- SAN FRANCISCO -
Less razzle-dazzle, more subtlety needed for high-stakes Transbay Terminal design
John King
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Today's a big day for San Francisco and the Bay Area, whether or not you know it.
By big I mean big -- and tall.
Five of the world's best architects -- flanked by financiers and engineers and who knows who else -- will take turns making the case that they're the ideal choice to design a tower that could change the look of San Francisco for decades to come.
As someone who believes in the transformative potential of great architecture, I'm excited that each one is here. But I also hope that, as they joust for position in the hours and months to come, this thought lodges in the back of their minds: San Francisco doesn't need an exclamation point. It needs a supple and subtle vision -- on the ground as well as the sky -- that stands as a symbol of what sustainable, elegant urbanity can be.
The architects will be wooing a jury assembled by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a government body created to summon a new mass-transit station to life. And, as the station and related work will cost an estimated $983 million if everything goes smoothly between now and the hoped-for 2014 opening day, the first job is to find ways to pay for it.
Which brings us to the competition and what very well could be the most high-stakes land deal in San Francisco in our lifetime.
The deal is this: The Transbay Authority, on Feb. 15, will decide which teams of designers and developers will be invited to make formal proposals on transforming the site of the current terminal on Mission Street, between First and Fremont streets. The authority will act on recommendations from a seven-member review jury, which will spend 90 minutes with each team today and then deliberate on Wednesday.
The winner is to be selected in August. That team will design a terminal that can handle buses and commuter trains while serving as the emerging Transbay District's centerpiece. The team will also design and build a tower that the competition rules specify should be "an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline and provide additional financing" to make the terminal a reality.
The competition emphasizes the "lead designer's ... capacity to deliver a high-rise, mixed-use development project that combines exceptional design and financial success."
In other words, the expectations are as high as the stakes. Each of the five teams pairs a top-flight developer and a top-flight architectural firm. Even though today's interviews require only the presentation of qualifications, the razzle-dazzle is sure to flow.
Sir Norman Foster and his architectural firm have produced some of the most breathtakingly original towers in the world and a series of suave and streamlined London subway stations. Sir Richard Rogers is a master of glassy structures in a high-tech vein, and his firm's airport terminal in Barajas, Spain, was awarded the 2006 Stirling Prize, England's top architectural honor.
Cesar Pelli has less of an identifiable style, but his towers can be as refined as custom suits (including 560 Mission St., one of San Francisco's most elegant recent towers). Last but not least: Santiago Calatrava, who's best known for audacious bridges but also has a residential tower in Sweden nicknamed the Turning Torso because of its torqued shape.
(An aside: Each globe-trotting name has a local partner. Foster + Partners is aligned with Heller-Manus Architects, Richard Rogers Partnership with SMWM, Pelli Clarke Pelli with WRNS Studio, and Calatrava with Chong Partners and KMD Architects.)
The one local team is the San Francisco office of Skidmore Owings and Merrill; Craig Hartman will take the lead in collaboration with Brian Lee. Neither has star power, but they do have excellent buildings to their credit. Hartman, for instance, designed the United States Embassy that will open next year in Beijing as well as San Francisco's St. Regis tower.
To see architects of this caliber do battle is startling; it's also a tribute to San Francisco. Sure, San Jose has more people and the 49ers are packing up to leave. From the global perspective, though, we're on the map as one of the nation's key cities (I'd put it behind only New York, Chicago and, yes, Los Angeles). Leave your mark here and you'll launch a million postcards.
The catch is, there's more to life than postcards.
Unlike Malmo, Sweden -- home to the Turning Torso -- San Francisco doesn't need an eye-popping icon to put itself on the map. And neither the tight Transbay site nor the increasingly crowded South of Market skyline allows for the strapping muscularity of some of the towers that Foster and Rogers have designed.
On the ground, meanwhile, we don't need a gold-plated terminal that would bankrupt Bill Gates. Better to have an alluring triumph of minimalism that dazzles the eye, functions smoothly and, wait for it, maybe even trims that $983 million price tag a bit.
That's the real challenge for the architects and teams who each will put their case before the jury.
Yes, there's no better site in San Francisco for a new tower that would shoot past the Transamerica Pyramid in height. It absolutely should be memorable. It should bristle with imagination.
But this is also a case where less is more. Rein in the ego and concentrate instead on ingenious designs that seduce without putting on a show. Think about how to define a new template of urbanity: one where vertical pizzazz, enticingly efficient mass transit and truly civil public space all are inextricably linked.
Another thing: The competition rules call for an emphasis on environmentally friendly architecture. Don't treat this as a requirement, but as a challenge. Integrate notions of sustainability and green design into every facet of the project. Live lightly on the land even as you soar high above the earth.
San Francisco and the Bay Area have the chance to benefit from some of the most ingenious and far-sighted minds in architecture. But we also have the responsibility to demand that they produce their very best -- whoever they might turn out to be.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
|