The construction of the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project that’s now underway includes a public art component which the Cuban-American artist Jorge Pardo has been commissioned to fulfill.
Known for employing a broad palette of “vibrant colors, eclectic forms, and industrial materials,” Pardo’s proposed installation is slated to adorn the future McAllister BRT Station, across from and adjacent to San Francisco’s City Hall. And the concept design will be presented to the City’s Architectural Review Committee next week, as rendered and revealed above and below.
As envisioned, Pardo’s installation is composed of 13 light sculptures on either side of McAllister, constructed of painted steel and polycarbonate with an anti-graffiti coating and two different color palettes, one warm and the other cool.
I’d rather have trees. But this won’t last long. I can already foresee the popularity of the new game of “bowling” down these structures from a passing car.
Trees are out in SF don’t you know. The city is in the process of removing 17,000 of them.
Art is in the eye as they say but the juxtaposition of this “art” to the architecture of City Hall right behind is non-existent. What a waste of tax payer money.
Before you go spreading “alternate facts” you do realize that this project will plant twice as many trees along the corridor as it will remove.
Before *you* go throwing stones, he’s talking about city-wide tree removal.
Exactly. I’m referring to the Significant Natural Resources Area Management Plan. It will remove 17,000 trees from throughout SF. 1600 trees on Mt. Davidson will be taken out (as well as closing 2900 feet of trails and closing off part of the mountain to public access). Recently some mature 80 foot tall trees near Park Merced were removed as part of the program.
Any trees added on Van Ness will take how long to be mature and large – 2 decades? Assuming they survive. Many of the trees planted along Portola have dies. Not being maintained once they were planted.
It’s neither here nor there, but it’s also true that those trees are non-native species that are nearing the end of their lives and are a fire hazard.
Yes, including “non-native” Monterey cypress – you know, the trees that grow naturally 60 miles to the south, but “but for” a quirk of timing when the white man arrived in the Bay Area, happened not to be present here. Therefore under the new floral purity laws, they are verboten and must be removed schnell!
God forbid we have beautiful tree cover providing shade and breaking up the wind; we must eradicate any plant that was not here in 1776. (Of course, never mind the rampant and *invasive* pampas grass and ice plant, about which no one does anything… but those nasty Monterey cypress – gotta go!)
Watch Australia’s ‘Gasoline Trees’ Cause a Small Grass Fire to Explode Into a Scorching Threat
Definitely nothing to worry about. Could never happen here
SF’s canopy is about half the national average. One of the lowest in the US. Once these trees are removed it may well be the lowest. A bald Mt. Davidson will look as magnificent and beautiful as Twin Peaks.
Mt Davidson will look awesome after all the eucalyptus burn and also incinerate some nearby homes.
the tree removal going on in the presidio seems criminal. they are taking so many rustics trails and turning into 5 foot wide tourist trails and removing all the trees.
Removing the cypress are more problematic. But taking out the eucalyptus is a no brainer
I’m open to removal of eucalyptus, especially near homes, for the reasons stated – I witnessed the Oakland hills fire first-hand, so know what can happen. However, the sad irony here is that the City goes in and “removes” the eucalyptus by cutting them down – and then doesn’t revisit the area, so within a few months you got bushy sprouts of eucalyptus *everywhere*! That creates as bad a fire hazard as before, and if left unattended for just a few years (as is inevitably the case), you’ve soon got a tall thick eucalyptus grove all over again.
@Sierrajeff – good point. It goes beyond that too. The City plants trees and leaves them unattended for extended periods. Often the trees die off. This happened in front of Mollie Stones on Portola. Those trees gone but for a stump for years now and nothing is done to replace them.
The eucalyptus in St. Francis Woods won’t be taken out because – well, its an upscale hood and the city won’t go there. Being such an upscale area there are dedicated DPW workers trimming and cleaning up. Virtually day in and day out. While nearby Sloat Blvd’s median strip is left unattended and is dying off. One person planted a lonely small pine tree there last year and that the DPW had time for. It was yanked out.
they are taking mature trees and replacing with seedlings. it will be 30 yrs before they are mature
Actually it will take longer than that. The trees removed between Park Merced and Lake Merced were 80 foot tall Monterey Cypress – it will take 50, 60, 70 years to replicate them.
They have started to remove large mature trees along Sunset. The plantings they have placed in the median strip there are ridiculous. You can’t tell if some of them are plants or plastic stumps. Those strips are basically unattended and some of the planting are dying already.
It is criminal and there is no plan to replace all 17K trees removed and no money allocated. The city can’t even maintain the streets in good condition – in the end do you really think there will be a significant re-planting? Despite assurances from the same folks who brought us the TTC.
