And speaking of European parallels (or perhaps unfortunately not):
The rim of Paris looks set to rise skyward, as the city council considers allowing taller buildings in this historically low-rise capital. The move targets only the city’s inner perimeter for now, but is prompting a firestorm of argument about how to adapt the Paris skyline to the 21st century.
Forget the density argument for a moment; it’s interesting to note the boldness of the implied architecture. Those Parisians obviously don’t understand that modern architecture is sure to destroy the historic identity and desirability of their fair city (see Centre Pompidou for example).
It’s a good thing we know better. Now add another bay window to that design…
∙ Paris’ low-rise skyline inching upward [Associated Press]
∙ Centre Pompidou [centrepompidou.fr]
∙ Let’s See, Drop The K And Carry The S… [SocketSite]
There is no way in hell the stuff in the picture gets built. We have people proposing crazy stuff here as well from time to time – doesn’t mean a thing. I can tell you right now that the only city that might be more conservative and living in the past more than SF is Paris. I predict a height limit of 30 meters will be enacted in the inner arrondissements because of this – wouldn’t want to lose that Eiffel Tower view!
The design reminds me of the 1970s residential buildings we call “les choux” (the cabbages) in Créteil which is located roughly 7 miles east of Paris.
http://www.tropolism.com/2006/04/your_hidden_city_winner_best_b.php
SF is much more conservative than Paris. Have you seen some of the buildings under construction in La Defense? In addition, the proposals here are never as forward thinking or as modern as those found in Paris. Developers and architects are much too smart to waste a bunch of dollars on creativity in this town. They know it will never fly.
1. It’s a good thing we know better.
Indeed. Just look @ 1 Rincon. As if.
2. Paris? Socket – we can’t even get you the East Bay!
3. While this Paris building is ridiculous, there are gorgeous uplifting and inventive tall buildings being built everywhere other than in safe, staid, conservative and design-by-every-committee SF.
Sorry!
I agree with Anon that the Parisians are likely to kill this innovative designs which is a shame, IMHO. I look at the new striking buildings being built in Brooklyn and Chicago and can’t help but think how amazing some of that might look in San Francisco.
It’s really painful, to me, to see other cities embracing new design while continuing to preserve historic architecture that helped define the city itself. Somehow, Chicago managed to preserve it’s Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burngham, and Mies Van Der Roh designs but still embrace incredible new buildings like the 90 story Waterview, the new Trump Tower (also 90 some stories, and what will be the world second tallest building the Calatrava Spire (which if you haven’t seen the animation for I highly recommend visiting the website to view http://www.thechicagospire.com/)
Imagine the Spire, or at least a shorter version, on the SF skyline instead of the Ionic breeze that is One Rincon.
For such a “progressive” city I am always amazed at how mired in the past SF is. I know people love the victorians but the “conservative” “fly over” Chicago residents love their “bungalows”, grey stones, and their Frank Lloyd Wrights just as much but still manage to let the city change and grow without as much hand wringing and teeth nashing that seems to accompany every new proposal in SF.
views,
Just like SF, there’s Paris and there’s the ‘burbs.
La Defense is in the suburbs. Just a few miles from the Champs Elysees, but still in another city (actually, on 2 cities).
They built in La Defense because they couldn’t do it in Paris. The tour Montparnasse created such an outcry that they voted a law limiting building height (34m?) in the 70s. La Defense was started in the late 50s but has gotten most of its boldest high risers since the 70s. Large French corporations wanted modern headquarers and the Haussmann districts wouldn’t cut it. High prestige, but very low practicality. They’ve gutted a few Haussmann buildings and rebuilt the insides since the 90s but it’s pretty costly, messy and not happening fast enough for today’s demand.
the “density” argument for these tall buildings is a complete and utter sham and fabrication. 9 times out of 10, building tall buildings provides no more density than building the consistent 5-8 stories on which Paris is based. Paris is one of the denser cities in the world. Tall buildings, such as those you can clearly see in the renderings, are generally surrounded by much more air and unbuilt space. It’s more a marketing and aesthetic conceit more than it is about density, which is a greenwashing red herring. Developers like to sell views and archtiects like to design anything than can that stands out. There is nothing inherently denser or greener about tall buildings, unless you’re talking about packing in tall buildings at the level of Hong Kong. Most else is just reshuffling the same space. It’s not worth marring the beauty of Paris.
Very true,
Paris covers 34 square miles for 2.16M inhabitants
SF covers 46.7 square miles for 0.796M
If there is one example of balanced density, this would be it. A minority of Parisians own a car and the metro is everywhere. You will seldom walk more than 1000ft to a Metro station. Of course, they have way less steep hills than SF and that’s a challenge.
The Spires building is going to be incredible, but does’nt New York also have a Calatrava building in the works? I would love to see a Richard Meir high rise in SF, probably could not afford it, but still.
