In Search of the Best Transit Station
— by Mike Bowermaster — 15 September 2009 — 10 comments below »
The journey to reach our new train, ferry, and bus terminal has been a circuitous one. The frightening time period when the plans strayed to become the Safeway Station concept has recently resonated with the mainstream press. Thankfully we now are on a much improved course. The City’s team has narrowed the design down to the latest options of 1 and 4. Here’s a deeper look at each.
Option 1 has a major problem with solar gain. With its southern walls made entirely of glass, the station will become a giant greenhouse. The six glass walls shown here in blue point out the amount of energy inefficient glass walls. Brick walls are much better insulators in the summer heat and winter cold.
Option 1 is Safeway Station, but a bit more refined. Notable about the design is the six giant glass curtain walls and the arched roof. These huge multi-story glass walls face south and will be exposed to significant solar gain. The inevitable greenhouse effect will kill any energy savings the larger roof may provide through extra solar panels. As mentioned before this huge curved roof will become a bird aviary accompanied by the whitewashing of bird droppings on commuters and the building’s interiors.
Also, the transparency of option 1 won’t be as clear as it may appear. The glass will have a dark tinting to offset the solar gain. Just like any other unstaffed public transit structure, the glass will get neglected, beat up, and dirty (think of any run-down glass bus stop in Oakland). With six glass walls to look through to see the bay on the other side, not much will be seen past the combination of reflections, glare, and dirt on all the glass.
Option 1; T-rex is the wrong creature to design a front porch for. The roof over these entry stairs should be lower and scaled to human height instead.
Option 1 also doesn’t relate well to the plaza in front of it, or have a welcoming presence from Bayfront Blvd. Its entry stairs ignore the plaza and head off to the side (further encouraging commuters from not becoming patrons of downtown). The floating horizontal roof over these stairs is way too high and isn’t scaled to human height. Only a dinosaur could find themselves comfortable with this towering front porch.
Option 4; I have added signage and marquees to plus the already great design.
Option 4 is grand, handsome, and very well scaled. Its prominent entry stairs, tower, and front facade are very
welcoming from Bayfront Blvd. It stands dignified and proud and relates very well to the open square it faces. This building to open plaza relationship has many parallels with another prominent public building very important to urban design. Option 4 is similar to Palazzo Pubblico, with its mighty tower overlooking, anchoring, and defining its public square, Piazza del Campo. Echoing some of the best aspects of Italy is always encouraged.
Option 4; Details of the tower signage (left) and Ghirardelli Square style marquee (right) facing the bayside entrance to Hercules.
I have only a few additions to improve option 4. The tower is a great opportunity for vertical neon letters to match the clock’s illumination at night. The side of the train shed closest to the incoming ferries would be a good spot for a marquee. This water facing sign could be roof mounted like the one over Ghirardelli Square.
Option 4; When approaching the station from the parking garage the three ends of each wing of the station will feature prominently in one's view. It will be important that these building ends are carefully designed and considered.
The end conditions of each wing of the train shed should be addressed carefully as handsome “faces” that look east. These parts of the station are viewed prominently when approaching from the bus loop and public garage. An example of these “heads” or “testate” that terminate the end of a long building can be found in the twin churches facing Piazza del Popolo. I’m not suggesting adding churches to our station, just recommending that these ends be considered carefully because of their visibility on the site.
The station's tower should be aligned with the Highway 4 corridor and with Promenade Street. It also should be tall enough to be seen. Conversely, building G on the west side of the plaza should be low enough that the tower can be seen over it from Promenade Street.
Piazza del Popolo is also relevant with the importance of its central obelisk with the area’s urban design. The ancient Egyptian stone monument is aligned with at least five streets of Rome. This creates a visual terminus and “orienteering by landmark” sense of logic that makes the street grid smart. It’s important that our station’s tower is tall enough and aligned with not only the Hwy-4/John Muir Extension, but also Promenade Street. When a commuter is running to catch that train, they should see a prominent tower, like an obelisk, as their final destination.
