SFist: Photo du Jour 15

sfmikey

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:39:54 -0800

don't read this as trying to take away from anyone's photography, but the perspective and location don't do it for me the way the photo's implied namesake (michael wolf's architecture of density) does. weird building for sure, though.

pdx6

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:49:35 -0800

@castroer: The restrictions are flexible of course. A grant here and a grant there, and suddenly there is a new and very tall hotel going up on 5th and Howard and magically the Old Mint has a few million for restorations - enough to convert a building from 1880 to become LEED certified. That's city hall deal making for you. What I was really getting at was the wind tunnel problem, but there is also the "don't shadow a park" provision.

castroer

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:06:14 -0800

"This tower was the reason there are now restrictions on tall buildings in the city." There are restrictions on tall buildings in the city? Hard to tell these days.

brokenlogin

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:45:41 -0800

So, my only Fox Plaza story is via my ex BF, who had a fondness for twinks, poor thing. Well, he went back to the FP late-one-night-twoish with some sleek young thing, but then had to make A Difficult Decision when the boy and his roommate started to..wait for it.. SMOKE CRACK! The end.

sfmike

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:38:14 -0800

It's an awful building in so many different ways, from its wind tunnel effect to its architectural brutality to the fact that it takes what seems like hours to catch an elevator to get up or down. I had a friend living there during a peirod when somebody was pulling the fire alarm with some frequency, and the walk twenty floors down the spooky old concrete stairways at 3AM was horrifying. I liked the tenants, though, who have had to put up with a lot over the years, including the four-story crack house ACROSS the street from the Fox Plaza (get the story straight, people).

Balmes

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:39:33 -0800

I'm the photographer, and most definitely male! :) I agree that the building is an incredible eyesore, especially after what it replaced. And while I've never been inside of the building, I imagine as long as you don't have to look at it from across the street, the views must be spectacular! The architecture reminds me of buildings in South American cities that build three or four floors of inhabitable space, and then leave exposed beams and rebar and unfinished masonry on the top floor speculating future growth and expansion. Anthony Bourdain (yes, that Anthony Bourdain) calls this "third-world optimism." And I would agree, the Fox Tower looks unfinished, like they're waiting for another injection of cash. At first glance when I took this photo, I thought it looked like the grate over a storm drain. How apropos.

pdx6

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:52:44 -0800

This building isn't nearly as bad as you claim. The units I've seen in here were fine, if not similar to your typical boring condo. The units on the upper floors have really great views, but the downside is that walls are pretty thin, I could hear anyone walking by in the hallway. This tower was the reason there are now restrictions on tall buildings in the city. I don't know if you've noticed, but it is really windy in that area, you can thank the builders of Fox Plaza, who didn't factor in the wind tunnel this structure would create. Finally, the post office at this site is slated to be demolished and become tower two: yes, decades later, the Fox Plaza building will be expanded, hopefully with some lessons learned built into the new tower.

manys

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:56 -0800

I've always liked the Fox Plaza architecture, so there.

writetojoel

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:45:33 -0800

Yes, the Fox Theater was beautiful. Is it that hard to like different types of things? Like Baroque, Modern, Minimalist, experimental, traditional, etc? Yes, the 60's screwed up San Francisco. But tearing down a freeway (THAT WAS DAMAGED BY AN EARTHQUAKE, MIND YOU) is a lot different than tearing down a building that contributes to urban density and helps give a neighborhood character (just trust me on that one--there are over 400 units in Fox Plaza--with people--like you and me!) Now quit talking about Fox Plaza and save the Alexandria--oh wait, you were probably too busy complaining about the de Young while it was being sold.

seb

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:42:42 -0800

This photo is the "architecture of density" in the same way an aerial photo of mechanistic McMansions in, say, Tracy would be "not the architecture of density."

jasontk

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:42:25 -0800

Obviously, nobody expects informed journalism on SFist but what is your point here? There's really nothing phenomenal about the picture, first of all. It's not difficult to find a handful of similar perspectives. "...almost aesthetically pleasing...?" Again, not really. There are actually pictures out there of this building that do render it in a pleasing way, as opposed to a shot like this that, through cropping, etc., emphasizes density through repetition (the building does end you know. It doesn't repeat infinitely in both directions) and is framed so as to cause a groundless, horizon-less disorientation. Of course, that's what the photographer wants to say. That this is a horrible, monolithic blight that blots out the sun and swallows the impoverished little children that live inside it. Got it. It's actually just a building. It's not evil. The fact that it currently inspires such ire in some people is laughable. It's also a sign of the current (uninformed) fascination with architectural faux-criticism in this city. This trend will pass and I look forward to that. As for Fox Plaza, some people think it's ugly. Some people don't. More important than it's ugliness, or lack thereof, is the fact that it houses hundreds of people. This is what matters. As to your offensive remarks about the people that live here, I can only share with you my experiences. I'm a working professional. My neighbors all seem to be sane, friendly, clean people as well. Some are students. Some are seniors. Most seem to be somewhere in between, like myself. In fact, they're San Franciscans! They look a lot like the neighbors I had in the Castro. They're also similar to my previous neighbors in North Beach. Come to think of it, they display a diversity also not dissimilar to my old neighbors in the (gentrified) Mission. My point is that we're just a bunch of the same people that live anywhere else in the city. Of course, this is probably what any rationally thinking person would have imagined, right? I assume it obvious. And as for why one would decide to live here: The location is fantastically convenient. Transit access is great. It's pet friendly. There are 8 or 9 Zipcars in the garage downstairs My apt. has new floors and new appliances. And from my apartment I can see in panoramic glory: Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Union Square, Financial District, Ferry Building, most of the Bay itself, the Bay Bridge, Yerba Buena Island, Soma, Potrero Hill, the Mission, the Castro, Twin Peaks. I can also see Oakland, Mt. Diablo, and even Foster City. "Or so we've heard. Total rumor, you know. Don't believe it." Or you're just making things up because you're bored, I guess.

jasontk

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:41:19 -0800

Brock Keeling

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:25:32 -0800

Urban cites with sparkling conversation, old universities, richly textured pasts, bon mots -- I hear you. "Uh," but I don't think anyone want to see it explode. That would be messy. And loud. But its color seems to be the problem.

Telstar Logistics

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:24:50 -0800

The worst worst worst thing about Fox Plaza is not merely the fact that it's one of the butt-ugliest buildings in the city, but the fact that it is built on the site of the former Fox Theater, a movie palace so grand that the Castro Theater looks like a drive-in by comparison. Photos available here, with a nice mini-history here. The Fox Theater was torn down in 1963 to make way for the Fox Plaza ugliness. Yeeech. Just another reason to loathe Fox Plaza!

writetojoel

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:18:29 -0800

Uh, it's a Modernist building. More specifically, Brutalist. There are lots of them in cities. Like New York, Chicago, L.A., Paris, London, Moscow. I don't want to blow up buildings just because I don't like the design. Plus, it can house a lot of people in a small area, you know, like in cities. Urban cities. Amateur San Francisco architecture critics bore me.

RobInSF

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:02:51 -0800

One bedrooms starting at $2500/mo??? I guess you would need to be selling dope to afford it or using dope to think that is worth $2500. Amaaaazing!

MedusaSF

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:56:46 -0800

I had to spend 3 months working in FP... and as you might expect, it was absolutely awful. The building is just as depressing on the inside as it is on the outside. The florescent lighting has a weird greenish tent to match the slightly greenish carpet and greenish walls. It was like working in a giant mold spore.