Gentlemen,
I think we need to focus all of our energy not on John King, but on the TJPA. This is the week.
I belive that many of you favor the SOM proposal, as do I, and I think as Thursday approaches we need to make our perspectives known.
I've been thinking about it, and the more I consider the Pelli proposal, the less I like both its aesthetics and park, but its office only program. And I belive, this is its biggest weakness, and one we should exploit. In fact, the TJPA requested a mixed-use program, and while SOM complied, the Hines/Pelli proposal decided to use an all office configuration to attract attention with the value of its offer.
I have begun writing emails and will not stop until Thursday morning. I am attaching a back and forth with Gabriel Metcalf the head of SPUR in response to his comments in the Biz Times. Feel free to use any ideas in my writings as a starting point to hopefully write emails yourself. The impact of Thursday's decision on the future of the City cannot be understanded, let's make ourselves heard.
******************
Mr. Metcalf,
I want to begin by saying that I am an ardent fan of yours. I agree with you on many issues, from density and development, to a belief that curbing sprawl and inner city regeneration is the key to California and the Bay Area's future. I am always glad to read your opinion pieces both in the Urbanist, and in the San Francisco Business Times, because I agree with them 100%.
I do, however, disagree with your remarks in today's Business Times regarding the Transbay Terminal. I think that SOM is the clear winner in the competition for many reasons, a few of which I will go into very quickly. I think it is of the utmost importance to remember that this is a work in progress. Everyone I have spoken with, and a majority of the online polls and discussion forums, favor SOM by a large margin. It is a truly beautiful design, it is awe-inspiring, grand, and has an aesthetic worthy of San Francisco's newest icon. It is very well incorporated into the urban landscape, and even includes the participation of two local institutions, SFMOMA and the Sutro library. It also has a public element to it, the grand lobby and entrance, which will create one of the most scintillating intersections of any city in the country, will be open to the public. The Transbay Hall will become both a showpiece for the City, a civic gathering place, and a welcome mat for those arriving. With the Sutro Library, the restaurant halfway up the building, the condominiums above, and the observation deck, it is a true landmark that San Franciscans will have access to, be proud of, and feel a part of. This inclusion will also foster interest and enthusiasm for a project that has a rough entitlement and development process ahead of it. With these mixed-uses, a 24 hour vibrance will also exist on site. With people dining, visiting, travelling, commuting, working and living in this building, it will have a connection to the City around it and will become a cross roads for the daily activities of thousands.
Unfortunately, the Pelli proposal runs contrary to many of the aforementioned qualities. The building as proposed is all office. How many office buildings can you walk in and go see the incredible view from the top? How many office buildings can you even get past the lobby? Furthermore, after hours, and on weekends, I am concerned that this building will be dark and empty, with no life around it, and no public accessability. Yes, the park is a nice idea, but over 50 feet in the air with access by funicular, I don't see it being used nearly as often as imagined. I think it might end up more like the park on Crocker Galleria than Yerba Buena Gardens. And with land so valuable, an enclosed hall and terminal like the SOM proposal allows for all-weather use, whereas in rain and cold wind, the Pelli park will be empty and unused. With such an expensive project, I understand that the TJPA is strapped for cash and the terminal's development is of utmost importance. And I know that Hines' offer of $350 million blew the Jury away. But if either the heights are reduced, or a mixed use program within the building becomes part of the plan, will they still be able to offer that amount of money? I think the best proposal should win on merit and be tweaked through the entitlement process, rather than highest bidder with the least daring proposal accepted based on financials.
It is important that San Francisco be bold and cutting-edge in its designs; especially in the most important project in its history. This is a civic project on the grandest of scales. It is to center our region, identify our City, and truly embrace the ideals of the place we live. It will set the development trend for the next several decades. As a LEED Platinum building, the SOM proposal combines a truly beautiful new icon for the City with its engineering prowess, and environmental stewardship, this is the building for San Francisco. This is the building that will turn the page to the next great era of our City. I hope you agree with me - that an attractive, mixed use, publicly accessible building, designed by San Franciscans for San Francisco is the way to go.
