Transit Station to emulate 1970s Safeway
— by Mike Bowermaster — 2 June 2009 — 15 comments below »
I personally have been a big advocate and supporter for the City with all of its redevelopment projects. Forget realtors pushing granite countertops, hardwood floors, and jacuzzi jet tubs, we bought our home here in Hercules particularly because of our excitement about the future transit station. Unfortunately after last night’s waterfront workshop all the torrents of mighty wind have been taken out of my sails. The proposed station is the antithesis of what the community originally desired as was best captured in the early concept for a landmark transit station.
Where did we go wrong? Let’s begin with the aesthetics of the building. The current architect first proposed a glass box as our transit station. This very unsympathetic design was later changed to what now is best defined by it’s sweeping arched roof propped up by glass and steel walls. Affixed to these glass walls is the word “Hercules” spelled out in a marquee of spaced-out red letters.
If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because this is precisely 1970s Safeway store design.
1970s Safeway architecture. Note the arched roof, transparent glass & steel front, and marquee red lettering.
Safeway couldn’t have been the architect’s source for inspiration, so I directly asked last night what inspired this design. The architect avoided the question and then finally relented by saying he’s drawn to the work of the famous Le Corbusier and I. M. Pei. What do these two architects have in common? They have both designed notable works of Brutalist architecture. This form of architecture is defined by large bold blocky masses made of primarily exposed concrete.
“Brutalist architecture is a style of architecture which flourished from the 1950s to the mid 1970s, spawned from the modernist architectural movement…The best known early Brutalist architecture is the work of the Swiss architect Le Corbusier, in particular his Unité d’Habitation (1952) and the 1953 Secretariat Building in Chandigarh, India…More recent Modernists such as I.M. Pei and Tadao Ando also have designed notable Brutalist works,” wikipedia.org.
Le Corbusier's Brutalist architecture. Secretariat Building in Chandigarh (left) and Unité d’Habitation (right)
While I’m a fan of these prominent architects, their style of buildings don’t belong among the Victorian, Craftsmen, Italianate, and Alamo Square (Railroad Avenue) homes that make up our waterfront. It’s plainly obvious that brutalist and 1970s grocery store architecture won’t work here, so how will the station in its current form relate and be sensitive to the surrounding context? The architect said that it will only relate through its brick patterns and possibly the clock face design on the tower. Other than that, the building will look out of place.
One can say this design is a nice change as a “modern” building among the traditional context. If you follow that thought out, the station would need to be radically unique and cool, a knockout Calatrava or Gehry type design. If we’re going to go modern and bold, the station needs to be an exquisite jewel of a building, a landmark. Doing a conservative, brick-veneered, early 1990s take on “modernism” makes the station look weirdly dated and out of place especially in our new urbanism neighborhoods.
Let us continue on with further insight into the details of the new design. The station will have a super-tall, non-pedestrian scaled roof superstructure, built as what will inevitably become a giant bird aviary. The large open plaza design in front remains as an unsafe 1960s style windswept hardscape area. Adding to this, the main building facing the plaza (Building J) will not have residential, only day-time use. Because the plaza doesn’t have enough mixed-use, around-the-clock activities, by 2am the plaza will become a deserted and potential haven for crime.
This article is not a personal jab at the architect of the station, but rather a jab at why the City’s team went with this style of architecture. When a client buys into an architect they are buying into their style. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks; you have to select the appropriate architect from the outset. My understanding is the City hired HDR Engineering who in turn hired the current architect as a consultant because he had the expertise to solve the code and functional requirements. The style of the station was not used in determining what architect the City was to indirectly hire. Therefore we essentially got an engineer to solve an aesthetic problem. This is why we now have a functional but bland station who’s only respect for our existing homes is slapped on brick.
The City needs to have a public design competition. Let’s find the best transit station design out there people. The station should be mixed use and crafted by a new urbanism architect with style and panache. The current architect could then be an excellent “train station code & function” sub-consultant to this master architect. While this would result in further dreaded delays, Hercules needs to get the intermodal transit station right. The station should be the driving force for everything on the waterfront, for it is what will draw people to our area, making the waterfront a destination. This foot traffic is what will make our retail and commercial downtown core thrive.
Alas, we already had a viable solution for the station that answered most of these charges back in 2007. This old beloved landmark transit station concept should be resurrected and it could easily be adapted to accommodate today’s latest requirements.
The newest drawings and renderings will be posted for your review once the City and developers release them, and at this moment, they’re holding onto them pretty tight.
I applaud Mike’s thorough and cogent review. I was especially disturbed last evening by the station’s architect describing his design as a “machine for moving people”, in contrast to the long-standing vision of the station being a landmark that would draw people for shopping and lingering and providing the economic stimulus for surrounding businesses. I see again the encroaching of the Szabo vision for massive transit that happens, coincidentally, to be near some new businesses rather than a real New Urbanism design. If we just want to have another El Cerrito del Norte-type arrangement, then why would we want to devote a large portion of our fabulous waterfront for that? I note that the station’s architect sat beside Mr. Szabo at last night’s meeting while awaiting his turn for presentation, although I don’t know if that suggests anything about their professional relationship.
How very disappointing. Yet another example of the city providing lip service and a plan that residents approve while planning something altogether different behind closed doors. So, how do we organize to let the city know this is unacceptable?
Oh goodness, what a disappointing presentation and design…… A modernist steel and glass “machine for moving people”, or rather a corridor with ramps and stairs for non-Herculeans to park and whisk through as they rush on to someplace else…
I fear that El Cerrito Del Norte has just been proposed to us, except located by-the-bay and with a view of Mt. Tam. This type of environment is NOT a destination and does not work for retailers. People rushing through do not linger and shop – they have a connection to make. Witness the number of failed businesses at the Del Norte BART station: Target, Pep-Boys, Hollywood Video, Home Furnishings, and others that I can’t recall at the moment.
