New Futuristic Federal Building in San Francisco Opens

[stellarfun]

TOWER'S PREMIERE: Futuristic Federal Building wins fans, foes among workers with its innovative features

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/08/MNG2FQN3UU91.DTL

Apparently, the green design has not entirely worked as intended.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

The problem with LEED and green design is if it doesn't work 100% then it is actually considerably less efficient then a regular, non-green building.

These green systems are usually WAY too complicated and if one little thing breaks the whole thing is screwed.

 

[czsz]

But...but...what extraordinary architecture!

Imagine something this imaginative replacing Boston's insipid O'Neill or JFK buildings.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I personally find this ugly, while I just find the O'Neil Building bland and boring.

 

[justin]

^ Funny, I find it beautiful. Only goes to show that any notion of 'beauty' is of no utility when discussing art.

justin

 

[ablarc]

Only goes to show that any notion of 'beauty' is of no utility when discussing art.

First week of my first upper-level art history course a student called an artwork "beautiful."

"We don't use that word in this department," corrected the illustrious professor.

 

[palindrome]

That's where the X-wings land.

 

[statler]

Only goes to show that any notion of 'beauty' is of no utility when discussing art.

First week of my first upper-level art history course a student called an artwork "beautiful."

"We don't use that word in this department," corrected the illustrious professor.

Ok, so what criteria should be used when judging art?

 

[Beton Brut]

Only goes to show that any notion of 'beauty' is of no utility when discussing art.

First week of my first upper-level art history course a student called an artwork "beautiful."

"We don't use that word in this department," corrected the illustrious professor.

Ok, so what criteria should be used when judging art?

Where architecture is concerned, there needs to be a synergy of purposefulness and imagination. My personal taste is to exclude the tainting influence of sentimentality, thus disqualifying most PoMo and historicist buildings. Where contextualism is concerned, better to express an understanding of your surroundings in the design than to simply copy and "apply" them to the surface as design elements. Check out Antoine Predock's stuff in the desert Southwest.

Thom Mayne's recent governmental work (CalTrans LA, the SF federal building, a new courthouse in Oregon) share the qualities I mentioned above. I dig it, but is it beautiful? Better to save that word for Beatrice Dalle.

 

[Bobby Digital]

What's the obsession with San Fran? people bring it up constantly

 

[statler]

What's the obsession with San Fran? people bring it up constantly

Ever been?
I've been twice and love it. It's just a great city in terms of planning, architecture & infrastructure. It suffers from a lot of the same problems Boston does (rabid NIMBYism, over idealistic social agenda, etc) but in terms of built environment, it's amazing.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

When I was there last summer it was 72 and cloudless the entire time. It is a very pretty city, architecturally.

 

[justin]

I've been once and didn't love it. The Victorian neighborhoods are pretty enough, but don't hold a candle to Boston's. Downtown is equally blah. Cultural institutions are nil. The subway system is pretty skeletal. The setting, of course, is stunning.

I'm thinking of going again: anybody care to recommend things to see which would change my mind?

justin

 

[Ron Newman]

What's the obsession with San Fran? people bring it up constantly

City is compact and walkable, on a harbor, with a highly educated and liberal population, streetcar-subway transit, and suburbs with high-tech industry. It's across a large body of water from another smaller city renowned for its university. So, lots of similarities to Boston.

 

[czsz]

I agree that transit in SF is underwhelming; many of the central neighborhoods north and south of Market Street are remarkably underserved, with the minimal exception of the tourist roller-coaster cable cars.

Museums are another low point in SF...and the homelessness problem isn't necessarily something to be envied.

Beyond that, it's quite ideal. It lacks Boston's charmingly windy streets, but the topography of the place more than makes up for that.

 

[briv]

I find the best way to describe Thom Mayne's approach is "contrived complexity." But this is not his invention. He's merely practicing his own variety of the architectural fashion du jour: a hyper-self-aware, hyper-indulgent, computer generated mutation of Post-Modernism that substitutes ornament with artificial busyness of form. It is Modern Rococo. Most of the world's current top-tier architects subscribe to this approach, though, each tries to add their own signature flavor, whether it be undulating blobs, acute angles, biomorphism, or Mayne's hi-tech-industrial theatricality.

I actually like much of this architecture, including a lot of Mayne's buildings. But I find the decadent excess of this architecture completely unjustifiable. Seen merely as artistic expressions, these buildings can be very interesting, but seen as buildings they leave me unsatisfied too often. They try too hard. They are too affected, too self-conscious, too artificial. They do not grow naturally -- out of their purpose, environment, or some major new development in building construction (I dont count CAD modeling). The stuff is simply too phony to be taken seriously.