Last Night’s Workshop
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 18 September 2009 — 2 comments below »
In brief, the two revised alternatives presented at last night’s workshop resulted in one key takeaway point: neither design will make people unhappy. (I mean that only in a positive sense.)
The abstract tower from Alternative 1 was replaced with a classic tower (in fact, identical to the tower from Alternative 4), and the brick façade made more traditional, and the revisions made a tremendous difference on the contextual feel of the structure. There was a vote on which alternative people prefer, and it was a virtual tie: 23-22. It doesn’t really matter which one leads; it was a tie.
Those that were in favor of Alternative 1 generally didn’t mind the more traditional look of Alternative 4.
Those that were in favor of Alternative 4 generally had a more defined criticism set of Alternative 1, but I’d be hard-pressed to label Alternative 1 as modern, post-modern, or not meshing with the Waterfront warehouse style. It will fit in with the neighborhood, now, with the updated façade and the tower replaced (which was the defining element of the original design).
Waterfront residents can no longer lose in my opinion. We are at a much better place as a result of the considerable changes made to the designs presented. At some point, community input must end, and that time may be now. The community’s voices have been heard. The decision-makers have to step up, and it should be the design team to do so.
The community may continue to argue over style and porches and materials and brick patterns and what-have-you, in perpetuity, but at this point, we are no longer comparing apples and oranges, rather Red and Golden Delicious apples. (And it should be noted that minor changes are still being considered.)
The decision may end up with the Planning Commission, or possibly — god forbid — the City Council (who’ll likely punt the decision anyway), and we could end up with a lengthy, unduly process. The architects and design team should make the decision. They have been hired to do the job, and with the community’s delayed input (the process was flawed), it seems they understand the community’s concerns, and have adapted their designs to meet the community’s desires.
If either Alternative 1 or 4 is ultimately chosen, I will sleep well. That was not always the case.
Images of the revised designs to follow shortly.
UPDATE: No images today, but the City will reportedly post them on their website early Monday morning.
UPDATE: Never mind, the City came through.
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.
I was initially dead set against design one, but with the new changes, I was persuaded to vote for it at Thursday night’s meeting. The elimination of the awful post modern tower allowed me to look at the rest of the design with a new appreciation and to acknowledge the effort the architects have made to answer the criticism from the last round of public input.
Both designs are virtually identical now. The only real differences are a curved roof versus a straight roof and the proportion of glass versus brick. I hardly think that a curved roof line and more use of glass makes design one “ultra modern”. One could get orders of magnitude more modern.
Unless we’re being mislead by the architects and city staff, the Waterfront Master Plan Initiative imposes less restriction on the design of our civic buildings than on the rest of the waterfront. Evidently this was a purposeful attempt to allow our civic buildings to stand out from the crowd. I for one think this is a very good idea.
The curved roof and heavier use of glass in design one gives it just enough edge to set it apart from it’s surroundings, without going so far as to alienate itself. Take away the tower in design four and the station would certainly disappear into the sea of nearby mixed use buildings. At least the curved steel roof of design one hints toward a train station with it’s echoes of classic european train sheds.
I also like the openness of design one and feel that design four feels much more enclosed and restricted inside.