Yeah San Francisco could have been great if we had embraced Parisian density over the years but the reality is most of this city is developed already and there really are very few options to build here. I understand we could line Third st. all the way down to the southern edge of the city or Geary to the ocean with 8 story buildings but that’s not going to happen (Mission, Valencia, Harrison, Second-Tenth also come to mind) I agree it would be ideal but there is WAY too much opposition for anything logical like this to become a reality here. So, it seems, SF’s only option is too build tall near its core where there are plenty of open and unused lots and less opposition. Now if we could just get some thought provoking architecture down there!
OMG! SF has to look exactly like it did on 17 April 1906 or we’re all gonna DIE! Enough with the fucking bay windows already.
Enough with the bay windows already!
Very Spires building.
Just one question: is it Phillips or flat?
Very inspiring Spires building.
Just one question: is it Phillips or flat?
Fronzi,
An unconfirmed rumor has it that the Spires building doubles as a drill bit, and can be inverted to drill deep into the earth’s surface for oil. Surely this is George Bush’s ultimate wet dream 🙂
View lover. There are two Calatrava designs for New York City. One is for a PATH station near the WTC site. It is being built and looks to be spectacular. The other was for an apartment tower
that had separate cubes for each apartment. It will probably never be built. You may also recall
that Calatrava was in the running for the Transbay project, but dropped out. Ironically, the SOM design was definitely Calatrava-inspired.
But they lost anyway. But, yes, it would have been amazing if the Chicago Spire had been built here for the Transbay tower. It would have been a worthy neighbor of the Transamerica Pyramid.
Regarding the Chicago Spire, although the foundations are in, the activity has been slowing down and sales are not where the builder hoped they would be by this point. (Sound Familiar?)
Hopefully Sabrina (Cribchatter Chicago) can post us an update. I really hope the Spire gets built, but the oversupply of housing in Chicago is huge currently, and the doubts are beginning to surface.
What is interesting about Chicago is that there are so many neighborhoods that remind me of San Francisco (Old Town, Lincoln Park, Edgewater, etc) but they don’t need a lot of tall buildings to march into them because they let anything go up in their downtown area, so why would a builder want to force a tower in a neighborhood of 3 to 4 story buildings, when tall density is encouraged in the central areas.?
For experience with innovation and wacky design, go to Barcelona and see what Gaudi hath wrought. Some of the buildings, and the park, are liveable, but the Cathedral which may or may not be finished in 50 years (after his original design) is incredibly ugly but will be a tourist attraction for decades to come. If that is what we want … 🙂
I find few sane people who enjoy San Francisco’s shanty-town aesthetic. There are some who are just used to it and who irrationally fear change. But San Francisco is one uglya$$ city!
the cubed one is the what I was referring to. I’ll be in New York next week and will make it a point to see the other. Thanks for the heads up.
I just came back from Chicago after not having visited in about 4 years. It’s amazing the speed of change, particularly in the Loop area. Overall really strong architecture that is fresh and engaging without being gimmicky. One of my favorites is a new building – Aqua that is just south of the river and north of Millennium Park. Here’s a link – even more attractive in person. Still under construction. http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/913.php For those who have never been to Chicago (a surprising number of west coasters haven’t), I’d recommend a trip. Great example of how to evolve a core downtown area.
Chicago has always been innovative in terms of urban planning.
“Developers and architects are much too smart to waste a bunch of dollars on creativity in this town. ”
If only new huge high-rise buildings could be called “creative”; while certainly new, they are hardly original. What would make this look any different than Dubai, NY, or other cities that just want to look elite and expensive?
“Chicago has always been innovative in terms of urban planning.”
Really? Ever been to south side, the sprawling mess of Chicago suburbs? Chicago is hardly a pedestrian friendly place to live, it like NY sprawls on and on. Ever tried the mass transit? Oh my God, give me the BART or muni anyday…
“Yeah San Francisco could have been great if we had embraced Parisian density over the years but the reality is most of this city is developed already and there really are very few options to build here.”
I think San Francisco is great, and I’m surprised why people live here if they hate it so much. I like the fact that the city is conservative with respect to its architecture, no other big city has the same kind of charm and tradition that makes SF what it is, IMO. I have lived in NY, Chicago, Boston, and other big American cities and have never found the balance that this city has: historical charm, natural beauty, great weather, decent mass transit, urbanism, and fun. People here don’t know how good they have it and always complain. There’s a term for that…spoiled.
viewlover, the Calatrava-designed PATH terminal is not built yet. But Google the name to get a look at it. As I recall, it will actually open to the sky on certain days.
[Editor’s Note: Even easier, catch a glimpse here: Transbay Terminal (And Tower) Design Competition: The Teams.]