The Olympics and Urban Planning

Now that the Beijing Olympics are over, future host nations especially England, which will host the 2012 games are faced with the task of how to compete with the grandiose scale of what we saw in China especially in terms of stadium design. If hosting the games was a way for China to shore up its strength on a visible international stage, then the architecture was the component that brought together politics and aesthetics into a seemingly cohesive whole.

The organizers of the London 2012 Olympics would like to duplicate such accomplishments but for many such cities who lack the adequate space for expansion or the necessary funds, this could be a tall order. HOK sports has unveiled a temporary solution for the 2012 games by creating a "convertible" structure in the London arena(top left) which would increase the seats from 25,000 to 80,000 for the games' commencements and back down to 25,000 seats when the games are concluded(left). Also, these expansion components will have the ability to be dismantled, boxed up and shipped to another country needing an expansion to their main stadium.

This tactic of "recycling" the Olympic stadium has been lauded as a first step in a new approach to preparations for the games which could become more like a traveling circus to keep costs down and allow poorer countries to play host for the Olympics. A spokesman for London's Olympic Delivery Authority stated that the plan would also help to offset the rising cost of the London games which now stand at 9.3 billion pounds. The cost of the main stadium has already risen from 280 million pounds to 496 million pounds. Taking these costs into consideration, the ODA spokesman went on to say: "it is right that we should explore any opportunities that would recoup some of the costs incurred by the lottery and the public purse."

David Higgins, the CEO of the London ODA began talks with officials in Chicago (bidding for the 2016 games alongside Tokyo, Madrid, Prague and Rio de Janeiro) in June for a deal that would see the shipping of the London stadium's expansions (55,000 seats) to Chicago's Washington Park expanding a planned 7,500 capacity community arena into the city's main stadium.

I don't know, this might be a good way to keep costs down in times when the economy is struggling as it is today but I love to see "permanent" landmark stadiums that are not only aesthetically appealing, but add to the overall infrastructure of the city and enrich its architecture. The convenience of the "travelling" stadium will see a drop in stadium construction.

Images obtained from www.guardian.co.uk

The New LEED v3

With its initial introduction in 2000, the LEED green building rating system has helped change the way we approach the design, construction and operation of our buildings and infrastructure. The new and updated version is soon to be unveiled by the U.S. Green building Council and is scheduled to go into effect by January of 2009 featuring 3 major changes: 1. Customized regional credits, 2. New weighing of certification criteria and 3. Greater consistency between different types of construction.

The regionalization seeks to allow specific regions to place more emphasis on certain design criteria. For example, water conservation will be more important and worth more points in Nevada or Arizona than Florida. According to officials of the USGBC, the system of awarding points has evolved over the past eight years without any type of overall strategy and at times, without much consistency so the LEED v3 seeks to look at all categories and set them based on strategies taken to "really making the building have a significant impact on being more green." Also, the new version will provide more consistency in point allotment across different construction sites (for example, new construction Vs existing buildings, commercial sites Vs homes).

Although these changes are to standardize LEED across the country, numerous complaints have been made about it from professionals in the building industry but more especially from contractors who claim that it would eliminate the innovation credits that would be available to them. Bruce Offner, chief estimator of Springhouse based Henderson Corp. complains that the new version is still a design tool for architecture and engineering without any consideration for the job site type of work.

I say "boo-hoo" to all whinny contractors and if I had my way, there wouldn't be any credits given to them at all. The construction process for buildings seldom go smoothly all thanks to the contractor, building things you never specified, looking for that one inconsistency in the construction specifications and using that one, making me submit change order upon change order, wasting time and money and you want credit for that?

That being said, I think that the new LEED v3 will go a long way in addressing the issues not covered by the current version and hopefully help us all see the benefits of green design as energy doesn't seem like it will be any cheaper for some time to come, offshore drilling or not.

Zaha's Designs For Singapore

Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) recently unveiled proposed designs for the new Farrer Road residential complex in Singapore composed of seven 36 story residential towers, each rising to a height about 510ft, and 12 villas on an 838,488 sq ft site. The $3 billion project is reminiscent of her dancing tower in Dubai and upon completion, will be the largest residential complex in Singapore's history.
Hadid wished to redefine urban space with this project, as she shows intricate landscaping for the towers' outdoor communal spaces on grade and uses some of the country's unique vegetation as form generators as each tower is subdivided into petal patterns according to the floor plan of each story. The petals are expressed in three dimension giving the overall form the look and feel of petals blossoming (or at least, that was her goal).

