Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig
I agree this is a really ugly mediocre building. Rather than trying to blend with such a bland design I would prefer the new condo tower to be unabashedly modern because, hello, its a condo tower on top of an old building. If ever there is a time to create a great contrast this is it. The Hearst building New York really pulls this idea off IMO. I love to look at that building. This just looks like it was trying to not offend anyone.
|
I completely agree. The reason it LOOKS like it's trying not to offend anyone is because that's exactly what comes out of San Francisco's overly-democratized planning process. Over the years I've come to realize that the worst-of-the-worst designs that get wrung through our 'process' are those with a 'mandate' to 'fit-in' with an old beloved classic. Witness the piece of trash immediately behind the Sentinel Building at Columbus & Kearny, which breaks my heart every time I pass by and imagine the alternatives that could have been built on this great, front-row property. Or the Market Street frontage of 33 New Montgomery - the infamous Boudin’s Café frame (which, speaking of modern ‘cornices’, boasts one of the most ridiculous ‘solutions’ imaginable). Look at 456 Montgomery (the silver box Wells Fargo built in ’83, which blocked the great street wall view up Montgomery to the TA Pyramid), or the Citicorp highrise at Sutter & Sansome, or the (now) old Bank of California building at California & Sansome.
All these –and many more- saved a much loved original structure (or at least some of it!), but at what cost? They could have been fantastic, innovative and inspiring projects –if only the city would have allowed them the ‘air space’, and then more-or-less stayed out of the way! Our ‘mandate’ should simply be: “save the old beauty; then dazzle us!”
Yikes... my first post here turned into quite a little rant!
Threaded Mode