| |
Posted Feb 1, 2008, 8:52 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
|
|
This Comment section article in the Architects Newspaper pretty much reflects my reaction to Hines' new tower proposal of similar height in New York ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=133753).
From the Architects Newspaper -- 01 01.30.2008
http://www.archpaper.com/this_issue_CA.htm
Quote:
I winced when I saw the Times’ headline, “Next to MoMA, Reaching for the Stars.” Jean Nouvel’s new 75 story tower alongside the Museum of Modern Art reached back to Lyonel Feininger for inspiration, finally realizing his vision of an expressionist tower. It’s hard to imagine a stronger contrast to Cesar Pelli’s safely office like MoMA housing or Yoshio Taniguchi’s recent, buttoned- down expansion. “To its credit, the Modern pressed for a talented architect,” Times’ critic Nicolai Ouroussoff wrote, but he goes on to praise Hines, the tower’s “remarkably astute” developer. “Hines asked Nouvel to come up with two possible designs... and made the bolder choice.” That’s Hines in New York.
This fall, Hines also won the right to develop the Transbay Tower in downtown San Francisco. Pelli’s proposal for the transit hub component of the project is well done, but the tower is a version of his International Financial Center mega-tower in Hong Kong. As usual for Hines— they really are “remarkably astute” Pelli was a smart choice. The Airport Express station that serves Hong Kong’s financial district anchors the twin-tower IFC complex. From a credentials standpoint, that’s valuable experience. Plus a tower that’s up and-running is easier to price, even with differences in construction, than one-offs like Richard Rogers and SOM’s competing finalists. Armed with that knowledge, Hines played its trump card, offering up to $350 million for the land—more than twice what the other two developers were prepared to pay. That’s Hines in San Francisco.
Hines is Hines—the same smart operators, east and west. Given what they’re proposing for New York, blame for San Francisco’s less-than stellar tower falls somewhere else.
Jokingly called Dean Macris’ last erection, the Transbay Tower benefited from the recently departed planning czar’s determination to fulfill his long time vision of a city skyline marked by three accentuated “hills” two real and one manmade. This is the same vision that gave us One Rincon Hill, the first in a two-tower wonder by Chicago’s Solomon Cordwell Buenz. Compared to it, Pelli’s proposal is definite progress.
A lot of people have questioned the logic of Macris’ idée fixe, but that’s another article. The question here is how a competition that was advertised as being all about design proved to be all about money. Not that this is surprising, but in light of promises made—it feels like a bait and switch. And if I feel this way, imagine how SOM feels!
I wasn’t privy to the jury’s deliberations, but a few things stuck out along the way. In the initial interviews, Norman Foster failed to appear and his team was eliminated. While architect no shows are a standard mo. (and conform to Woody Allen’s maxim that “85 percent of life is showing up”), their reaction struck me as a surefire sign of provinciality. Another sign of that was the dearth of interesting architects in the mix.
Again, I didn’t make the rules, but at roughly the same time that the Transbay schemes were being unveiled, Thom Mayne won a competition for a new tower at La Defense in Paris that clearly breaks new ground. This was another reason to wince, since a second major work by Mayne might finally put San Francisco on the architectural map.
Of course, Calatrava made the cut, only to have a falling out with his developer. Perhaps he was chosen, like Icarus, to exemplify the dangers of the creative edge. That left SOM, whose tower—while drawing on a Chinese precedent—alone showed the originality that the competition promised. With its blend of structure and sustainability, it presented a credible future for tall buildings in the earthquake prone west coast. Plus, it was new, and that seemed to be what was wanted. (Unlike SOM’s, Richard Rogers’ peculiar tower was a throwback to his high tech, frame-and infill days, but vastly toned down with no real gain in use value, especially as office space.) SOM’s tower fit the bill, if the object had been to build a tower in San Francisco that broke the mold. In retrospect, no such luck.
The Transbay Tower reminds me of the new east span of the Bay Bridge, a chance squandered to do something on a par with the Golden Gate. San Francisco rises to its own occasions with about the same frequency as its earthquakes—maybe less frequently. In that sense, there’s no real mystery about the latest outcome. Still, it makes me wince.
JOHN PARMAN WRITES FOR
SAN FRANCISCO’S LINE
(WWW.LINEMAG.ORG) AND URBANIST.
|
Actually, if you don't already know, Norman Foster's team was dropped due to...
From San Francisco Business Times:
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...ml?jst=s_cn_hl
Quote:
Friday, February 23, 2007
Transbay rejection leaves architect's team with bad taste in their mouths
San Francisco Business Times - by Jim Gardner
A single dodgy dinner consumed in London a few weeks back is having an influence on the shape of the San Francisco skyline, 6,000 miles away.
When a design jury for the 1,000-foot Transbay Terminal and Tower met in early February, nobody was much surprised that jurors were only able to cull the international "starchitects" vying for the high-profile project from five to four.
Everyone, however, was perplexed at who didn't make the cut: Foster & Partners. The renowned English design firm of Sir Norman Foster is responsible for some of the world's most talked-about buildings over the last 30 years -- most recently a London office tower nicknamed the "erotic gherkin."
That's where the bad meal comes up, so to speak.
No one is quite sure whether the culprit was suspect curry and chips, bad toad in the hole or some other contaminated English delicacy. What is known is that David Nelson, No. 2 in the firm to Sir Norman himself, was supposed to be getting on a plane from London to San Francisco on Jan. 29 for the firm's Transbay qualifications interview on Jan. 30.
Instead, Nelson was in a very bad way with apparent food poisoning and not going anywhere.
So Foster's Transbay point man, Armstrong Yakubu, flew alone -- and into turbulence.
The design jury's nose was already out of joint that Sir Norman wouldn't be making an appearance. After all, other architecture rock stars with Transbay proposals -- Sergio Calatrava, Richard Rogers and Cesar Pelli -- all showed up in person.
Jeffrey Heller of Heller Manus, a local part of the design team, said no snub was intended. Foster travels for key design presentations, but otherwise stays close to work at the London studio. His presence wasn't seen as necessary.
"This was a qualification interview," said Heller. "It was an interview about the qualification of the developer and the design team. It was not a design interview. In fact, they told us not to bring anything related to the design."
Nevertheless, with neither Foster nor his right-hand man present to speak on their behalf, their firm was bumped from further consideration. Appeals for reconsideration went nowhere.
"It was assumed that the No. 2 guy and the partner in charge of the project would be sufficient, but people being people, the fact that (Nelson) wasn't there had a huge impact," said Heller.
Heller said the first-round knockout "stunned" the entire team, which in addition to Foster and Heller Manus included developers Related Cos. and TMG Partners.
It should stun the rest of us as well. Taking absolutely nothing from the quartet of supremely qualified architects still in the running, Foster's qualifications for a transportation-oriented project speak for themselves. Transportation has long been a Foster specialty. As for Nelson, his resume includes being lead designer on the Canary Wharf Underground station in London, Florence's high-speed railway station, and the Bilbao Metro in Spain.
-- Contributor: J.K. Dineen.
|
Last edited by SFView; Feb 1, 2008 at 10:24 PM.
|
|
|
Prev
That was my recollection too but I read through the Planning Dept. web site and the public meetings or attention at the Planning Commission seem too far in the future to get mentioned yet. But that appears to just mean it's more than a month or two so I agree with you--from what we know I believe the timeline is for approval of the new zoning/height limits next summer. I'd expect an appeal to the Board of Supervisors and/or even a court challenge, though. I don't think the Hestor crowd is going to let this happen without a fight.
Linear Mode