I think Zaha really does give her very best effort to her designs and shows a certain level of commitment that is lacking in many "star architects" but I always find something lacking in some of her work. This project though very revolutionary in form ( I would love to see diagrams depicting the proposed structural bracing for these "petals"), seems to be too much of a site intervention. I know that Farrer Court on Farrer Road is the Bohemian sector of the neighborhood and Zaha wanted to do something lavish for them but this project does not relate to anything around it. I know that I have spoken about this before and just want to say here that when I talk about a building relating to its surroundings, I don't necessarily mean that it has to mimic the buildings around it, but it should at least look like it belongs there and can't be "transplanted" somewhere else and still fit in with the context. Come to think of it, it looks like she used much of her prior designs from her "dancing tower" for this one and it does look like it would be more at home in Dubai than Singapore.

Another thing that made me cringe when I saw this project was not the design per say, which I really do think is quite impressive, but the density of these massings all lumped together. If the communal outdoor gardens are not maintained well with the proper amenities, these buildings could slowly degenerate into slum dwellings. I have seen his trend with many towers in the United States that initially preached "community interaction" in their mission statements but somehow became ghettos where everyone was stacked deep from floor to floor. The Pruitt-Igoe in Missouri is a perfect example.

As I said earlier, I think generally this is a great design and I hope that Zaha will be able to see this project through to its completion and I mean to the last detail to be sure that the gardens look as she intended them.


Images obtained from www.worldarchitecturenews.com
For more info check http://www.tuvie.com/farrer-road-in-singapore-by-zaha-hadid-architects

HKS Selected for New Liverpool FC Stadium

After battling with Manchester based AFL, HKS has finally been chosen to design the new Liverpool FC soccer stadium in Liverpool, England set to open in time for the 2011 Premier League season. The two firms' original proposals were rejected by the American owners, Tom Hicks (also owner of the Texas Rangers) and George Gillett as they felt that AFL's design was outdated and HKS' way too expensive. The cost had risen from $600 million when it was announced in the summer of 2007 to almost $900 million by the end of the year.

The new design by HKS which increases the current seating capacity from 42,000 to 60,000 will feature a stone base on the north, west and east exposures with glass facades above. The south will be metal clad with south east and south west corners open but the main selling point of the design is the world famous "Kop" (similar to the Oakland Raider's "Black Hole" but filled with fewer Hooligans) behind the home goal. This all-seater stand will be set at the higher point of the site and will contain over 20,000 seats and was designed very expressively to intensify the setting and sense of drama. The asymmetrical building as a whole was designed to break from the bowl-like shapes of most soccer stadiums and announce itself as Liverpool FC's stadium only and none other.

I think that there were some good intentions with this design especially with the "KOP" but HKS has created quite an ugly project but I guess that's what one could expect if the design team came up with their proposal after attending only one game in the original stadium. That's just like the Manchester based AFL proposing a design for say the Pittsburgh Steelers after attending one regular season game. I think that a lot more time should have been spent trying to get a feel for the culture of the club, the game of soccer and the fans.

Also, the street level view is not as interesting as aerial perspectives, just like the SF Transbay Terminal and this leads me to think that many firms seem to fall in love with how their projects look in aerial perspective and overlook how most people will view it-from the street level. Another thing that seems odd to me is that the images of the stadium are shown without a scrap of context around them so one doesn't even get a sense of how it will fit in with it's surrounding environment. I remember doing something like that with one of my fourth year school projects and was ripped into cause my building was "floating in space" but I guess when you become successful in this field you can do whatever you want with your renderings.

Well, the design has been selected already and the only people I feel for are the Liverpool fans cause they have joined the list of franchises that have been screwed by American owners cause we don't understand the culture of soccer in Europe even though we like to pretend we do.


Images obtained from www.liverpoolft.tv/news

The Manhattanization of San Francisco Part II

It seems that the umbrige felt by some San Franciscans about their city's apparent urban xeroxing of New York is not limited to the Rincon Towers but also extends to the proposal for the new Transbay terminal which will be slated to break ground sometime this fall and top out in 2014.

