Intermodal Station Renderings
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 4 June 2009 — 13 comments below »
The City has released a few renderings of the intermodal station design…
The City prefaced the release stating that the “designs are conceptual and will change as we move towards the final design.”
I will repeat my interpretation that there is an attempt to recall the look of a train shed, which I do like, but the modern feel overall conflicts with neighboring structures. A modern glass-lined building does have the potential to be timeless, or what I will call “timeless,” but it certainly has to be done right, if not perfectly. I will also repeat my opinion that the red-lettered H E R C U L E S is plain silly on the land side (it should welcome visitors, not residents), and the tower is weak (but that may be too strong a word).
This design looks dated, something you would call ultra modern in 1950 but it doesn’t work here and now. The tower is more than weak it is flat ugly. Give us back the retro look!
Thanks for finding these renderings so soon, Jeff. I have the following observations after looking at them:
1. Most likely these are very rough initial models constructed in something like Google Sketchup, Microsoft Truespace, or some other simple 3d prototyping package. This explains the relatively lack of detail and contributes to a simplistic modern look in the images. There is plenty of opportunity to continue refining this design, and I would assume the architect does not view these images as representative of his eventual goal.
2. Rather than being an actual building, the station could be better described as a roof supported by a series of stairs, escalators and walkways. There is no real “inside” in the large structure, especially when it is all glass-faced. I assume one purpose for this could be to help people to easily understand how to get to their train, or the ferry from the viewpoint of the square (from my experiences traveling via train in Europe, and going through stations there, I feel this is not particularly important).
3. There is historical precedent for both flat and arched roof structures for rail stations, particularly over the actual pad. One archetypical example is St. Pancras in London, which has a very traditional external facade, but a more modern steel and glass arched structure over the pads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pancras_railway_station
This also shows you that it is acceptable to join two very different styles of architecture together, when needed. I see nothing to support reasoning that an arched roof over the train pad requires an arch on the front facade of the station.
4. It is also common for some stations to have red glowing signs clear marking the name of the station. However, that is not perhaps appropriate for our neighborhood.
5. Not sure what is going on with the clocktower, since what is in the rendering is not iconic or stylish imho. Why when you have the extremely rare chance to design this (how often does that occur) would you choose something so forgettable? For God’s sake, go for it!
6. The arched roof structure one what could be a bus or ticketing station is done with intent to repeat the form of the pad, I assume. This the foremost structure as people will approach along various roads/paths, and so its quality is almost more important than the larger pad structure. The roof design would make more sense if it extended the gap to the pad structure. As it is, why not move the tower to the corner, so that it makes a larger statement, and could be seen all the way down the lines of sight? Right now, it seems a bit tucked away.
7. The large public square is quite nice, if it is lit at night, guarded, and has accomodations for recreational usage (shops, food, etc..). It kind of reminds me of smaller version of the centers of Italian cities since it has the tower:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_del_Campo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_San_Marco
So, I am not really a fan of modernist design, but I think I understand some of the goals the architect was in mind. There seems to be no reason why this current spec could not be aesthetically adjusted to fit our concerns. If I had my dithers, I would do the following:
-redesign the tower (perhaps move it)
-consider adding a facade to the front of the station
-adjust the ticketing/bus station to better fit in
We should also suspect that the budget for the station could be causing many of these choices.
Here are just a few links to some sites on the web which can better inform people as to what station designs are out there, and what is therefor possible:
http://mic-ro.com/metro/metroart.html
http://www.fotonauts.com/albums/60394ba6-693a-4e26-81f1-925162c8add6
http://www.railway-technical.com/stations.shtml
http://www.trifter.com/Practical-Travel/5-Railway-Stations-That-Are-Doing-It-with-Style.67479
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&q=historic+train+station+architecture&m=text
Hope I have not offended anyone (especially the unknown architect) with my commentary.
@Bill Sheffler – Great comments, Bill. There are certainly ways to improve this design and make it work for us.
@Bill Sheffler – Thanks for sharing your thorough analysis and perspective. I love your tower ideas, especially making it a free standing campanile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campanile
Funny you mention St. Pancras station, I’ve been thinking about it ever since the presentation. It’s train shed was the largest spanning structure when completed in 1868. The huge column-free space was so cutting edge at the time, that disembarking passengers were afraid to walk under it at first, for fear of collapse. This was purely psychological, for the engineering of the station was very sound.
St. Pancras is a very important building in architectural history because it’s cutting edge engineering (train shed) was masked and hidden by a traditional victorian gothic front facade. This definitely resonates with our current situation.
I agree that an arched roof is very appropriate for a train shed. In our current design the arched roof is rotated 90 degrees, not parallel with the tracks as has always been done in train stations. This is a 1980s post-modern idea where architects do goofy things with historic precedents. In fact the architect’s Martinez station design is exactly 1980′s style post-modern architecture (construction began in 1988).
Your fickr link is a great reference for train station design.
I deliberately haven’t mentioned the architect’s name because he’s a small shop and our beef is not with him, but with the City for choosing his style.
Thanks all for a lively discussion; I would like to add that the train station / ferry terminal will be active during 2 short periods of the day – morning and evening rush hours – with travelers headed elsewhere. The building needs to be the first step in creating a waterfront destination with two goals:
1) To attract employers that will establish offices in Hercules, thus creating a daytime population that will patronize the future ground floor cafes and shops. Our bedroom community has a very small daytime population – as the majority leave in the morning for work and return in the evening.
2) To entice the commuters to stay and shop upon their return from San Francisco, and to spread the word about the Hercules waterfront being such a fun place to visit.
