I should be clear. The proposed cafe building isn’t ugly, or bad architecture, or anything like that. It mimics the train station. It is what it is.

When the design team, however, stresses the importance of the historic element in public workshops (i.e., rhetoric), and at the same time, the design team presents a modern building (drawn by a modernist architect) for the historic plaza, it indicates that there is indeed a conflict (of terms, understanding, something). And that conflict rests squarely in the design team’s camp.

I am admittedly biased toward a more traditional building to anchor the proposed historic transit plaza. Whether it recalls the generator building, a train depot, or some other warehouse-style design, I would prefer to have a more historic-oriented pedestrian experience. And I do not see the importance of matching the style of the train station, as it is a separate building with a separate use, and the structure is a critical part of a development that encourages eclectic, unmatched styles.

My aim — with these posts and any public comments — is only to call out the conflict that exists between the design team’s rhetoric (historic) and the design team’s proposals (modern). And I am confident that there is a steady middle ground between the two.

I presented my argument to the Planning Commission last night, asking them for a design review of the building prior to the architect moving forward. The Planning Commission is the investigative arm for residents; they are in the position to ask tough questions and deliver criticism (or praise), as well as ultimately advise the City Council on a preferred outcome.

I will post the video after it comes online (on the City’s end), but the following is my prepared remarks, which I may have deviated from slightly…

I have a few comments on the cafe building that was presented at last week’s transit plaza workshop. In summary, I would like to see this commission request a design review of the building prior to the architect moving forward. It should be noted that this building is not on the critical path. The track realignment, bridge infrastructure, creek restoration, the train station itself, none of these will be affected by the review of this building.

The design that was presented last week was a modern building that mimics the train station behind it, however, it is even more modern in style, and it is contrary to both the established design standard of the neighborhood, as well as the design standard adopted by the City with the Waterfront Now initiative.

During the train station workshops earlier this summer, residents were instructed to ignore the cafe building when choosing the train station design they preferred. They were told that the cafe building would be designed separately. But now that doesn’t seem to be the case. The designs were linked; with one, you got the other.

The architect described the building as a “kiosk,” which is telling, because that is what it looks like. However, that is not how the building will be used. Where a kiosk is small, unobtrusive, and usually provides information to passengers, this building will be none of those things. The cafe has no use relationship with the train station, except for shared restrooms.

The cafe building is ten percent of the size of the plaza. This modern building will dominate the plaza. There is no way to avoid that fate. And we keep hearing the rhetoric in the workshops of the space being “historic, historic.” You cannot simply add a statue of John Muir and call the plaza historic if the surrounding architecture is profoundly modern.

The cafe building will occupy a very prominent location. It will be the very first building that pedestrians will experience, pedestrians not only from the neighborhood, but commuters from the parking garage across the creek as well. Where the train station is the backdrop, this building is the front door of the transit plaza. This building needs character. This building needs to be historic.

This is not a question of good or bad architecture. However, if you hire an architect to design you a farmhouse, and the architect returns with the Guggenheim Museum, you have the right to question the intent of the design.

We have just gone through a lengthy, drawn-out process in response to a modern design of the train station. And if we allow for the modern design to come forward and invade the transit plaza, I do not see how we have historic character, I do not see how we have an historic plaza, and I do not see how we have an historic waterfront district.

Thank you.

What is this building — its use, its form, its context? What precedent does it set for the transit plaza and civic space?