nice 30s/40s stuff that would fit into some of the less dense neighborhoods in LA and a couple of good bars. Restaurants are mostly overrated. In any case, have fun!

Eiffel Tower was a well thought out and super progressive engineering accomplishment - it had a specific purpose, it was to act as a gateway and landmark for the world's fair. It has a program and no one ever disputes that it doesn't serve a modern day purpose. Same can be said about the STL arch - gateway for western expansion, but more importantly it is fully integrated into the plan of the city. Everything that's done in that town is sensitive to the arch.

The wings on the water mean nothing. they're out of scale and seemingly designed with little meaning and serves no purpose.... other than looking like junk on the water. It's sculpture, not architecture.

Well put. :tup:

I heard on NPR that this version of the "wings" being floated around is supposedly nowhere near the original concept the artist had in mind. Apparently it's a far scaled-back interpretation designed to save lots of money.

I realize we are in an economic downturn and the city of San Diego is not in the best financial situation, but do we really want to create THE iconic symbol that will truly represent our city to the world "on the cheap"?

Then again, it IS San Diego, maybe some lackluster iconic symbol designed blandly and with low-budget cutting corners would accurately portray our metropolis to the world.

On the one hand, I do have to give the people pushing this credit for at least trying to think out of the box and give our city a globally-recognized iconic symbol.

On the other hand, people need to remember that if we construct a monstrosity, THAT could become an international symbol for our city - one not of grandeur and allure but of sophomoric embarrassment.

I get so frustrated when people compare this to the Sydney Opera House. If only it were.

Bottom line is something like this needs many different design ideas to choose from, not settling on one. Look how long it is taking to get ground zero re-built. People are passionate about the site, various architecture firms designed plans, and a system was put into place to select the best one. We need that here with this site - - there needs to be more plans, more renderings, and then let the people decide which "iconic vision" we want on our waterfront.

I would also recommend North Park - still kind of gritty, but definitely some cool art venues and a good vibe.

Ok and what's stopping the Wings to be serve as a gateway and landmark for the city/100th annivesary of the Panama-California exhibition?

What's stopping the Wings to to be fully integrated into the plan of the city?

The only point I agree is that it's a sculpture, not architecture. But even then that can easily be fixed.

First, no one enters the city, passes through or goes anywhere near where these wings are being proposed. Eiffel was a physical gateway where people walked under it to enter a fair with clearly defined spaces. Not the same at all. The wings aren't incorporated in the community plan, they're an awful after-that that goes against the community plan by obstructing view corridors.

The more I see the wings, the tackier I think they look! lol

It's honestly one of the most stupid proposals/ideas I've ever seen. :(