Come help out and share your views on this all too important intermodal transit station.
T-Rex…lol. Love it.
This is a very thoughtful analysis. Very well done.
Last year, many of us fought the city to end their plan for the now-infamous, community-destroying “Szabo Plan” alternative for the train station. That effort gathered over 3,700 signatures of registered voters in Hercules and culminated in the passing into law of the Waterfront Initiative. That Initiative legally compels the city to build the train station in “Waterfront Warehouse” style. In the words of the Initiative, that means having such features as repeating bays, large windows, and decorative concrete work, as are evident in Plan 4. Plan 1 is clearly a post-modern design by an architect known for post-modern designs. If the city goes forward with Plan 1, it seems likely to me that there will be litigation on this issue, perhaps an injunction to stop construction that could lead to significant delays and loss of funding for the station.
I don’t see a neon sign anywhere on the tower in the Palazzo Pubblico?
@Anonymous – Neon on the Palazzo Pubblico, I enjoy the humor in that. My reference here was not in the literal style of the two buildings, but more so in their stately relationship with the plazas which they face. We’re of course not looking for our station to look like a medieval palace, but the tower/main building/plaza relationship I do feel is apt.
Option #4 is clearly the best choice. I’m surprised there are people who think Option #1 is even worthy of consideration. I have a feeling that the Richard Thompson & Associates Architects will try to shove Option #1 down our throats, but we should not let that happen.
I do not like the idea of vertical neon letters on the tower. I like the simplicity of an unadorned classic tower. Don’t mess it up with flickering neon lights with every other letter out-of-service. Could end up being tacky.
Option #4 is by far the best choice. It fits best in the Promenade community and would truly represent our community. Any other choice, especially Option 1, would only cheapen and damage the character of our community. Option #4 best encompasses the direction in which we want our community to go. From just a quick glance of the community surrounding the transit station, it is obvious that Option #4 is only appropriate choice.
Let’s not let the architect fill his ‘post-modern’ portfolio at our towns expense. It is our town and our home values at stake, why should we jeopardize those issues just because this architect wants something else. I doubt he lives among us, but don’t know that for a fact.
I believe they are paid by Hercules and, if one follows the ‘golden rule’, we have the gold, so we make the rules.
As to the politicians, if they go against the will of the people we will speak at the next ballot box and throw them all out. They don’t RULE us, they REPRESENT us.
I am also a waterfront resident and I believe that Option #1 is by far the best choice.
I don’t believe that the community is as clearly behind Option #4 as these select comments suggest. Clearly, as last night’s meeting suggests about half of us are behind Option #1 and the other half is behind Option #4.
The Planning Commission and/or the City Counsel will chose Alternative 4. This is an easy decision.
The homes in the waterfront are either Victorian, Craftsman or Italianate styled homes. The architectural character of these homes are inspired by architectural designs from the early 1900s. I do not see how Alternative 1, a gigantic glass, ultra modern designed structure, conforms with the architectural character of the homes directly across the street from the site.
How can one reconcile that obvious fact? How can one argue that an ultra modern design is in conformity with the Architectural Style limitations imposed by the Waterfront Master Plan Initiative?
At the 9/21 planning commission meeting, the architect was asked this very question. He alleged that Alternative 1 conforms with the Initiative because it’s designed with glass, brick and steel structures. That’s obvious, any building can be made with those materials. What type of idiotic response was that?
Bottom line, one does not place an ultra modern looking structure next to a development of homes that are inspired by architectural designs from the early 1900s. That’s exactly what the Waterfront Master Plan Initiative was designed to prevent.
Remember this, and do not forget how important this is, that this structure will lead the way for the architectural scheme of the entire waterfront development, and the Planning Commission will do the right thing and chose Alternative 4. The Waterfront does not need a glorified light house as a transit terminal.
FYI, not everyone at that 9/21 planning commission meeting were residents of Hercules.