Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF
I knew what you mean by "negative space" but I don't think the plazas at 555 or 560 Mission are "negative". They open directly to the sidewalk and invite people in. That's the problem with space totally surrounded (or mostly surrounded) by buildings, especially residential buildings where you don't live--it feels to me like invading somebody else's space except it's rare that many of the somebody elses use it. My condo building has a large second floor courtyard where the swimming pool and spa are and I can't recall but once ever spending any time there in the last decade since I don't use the pool or spa themselves much. It's too cold, cloudy and windy in San Francisco most of the time to just sit on the grass or whatever--there needs to be attractions like retail, cafes, al fresco dining etc to attract people and I'd be surprised if they design such things for these interior spaces (such amenities would also improve the "public open space" at 555/560 Mission by the way).
Looking at that Kenwood design, to me the spaces you are talking about are the architectural equivalent of light wells. They really just exist in order to allow more units in the buildings to have exterior walls with windows (albeit windows that just face other peoples' windows).
I assume one reason for the 6000 seat venue is for rock concerts and other events, some of which are now being held in ATT Park and causing complaints from neighbors. But to my knowledge, the only other venue in the city of that size might be Civic Auditorium which is pretty outdated (even though it was renovated about 10 years ago). The Opera House seats about 3000 I think and Davies is a bit smaller. I would think we do need something intermediate between those spaces and something huge like ATT Park.
|
let me first respond with a quote from 'a pattern language' (pg 311):
Quote:
a town needs a public square; they are the largest, most public rooms, that the town has. but when they are too large, they look and feel deserted.
it is natural that every public street will swell out at those important nodes where there is most activity....
...for some reason there is a temptation to make these public squares too large. time and time again in modern cities, architects and planners build plazas that are too large. they look good on drawings; but in real life they end up desolate and dead.
|
this is exactly why i like and dislike the giants proposal. they include the public park area, but will ppl really be on the lawn area of that size? the book says that plazas should not be wider than 70 ft, tho they can be much longer than that. i have a feeling since its out of the way of most of mission bay, it will appear deserted.
about negative space, im not saying literally completely negative, perhaps
sheltered is a better word. especially in sf, being out in the open gives a person the feeling of vulnerability and exposure, rather than a sheltered space, which just feels safe (especially when u see a bunch of other people acting, u know, 'normal'). u still want a wide accessible entrance tho, and the place across from 555 does that (as u mentioned when u said
'They open directly to the sidewalk and invite people in.') while the garage rooftop space is a little harder to find since u only see stairs from the street. with some buildings in kenwood, ur right, it seems there is no access from the outside to the inner courtyards, making them as u say 'light-wells'. that i dont like. the other ones have potential. the devil is in the details.
i think a key element is how the buildings in the kenwood proposal interact with the streets. its not entirely clear how the retail would look, which im presuming would be at the base of some of the buildings. perhaps its only on the outer edges? also, the massing it rather poor, with tall buildings far apart from each other, giving it a slight "project" look. the giants proposal has a skyline that is more like a 'mound' (sf city planning dept buzzword), which looks better (to me at least).
its almost like i wanna fuse the best parts of both proposals together to create a uber-proposal that will be what this parcel really deserves. and of the two of them, yea, the giants are closer to that perfection. but like u alluded to yesterday, this will go to the highest bidder.