This can be achieved by creating a lively urban scene, as was pioneered by Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market in Boston, which single handedly revitalized the Boston waterfront in the 1970′s. Follow the link:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/89/93889-004-C73DE5CD.jpg
http://info.aia.org/nwsltr_hrc.cfm?pagename=hrc_a_200903_faneuil
An example closer to home is the SF Ferry Building which houses their farmer’s market and high end shops giving a reason for both commuters and shoppers a reason to stop and enjoy the waterfront.
@ Bill, Jeffrey, and Mike:
Thanks for the thoughtful comments and critical assessment of the design. As I mentioned in another post, I actually like the design the architect had proposed, but would incorporate some of the changes Jeffrey suggested, such as orienting the Hercules sign toward the water–welcoming visitors to our city, rather than reminding residents where they live.
After thinking about this a little bit more, and considering Mike’s comments, my concerns shift less off of the station being reminiscent of an old Safeway (cheap shot or not) and focuses on the tower design. Bill notes the proposed tower as being forgettable, I would add uninspired and uninspiring. I agree that if we incorporate a clock tower or campanile into this design–which we should–it ought to make a statement and draw on architectural elements of the neighborhood.
I have to agree that my main issue with the train station design is in the tower. Hideous is the first word which comes to mind. The atrocious light-bar on the side of it reminds me of the horrible looking columns you pass entering LAX airport. Something like that usually sounds good, but the costs of making it beautiful are high so it ends up coming off as a cheap rendition of what was envisioned.
If you watch the video, there is a tower in the design of the plaza at the end of Sycamore which is much more inviting and relevant to the city design than current 1970′s transit tower design. Check out the video of the meeting, 11 minutes, 9 seconds in for the picture of the good tower. An echo of this structure at the transit center and a modification of the safeway design would be a great change.
video:
http://hercules.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=278
i do not like the modern look, it is not appropriate, the tower is an opportunity to have a classic, beautiful look in my opinion – consistent with surrounding homes. I think the city should go back and review the idea and vision of the area.
I like the previous more traditional design (not sabo – the other one – forgot the name of company). At the same time, let’s break some ground already! By the time they are done talking and designing and redesigning I’ll be retired ! While Brentwood is not a comparible example – they had a plan, stuck to it and developed in a matter of a few years. Ours is a little more complex – true – but still – this is ridiculous! I also do not like the red letters – looks tacky! But if we can get this thing cracking SOON – I’ll take purple letters for crying out loud – just get something done! (actually, wouldn’t really take the purple letters :)
It is good to see an involved public speaking out on a public building. The public comments on Moscone Center, for example, improved the end result. We can hope some of the input here will help as well.
However, those comments and those changes at Moscone had more to do with the programming than the physical design. The critical comments on the design being made at this site (very crudely and rudely put, as has unfortunately become so common in internet dialogue, might I add) are probably not of much value. Certainly their lack of civility and graceless manner does not recommend their authors to us.
The critics may know what they like, but that is not the same as knowing what they are talking about. An opinion is not a qualification, it is just an opinion. The architect, who is educated, licensed, and experienced in this field, knows what he is doing, and is doing it well.
@Ken – Our future station needs to relate to the context of the waterfront, and the architect plainly said that it did not relate, other than the brick pattern. Being a very public building, it needs to be designed openly responding to the public and not behind closed doors. Honesty and transparency in the process is what we’re looking for here.
I don’t recommend using the 1980s space frame design of the Moscone Center as a reference in the context of our waterfront.
@Ken – I am more offended even than most people by how common rudeness and incivility has become in internet communication. However, I fail to see that symptom in these exchanges, which I judge to be generally thoughtful and respectful, even if direct and critical. Personally, I make no claim of qualification as an architect (although a few of the other writers do have that qualification), so I would certainly not give input on such details as structural stability, but know something of the aesthetics I’d like to see being central to our community. I accept that the architect is educated, licensed, and experienced, but that does not necessarily mean that his designs are beyond comprehension or exempt from criticism by the public on aesthetic grounds, and I see having public involvement in guiding the development of our town as a very positive thing.
@Ken – Before I begin, I represent no one but myself. I have no criticism of the architects as they are given directives by the City Council and Planning Commission. Ken, if you have feedback for specific individuals to whom you directed your comments, I would hope you could give it to them directly. I find your post lumping together all who are critical of any aspect of the design too general and passive-aggressive to be of any use for civil and fruitful dialogue.
I’m not an architect. I have never professed to be an architect, but I know what I like. My opinion and what I might find aesthetically appropriate for OUR waterfront is all I’m talking about. These posts you’ve understood to be lacking in civility and grace, I understand as passionate opinion from people who care about their neighborhood and city. I cannot speak for anyone else who has posted here, but I see a huge difference between this iteration of the train station/ferry terminal and what I’ve envisioned (and what drew me here in 2005) based on countless documents (both hard copies and electronic) provided by my city of Hercules.
I agree that there is a great deal of energy (and emotion) in some of these posts. In my work, I have to be conscious of the processes informing the overall outcome. Between the previous renderings of the station that fit in with the character of the neighborhood and this recent iteration with a modern (self-edited) clock tower, there was no public process. Where was the transparent process that got us from what was, to what is? Where did the new directive for a modern looking facility come from? Having worked with architects at three universities to design residence halls (Boston College, Cornell University, and UC Berkeley), I know that building designs change greatly from initial concept to final drafts, but there are countless meetings and documents in between.
I understand from the architect’s presentation at the June 1 Waterfront Workshop that it is programmed to be an agent-less station, so that the design basically incorporates a bridge, walkways, and stairs. Glazing is maximized to show the movement of people. The roof lines of the station are inspired by older train terminals all over the world. Fine. I get it. I still find the proposed tower–and to a much lesser degree the station–inappropriate and a departure from what was envisioned for the neighborhood and waterfront.