October 28, 2011
SFMOMA Expansion Comments, Responses And Simulation
Comments and Responses to the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed SFMOMA expansion and Fire House One relocation to 935 Folsom Street have been published.
While the law firm for KSSF Enterprises (owner of the expansion adjacent W Hotel) starts "by expressing [their] support for the Project," their 17 pages of objections and concerns might suggest otherwise, at least for the project as proposed.
At the heart of KSSF’s concern, the impact of the proposed SFMOMA expansion design on views from their hotel, a subtle simulation of which they comissioned below:
∙ SFMOMA Expansion Context And 935 Folsom Street Station Design [SocketSite]
∙ SFMOMA Expansion and New Fire Station: Comments and Responses [sfplanning.org]
∙ The First Sign Of Snøhetta’s Design For SFMOMA Expansion [SocketSite]
First Published: October 28, 2011 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
The "simulation view" is deceptive. There is a wide drive way separating the hotel and the fire station. You can definitely see light and depth outside of the window, not a flush white wall as suggested. A lot of high rises in urban area is like this.
Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at October 28, 2011 10:52 AM
Guess the W should have paid for the air rights over the buildings concerned.
Posted by: Marten at October 28, 2011 10:55 AM
If views are not protected for individual homeowners, as we hear often, then why should the views of the W Hotel be protected? Did they forget to consider this rule when they built the hotel?
I vote for MOMA.
Posted by: conifer at October 28, 2011 11:11 AM
Cover the walls with art: problem solved.
Posted by: Mole Man at October 28, 2011 12:00 PM
Kind of looks like a Gerhard Richter. Seems appropriate.
Posted by: jlasf at October 28, 2011 12:00 PM
Perhaps for a grace period of a couple years, guests of the lower east side rooms at the W might simply get free passes to the museum.
Posted by: redseca2 at October 28, 2011 12:01 PM
It just means they will be able to charge more for the rooms with a view. It's a win/win.
Posted by: badlydrawnbear at October 28, 2011 2:33 PM
Does any one actually look out on that "view"? I'm sure there's the "oh look, I just checked in, let me look out the window" peek but other than that I'm not sure this view or lack thereof is much of a deal.
Posted by: Sam Foster at October 28, 2011 8:49 PM
I completely agree with the others. If the "W" wanted its views guaranteed it should have bought the air rights over the adjacent structures (if available) or (more likely) designed the hotel to take into account the potential for denser, taller development of adjacent lots. This "issue" should carry no weight in the approval process for the MOMA expansion.
Posted by: BT at October 29, 2011 11:13 AM
It's not the view from hotel rooms that matters. The street view will be overwhelmed by yet another light blocking, perspective ending building. As one of those who finds the interior of MOMA a poor use of space (the cost of light damage to the art rises every year) and the exterior boring, I can only imagine another dull design.
Here's an idea: why not take over that fake school, the Academy of Art. The owners are really just real estate moguls using the veneer of providing educational services to get around all sorts of laws and regulations.
(Although as a frequent traveler, the view from my hotel room does matter because otherwise I feel trapped in a dark space and mornings become indistinguishable from nights. And the wall-facing rooms will be dark.
Also the loss of revenue from turning good rooms into lousy ones cannot be made up with pricier view rooms. People just stay elsewhere.)
Posted by: MCM at October 30, 2011 12:00 PM
as long as it only affects room 1503
Posted by: wrath at October 31, 2011 1:12 PM
The W will benefit from the new museum wing, with new larger exhibits bringing in more tourists, and the W being the only hotel that SFMOMA wraps around. Perhaps Snohetta can make the exterior surface interesting enough that some W guest will be intrigued by the new view?
Posted by: Dan at October 31, 2011 5:04 PM