December 12, 2008
Charlie Sava Pool Status And Design: Eight Lanes Opening In A Week
A plugged-in tipster reports:
The SAVA POOL on 19th avenue [and Wawona] is opening its doors next Saturday - Dec 20th after being in construction for 16 months. Archit Exposed concrete, Ceramic tile and Curtain wall make up the exterior.
Eight lanes by 25 yards with design by Mark Cavagnero Associates & Paulett Taggart Architects to maximize use of natural lighting and ventilation while minimizing impact on the site.
First Published: December 12, 2008 8:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Is this a private club or what?
Posted by: Jack M at December 12, 2008 11:14 AM
is it me, or does that look exactly like the CAMP renderings?
Posted by: hugh at December 12, 2008 11:16 AM
It is a community pool. Being that it is run by the SF City Parks Department would be a good clue.
Posted by: swimsf at December 12, 2008 11:26 AM
Thank you swimsf. Your sarcasm is duly noted.
Posted by: Jack M at December 12, 2008 11:43 AM
I thought this was the CAMP museum project as well! Actually, I think this is a nicer looking building than CAMP on closer inspection.
Posted by: Morgan at December 12, 2008 11:54 AM
Yeah, a better building than CAMP. But I still wouldn't want it plunked down in the middle of the Presidio.
Posted by: jlasf at December 12, 2008 12:26 PM
How does this place work? Looks nice.
Posted by: Paul Hwang at December 12, 2008 12:33 PM
This is a much anticipated neighborhood addition. The old swimming pool was something out of the movie cocoon.
Posted by: kel at December 12, 2008 12:34 PM
I stumbled across this by accident during a recent trip to Stern Grove. It is one fine, classy building and a welcome change from the otherwise hum-drum architecture of the neighborhood.
Posted by: zzzzzzz at December 12, 2008 1:18 PM
I've been watching this project for years and was never sure what it was, thanks SS for clarifying. Although I am a little disappointed that it is just a pool, it looks much more complex than that.
Posted by: sf at December 12, 2008 1:21 PM
This is a public pool. Admission is $4 per day for adults I believe. Great deal compared to paying for a gym membership.
Posted by: Live Smart at December 12, 2008 1:43 PM
Wow, $4 per day? No wonder the city can't balance it's budget!
Posted by: Paul Hwang at December 12, 2008 1:53 PM
Admission at public pools is $4 an hour, not day. They have hour slots for various groups (adults, kids, families, seniors etc.) throughout the day. So it is cheap if you want to swim once in a while, but if you want to swim daily, then gyms would probably work out better (plus you get the other amenities at a gym).
Posted by: anon at December 12, 2008 2:03 PM
Mark Cavagnero is one of the most interesting architects working in the Bay Area. His buildings are sublime -- modern and understated. He does a lot of small to mid-sized institutional work. This pool was inspired by in part Peter Zumthor's thermal baths building in Vals, Switzerland.
Posted by: JKD at December 12, 2008 2:07 PM
Yeah, this is nice, but Peter Zumthor it ain't.
Posted by: Ummm at December 12, 2008 2:52 PM
Just driving by this building looks really nice. It follows the curve of the land in a way that feels right. This is a much more staid style than the CAMP proposals even though it is essentially plain modernist concrete.
Posted by: Mole Man at December 12, 2008 3:30 PM
I live right across the street from the pool. Looking forward to it opening and the construction ending. Too many mornings of waking up with beep beep beep. Here are some pix I've taken over the last +year...
The Destruction of the old pool:
The Creation of the new pool:
Posted by: Jon at December 12, 2008 4:01 PM
All I know is the community pool has been sorely missed by my now 12 year old son and none of us really give a rat's a** who the hell designed it or how the architecture freaks from the other side of town think it should look. Hey Sava is back! Yay!
Posted by: Portalheights at December 12, 2008 9:21 PM
What a silly statement. Design matters. A nice design will positively impact youre 12 yr old and a poor design would consequently impact him in negative ways- make him irritated, unhappy, probaly not want to swim. Architecure isnt an on/ off switch, and a LOT of communities in the City would love to have access to a pool that looks like this. If everyone had your nonchalant attitude, we'd build cheap, fast and crappy.
Posted by: rats ass? at December 12, 2008 10:40 PM
Even though Sava Pool is still secured by a construction fence, the graffiti vandals have already struck. Very sad. How can we curtail this behavior?
Posted by: Dick Allen at December 13, 2008 11:33 AM
I am pretty sure it is $4 for each entrance, though you might get kicked out for a school swim or something. If you really want, you can probably get 4 or more hours in the pool out of your $4.
I remember paying 25 cents for all day in the public school in one of the many small towns I lived in growing up.
Why would The City try to run this at a profit Paul? Parks are one of things we pay taxes to get the benefit of.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at December 13, 2008 8:12 PM
I doubt it is run at a profit. There's probably more staff than meets the eye.
Posted by: flaneur at December 13, 2008 11:59 PM
SF sorely needs more pool space. it is crazy how busy many of the pools are, and in such disrepair as well.
we're swimmers and cringe everytime we have to go swim in SF (mainly due to the overcrowding). I'll DEFINITELY try this municipal pool next time!
A nice design will positively impact youre [sic] 12 yr old and a poor design would consequently impact him in negative ways- make him irritated, unhappy, probaly [sic] not want to swim
you can't honestly believe this.
anybody who is a swimmer would go to a plane jane boring design pool in good repair with a good swimmer to lane ratio over a pool that was good "design" but that had too many swimmers or was not kept up right (amount of chlorine/saline, water temp, etc)
and a 12 year old boy? are you KIDDING me? Just go look at a 12 year old boy's bedroom for about 1 second and you'll see how much they care about design! hahahahahahaha
I'm sorry to say: in our general lives most people notice design peripherally. For most of our routine day we don't even notice. That's why cookie-cutter McMansions are so popular, and why people love to go to McDonalds.
People in general really only seriously consider design for their own houses (and then only minimally) and also for "big" or "special" buildings... like a museum or a public building (like a courthouse) or a tower.
in other words: for MOST of us MOST of the time, the design matters only so far as insuring that the building works optimally (function), but the aesthetic is of minimal importans. (looks)
regardless: the pool looks fine enough. kind of concrete-prisony but that's the new aesthetic these days, or so I'm told by the design people. I guess light and airy is passe.
Jon (or another pluggied in person): could you go take a picture of the window side? Mapjack has the old building and GoogleMaps has a partially built pool.
Posted by: ex SF-er at December 14, 2008 5:29 AM
Awesome. I used the old (40-year old?) Sava pool many times, and it was just nasty, especially the locker rooms. Eeew! Even new(ish) public pool on 3rd street in Bayside was much better and much less used. It's about time that Sava was updated.
Posted by: anon at December 15, 2008 12:59 PM
I went for the AIA tour with my wife and loved the building. We live 3 blocks away on 22nd and cant wait to start using the pool.
The detailing/ execution is great and the Architects had taken pride in their work. The interiors are bright and the main pool area is stunning. I think this is hands down the best public pool in the City.
Posted by: aia tour at December 15, 2008 3:54 PM
I live near this pool as well (plan C). I can't wait to swim here and get the kids some lessons. Maybe I'll play Bacci while they take lessons, it's gonna be great.
Posted by: plan C-sparky at December 15, 2008 4:10 PM
It is amazing that even on this site, concerned as it is with real estate, there are people who do not understand or appreciate the importance of good architecture. Perhaps that is why there are so many architecturally inferior new buildings.
Posted by: Conifer at December 25, 2008 4:46 PM