This train station is a place where the only activity will be during the morning and evening commute hours, with an empty plaza, paved in brick as a token gesture to new urbanism, and located adjacent to a rectangular “Open Space”, unfortunately it is completely surrounded by roads and bridges with steep banks down to the creek where it empties into the bay. The open space is cut-off from the plaza by the bus and commuter drop-off lanes and has no human activity planned – it appears that the open space will become a place for wind blown debris and trash to accumulate.
So, we need to let the City Council know that they need to worry less about throwaway minutia such as the size of the ADA ramps and LEED ratings, but focus more on creating a successful waterfront destination.
What is going on at City Hall? This latest design is again so disconnected from the drawings and plans we all saw when we purchased homes here, that I am starting to wonder what is the agenda. Do they think they can just “wait us out” on these horrific proposals? I was at the meeting last year when the Szabo box design was categorically rejected, and the artist rendition of the harmonious train station with clock tower and pedestrian friendly buildings were almost unanimously pointed to by the large group of homeowners present. Even Mr Szabo realized that his plan was not going to sell at that time. Our Promenade development is by design an “open hand” to the waterfront that must embrace whatever structure is built. We will need to again push back against a “Safeway styled” building, just as we did the Szabo Box. I think coordinated attacks against undesirable plans by this group or Friends of Promenade will be necessary to stop any building plans that are not close to the original design we all bought into, literally.
I’m sorry I couldn’t attend the meeting, so who is the point person for our complaints? I don’t think we need to redesign, but rather point AGAIN to the design we already approved.
S Villa:
Kudos to the city for adopting the latest in cutting-edge management tools: the Obama Cram-Down. It’s not just for mortgages, Chrysler bond holders or healthcare. It works with train stations too. Just throw in a buzz phrase like “too big to fail” or in our case “too late/costly to redesign” and voila, a Safeway people mover station (SPMS) is built on your waterfront to enjoy for years to come. Oh, but this is good for you, you’ll see…….. On the upside Hector, there WILL be activities in the space: skateboarding, graffiti, and of course, my personal favorite, late-night Oakland-style sideshows. Is it too late to include a strip mall with a liquor store and a taqueria?
I was out of town and was not able to attend this meeting. I understand it was broadcast on the internet. Does anyone know if it is still viewable, and if so, what the URL is? Alternatively, did any of you take photos that you could post?
If the design is as bad as my imagination is making it out to be, I think I’m going to have to get angry!
@Jeff Boore – @Hector Rubio – The architect said that a “machine for moving people” is a quote from Le Corbusier, one of his guiding influences. Think of the above Le Corbusier photos with their over-sized massive proportions when imaging the underlying inspiration and scale of our new station.
I did not have much problem with the train station layout. But the architectural style just clashes with the rest of the neighborhood style. I did not stay for the q&a but was Anderson biting his tongue. I sensed he was not pleased with this new effort of yet another outsider sucking up taxpayer dollars for architectural renderings that the owner/developer could do in house. These are hard times financially. Why is the City still throwing money away? Tell the developer what you want and let him do it on his dime. It would still need city approval but without additional cost.
It’s all pretty disappointing and shocking. Wrong design, wrong placement, and more false promises. Just what our neighborhood doesn’t need to remedy falling values and rising crime.
I have seen the lawsuits against the builders of our Promenade homes…makes me wonder about if we could pursue one against the disappearing promises of our master plan which is why I (and many of my neighbors) bought here in the first place.
It is hard to comment upon the new transit center design without actually seeing the plans and renderings. Are they published anywhere on the internet? We need to see these plans, understand who is making them, and learn whether budgetary or other regulatory concerns are causing these changes. I postpone judgement until I have more information.
That being said, it is disappointing that the proposed architectural style could so different than the other buildings in our area. New Urbanism is quite different as a design philosophy from Brutalism or the following Modernism, so it is nonsensical that an architect would cite it as an influence for a project on the Waterfront.
I have an undergraduate in Environmental Design (Architecture), and of all the design philosophies that we studied, Modernism (especially Le Corbusier) was the one most opposed to actual human habitation and usage. Numerous examples from this style were shown as “How not to design a building.”
What was the name of this engineer/architect, and who does he work for?
@Bill Sheffler – The plans/renderings are not yet available. We’ll post them when they are.
@ Mike:
A 1970′s Safeway was such a good call and accurately sums up the most recent iteration of proposed Transit Center. Though I personally liked the design, I would agree with the majority of comments that the building should better reflect the classic character of the neighborhood.
Promenade is so lucky to have our own resident archhitect. Mike’s excellent review accompanied by photos really points out the weaknesses in this new design. Since the original design had community support, why would the City turn away from it to such a monstrocity? Once again it seems what is presented to the community and what goes on behind closed doors are two different things. Who stands to gain from this design? Certainly not residents. Thanks Mike, for doing such a super job of alerting us about this recent revision.
@Susan Keeffe – Thank you everyone for sharing all your opinions.
Full disclosure and clarification: technically I am not a licensed architect. My wife is though (she’s a rockstar who obtained her license while still in her 20′s), and she’ll stamp and sign all of your drawings for you ;)
We met over a decade ago, during the long hours of architecture studio at UW…
thank you for calling this to our attention = i agree, lets advocate for a rethink and have a building that is fitting and appropriate and beautiful for our community~