***************
Well, thank you for the thoughtful email. And I have to say that I agree with you on most of your points.
My impression, too, is that most people think the SOM design is the most beautiful. But as you might imagine, as an organization, I tried to keep SPUR far away from any comments on which design is the best, or even which proposal as a whole is best. It just doesn't seem appropriate for us to weigh in on that. We have made sure that the process is legitimate and the criteria for selection are valid -- and beyond that we have been willing to trust the process.
That said, my comment in the Business Times concerns the use of the site and here I do think that my own opinion is that it is far better for the city and region if this project is all or mostly office. Here is my reasoning:
1. Downtown, as it was defined in the 1985 Downtown Plan, is almost fully built. We are out of sites.
2. Downtown San Francisco is by far the best place in the region to locate office jobs. Most people get to work without a car, in contrast to every other center job center in the Bay Area, including downtown Oakland and including office parks near BART. The environmental efficiencies of locating jobs in downtown SF are enormous.
3. Therefore we need to expand downtown. As far as we can tell, there are 2 logical directions for expansion: to the south into Transbay and to the west, along Mid-Market. Downtown is hemmed in by Rincon Hill, South Beach, and Yerba Buena in any case. That leaves one last possible remaining expansion zone for downtown, which is the Transbay neighborhood.
4. If we do not expand downtown in Transbay, we are faced with having to create a second downtown somewhere else (like Midtown, I suppose) or else shifting future office jobs into suburban office parks.
My $0.02.
Thanks for taking a minute to write me.
***************
Mr. Metcalf,
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my email, it is much appreciated.
I agree completely with your perspective that the Transbay area is where growth should happen in the coming decades. Supported by past transit investments like MUNI and BART, and future projects like the Central Subway and High Speed Rail, it is the most logical and ecological place in all of Northern California to add offices. San Francisco indeed has limited space for future office development, but more significantly, has limited sites that can be transformed into places for its citizens. Because of this, the Transbay Terminal and Tower should be the exception and truly mixed-use. This tower, with an iconic design, if SOM were selected, would house a place of civic dimension on par with City Hall, Golden Gate Park, and The Ferry Building. In fact, the Ferry Building is the perfect representation of my argument in favor of the SOM proposal, as the Ferry Building's evolution and place in the civic vocabulary correlates with its use at the time. As solely an office structure, and before its genesis as a food market, the Ferry Building was merely a portal, a pass through hallway to the ferry landings beyond. It was neither a destination, nor a part of the fabric of the City. Since its renovation, it has become a gathering place, written up in magazines, newspapers and travel guides, and is a requisite stop on any San Francisco visit. It is a place in which we gather, we linger, and we meet friends -- it has become a destination. The Transbay Terminal can mirror this dramatic transformation, but only if its program follows a similar template. With the Pelli proposal, the Transbay Terminal more closely aligns with the Ferry Building prior to its renovation; mostly office, limited access, and little use for the City's everyday inhabitants. It was a place of hurried passage to further destinations, holding little value in the public's imagination. In strong contrast, the SOM design offers a fluid and permeable place, much like the current iteration of the Ferry Building, with round the clock activity and a cornerstone presence in the City's civic, business, and transportation landscape. In an Associated Press article this weekend about cities transforming their skylines, you mentioned that this will be an exclamation point for San Francisco, a statement of values. But to go one step further, the SOM proposal would re-enforce those values more significantly, because in the public sphere they become an experience, as we meet in that space, live in that space, and greet visitors in that space.
Let's restore the tradition of building on a grand civic scale like those mentioned projects of City Hall, Golden Gate Park, and the Ferry Building. But let's restore the entire tradition and make it accessible to the populace, so they can feel a part of these places and support their presence in the City. A business district in the South Financial made up of tall office towers is something I completely agree with. But from each desk, and out each window, a building will be seen centering this new cluster. My hope is that it is a building alive with its citizenry's interaction, buzzing around the clock, and an emphatic reminder to the City, the Country, and the World, what San Francisco stands for. SOM offers this with their elegant and ground-breaking mixed use proposal. Let's hope that vision is realized.
Prev
Linear Mode