The original terminal located roughly in the center of the rectangle bounded north-south by Mission and Howard Street and east-west by Beale and Second street currently serves long distance and local transbay buses such as the Muni and SamTrans. The new proposal seeks to replace the current terminal with a new one including a tunnel that would extend the Caltrian commuter rail and a heavy rail portion designed to accomodate the planned high speed line from Los Angeles. This project, designed by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects will consist of a 1,200ft tall tower paired with organic undulations of the transit center toped with a 5.4 acre green roof that will be freely accessible to the public and will host a variety of cultural activities.

The new Transbay terminal will seek to incorporate as it's theme, "transit & sustainability" with the tower's apex crowned with wind turbines and each floor being able to draw fresh air from outside directly through the building's "porous" facade. Geothermal heating has also been incorporated to regulate room temperature and both tower and transit park will benefit from a rain and gray water recycling center that can provide water to neighboring buildings as well.
Even though mayor Gavin Newsom has lauded this project as "forward thinking," many residents again feel that an elevated 5.4 acre park does not compliment its surroundings nor does the 1,200 ft high tower which will again redefine the city's skyline. I agree, even though I really like the look of the roof park but one will only see it like that from the window of a taller surrounding building. What I feel is pretty awful is the structural undulation of the park from street level. The height of the building will only set a new height for new projects to contend with but that structural pattern on the terminal is just horrid and will continue to stick out for a very long time to come.

This is a very innovative design and I think is the better proposal of all submitted to the city of San Francisco. It does a good job of making public transportation a bit easier and convenient which is a necessary component for cities in America today as we are continually faced with ridiculous gas prices but the terminal's street level facade...Its just bad!



Images obtained from: http://lifewithoutbuilings.net

More Credentials, more money?

A recent study of the 2008-2009 compensation and benefits survey produced by DesignIntelligence and the Greenway group found that Architects who pursue their Masters degree and those who become licensed see about 10% higher earnings than their counterparts with a Bachelor of Architecture degree.
The B.Arch holders statistically make an average of $39,000 at the start of their careers while M.Arch graduates earn a median salary of $43,000. Also, architects who obtain licensure see a typical increase in base compensation of 5-10% and as a further incentive, 81% of firms pay for some or all expenses of their staff to take the ARE.
Now, while I think its common sense for a licensed architect to make more money than an architect without one, because they are more valuable, I don't think that there's much difference between a B.Arch and an M.Arch holder. That extra year of studio isn't going to help much without any real work experience. Besides, I remember when I was in school and would often see some of the graduate presentation panels and wonder why many of them looked like they were second year undergraduate presentations. Doors measuring less than 6ft in height, all glass fenestration intended to also function as load bearing walls (I'm not kidding!) because many of them received a bachelors degree in some unrelated field and now come into the M.Arch program without any of the basic knowledge needed. And three years isn't enough to teach them what the B.Arch holder learned in 5!
But despite my gripes, the statistics aren't lying so I would advice any architecture student going for the B.Arch to try to secure a job while in school and begin working on the IDP, Intern Development Program, get as much work experience as possible and take the LEED exam. Hopefully, this will help raise you to a higher salary bracket because in this economy, that $39,000 isn't going to do a thing for you especially when you have the bogeymen at Salliemae calling for you to repay your student loans.

Candy Spelling's Record Breaking Condo

Carole Gene "Candy" Spelling, the widow of Aron Spelling and a well known civic leader in Los Angeles paid a whopping $47 million for a two story condo unit above the Century City tower still under construction.
The price for this unit comes to an amazing $2,850 per square foot, a record price for any condo unit in Los Angeles. Spelling's new abode will include a dining room for 25 guests, a 4,000 square foot master bedroom, a conservatory with a rose garden with an adjacent swimming pool.
According to Spelling's attorney, she is moving to this new unit in order to "downsize" her living space after her husbands death. It is difficult to imagine how this can possibly be a downscaling of any sort until you consider that Spelling currently resides in a 57,000 square foot 112 room mansion, the largest home in Los Angeles which she will be auctioning off within the next year after she moves into the completed condo.
This seems to be a new trend with many parents moving out of large suburban homes and into more expensive and smaller condo units within the city especially after the kids go off to college. The higher mortgage now proceeds to eat into college funds leaving young Bobby and Britney no other option than entanglement with Salliemae.
That being said, this new trend in housing has led to the continued boom in residential highrise construction and just might result in less of a demand for suburban sprawl which has been the American dream for many years.


Image obtained from www.LaTimes.com

Mandarin Oriental Groundbreaking Yet to Occur

The $550,000,000 Mandarin Oriental Tower is a 74 story proposed mixed use project targeted to be the 9th tallest building in Chicago (assuming the Trump and Waterview Towers, both under construction get completed first). The tower is being built by the Hong Kong based Mandarin hotel group, currently operating over 30 hotel groups around the world and are partnering with Solomon Cordwell Buenz as their design consultants.

The proposed design is to be 1.2million sq feet and will include 300 condos and 250 hotel-condo units with the unit mix concept defining these hotel-condos as rooms sold as condominiums to private buyers who now allow the hotel to rent out these units when the owners are not using them.

Despite the initial excitement over the addition this building would make to the design infrastructure of the city of Chicago, a Dec 2, 07 article in Crains Chicago Business stated that various parties involved with this project are facing financial issues and construction loans have not been forthcoming. This is in part due to the current real estate slump in the Country and some inside sources have expressed their apprehension that this project might never be built as the groundbreaking initially set for January 08 is still yet to occur.

Unfortunately, this is the same for numerous other projects around the country; the building industry is slowing down and if the situation does not improve soon, many of us in the field of architecture and other related disciplines might not have much work to do.

Image obtained from condohotelcenter.com

Big Fish in the Pond

The merger of HKS architects with Hill glazier, becoming HKS Hill Glazier Studio has made the new firm arguably the largest hospitality design group in the world. Before the merger, both companies enjoyed wide acclaim and recognition, ranking in the top ten nationally and grossing almost $3 billion in anual work making them leaders in the hospitality design sector.
The merger, which occured in June of 2007 had me wondering how strong the new collaboration would be as many successful and strong willed architects have a hard time working symbiotically with each other, especially when it comes to? Yep, design concepts. I expected that there would also be some cut backs in the firm size in terms of staff and offices but that has not been the case. In the past year, HKS Hill Glazier has not only doubled its workload but also introduced 23 new offices around the world, hired over 100 hospitality design staff members and have more than $14 billion in construction underway in California alone.
One reason for this seamless transition is the fact that before the merger, the two firms had worked together for more than 10 years on projects such as the One&Only Palmila in Los Cabos, Mexico, the Ocean Club in Paradise Island, Bahamas and the Rosewood Resort in Telluride, Colorado. This helped foster a strong relationship of professional trust and familiarity and confidence in each of their respective design strengths.
I am happy to see that HKS Hill Grazier is a true partnership and I think that the firm is only going to get stronger in the coming years establishing themselves as the big fish in the small pond of the hospitality design industry but I think that they are beginning to set a precedent for large company monopolization in the field of architecture.

The Manhattanization of San Francisco

This seems to go a long way in summing up the concerns of many Bay Area residents about the effects of the One Rincon Towers on Rincon Hill right next to the Western approach of the Bay bridge. This project is a residential complex designed by Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz and associates and is to consist of two towers, 45 and 60 stories respectively, sharing a common podium base with a combined count of 709 units. The latter tower (Rincon south tower) has been completed and currently stands at 641 feet but Rincon north tower just broke ground in january of this year.

Though the towers are considered not only the most significant additions to the San Francisco skyline in over 30 years and one of the tallest all-residential towers west of the Mississippi, it has sparked a lot of criticism from residents. Some of this criticism has stemmed from its design which has been ridicled to resemble the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze air purifyer. Other residents living east to north east of Twin Peaks are enraged at the height and placement of the towers as they block views from Delores park and Hillside neighborhoods to the Bay bridge but the general concern is about the price of the units within the towers which have been rated to be too expensive for most San Franciscans selling at $600,000 to $2,000,000 on average. This they feel is about to set the preceedent for outrageously priced condo units making San Francisco as expensive to live in as Manhattan. This is an interesting concept to note as most of the units within the South tower have sold already.

This building though still under construction has become the most controversial landmark in San Francisco since the Transamerica Pyramid. One website, curbsf, has nominated the Rincon towers as the ugliest buildings in the city beating the Marriot on Fourth St, which is saying a lot.

I know that I slammed the Al Hamara tower for not relating to it's site better and though the Rincon towers seem to do much of the same, I think that they enhance the skyline and add to the dramatic effect of the city view when coming down the Bay bridge from Oaklnad. Yes, I like the towers and I think that they have a certain elegance and sleekness to them that is lacking in most residential highrises today. Am I "flip-floping?" Maybe but Rincon affects my perception differently. After all, architecture in a sense is subjective.

Image obtained from www.sfnewdevelopments.com