Agreed! More trees in this concrete jungle!
yes, trees please!
The city can’t do light. They won’t/can’t maintain it.
Having a difficult time seeing the “art” here. Whatever this may call itself, it is an abrasive juxtaposition to the classical architecture surrounding it (near Civic Center, at least).
Agree…bizarre.
Agreed, wrong location for this work. Mission would be better suited…
bobbleheads on slim footings going nowhere seems fitting
totally agree, this nonsense does not belong around the classic architecture of Civic Center, people need to voice their opinion to the art commission.
It looks terrible. Will be dated so quickly. The Art commission is a joke. A group that has modicum talent, and maximum ambition/ connections. Help us all.
Agree – I am very conflicted as someone who loves the idea of public art but is aghast at the types of decisions the AC makes – it is all like Academy of Arts digital airbrush art…
I dislike – and I expect that many Preservationists will hate – these lollipops inside of the boundaries of the Civic Center Historic District.
As a contemporary counterpoint to the surrounding architecture, they’re a refreshing image-play on people standing at the station.
At night their appeal increases as colorful light sources. Trees would intrude on the platforms, require a lot more maintenance than this installation will––root barriers, trimming, nutrition, treatments––and in time they’d be a visual block to the surrounding architectural vistas. Put a CC camera on them and “bowling them down” provides consequences––trees in the same location could inspire “bowling” too.
Sorry the rest of you are so negative, it’s no wonder nothing timely ever happens in San Francisco.
Completely agree – sure, the corridor is currently imageless, but why acquiesce to this condition? I think something bright and memorable is precisely what Van Ness is. Playful, interesting form, if well executed with industrial materials this will perfectly push the area in the direction of place, rather than pass-through.
Horrible, terrible, but of course I am not a sophisticated person.
i too think they do not belong in this part of the city…..perhaps in some remote place in golden gate park.
Hideous AF
Portland’s fairly recently added Nepenthes public art piece makes this look like even more of a joke.
Speaking of public art and Portland as an arbiter of good taste, Streetcar Stop for Portland was installed in 2013. It’s a sculpture by an award winning (MacArthur Fellowship) artist named…Jorge Pardo.
Oh, well then, if it’s in Portland, it’s gotta be wonderful.
Oh yeah! Seattle and LA are not too shabby either re: public art.
Oh, of course, LA and Seattle too.
I love art, but this looks awful … Completely out of character for the area. It’s childish and not at all creative.
Out of curiosity artlover, how do you feel about the Keith Haring sculpture in front of the De Young?
I think this stretch of Van Ness (or any part of Van Ness really) needs some color and public art is a great idea and use of our taxpayer funds (compared to most of wht the supervisors use it for). I don’t buy the argument that it should necessarily be some classical piece of art because it is next to city hall, the juxtaposition of contemporary and classic can have more visual interest and impact.
Having said that – this particularly piece doesn’t really grab me as noteworthy, but eye of the beholder and all.
I love how one of the wealthiest cities in the world has a subway system that is on par with a 3rd world shanty town, and claims it can only afford to paint a red strip down Van Ness. Oh but wait, self-driving cars (which will always be ready 10 years in the future, like AI and cold fusion) will save us all.
self-driving cars are already ready and in use.
ready for what, running over bicyclists?
they wont be mainstream for at least 10 yrs. and we still need solid transit and there is none in planning
This BRT is actually in planning. Just not solid enough for you?
Painting a red stripe down a street is an absolute joke, BRT always ends up being a total waste of money, and slower than normal bus lines. I want a fully functional metro system like pretty much every 1st world nation has. California is now more economically powerful than France, so there is zero excuse for not having modern infrastructure.
It really comes down to provincial Bay Area people that are deluded into thinking SF is the best city on earth and that nothing needs to change. If they went to other countries occasionally, they might realize that SF ain’t all that.
no definitely not solid enough for me. it’s a waste to spend millions to save 5 minutes on a bus while all the drivers will lose 10 minutes. it’s not worth the effort. need something more transformative.
The Van Ness corridor is too short to justify the expense and inconvenience of a subway. BRT will be perfect in this stretch.
And the Central Subway is shorter and has less traffic, and they still decided to that. We need a major North/South subway is this town, and a subway alignment under Van Ness—perhaps an extension of BART from under Mission would be most prudent. Van Ness is the alignment of US-101; getting transit busses out of competition with the cars is a good step, but allowing transit complete independence from vehicular traffic in a subway is the only smart solution. It will end up happening eventually, and at even higher cost than it would if it happened now. Why not start to create a real transit system that we can enjoy in our lifetimes?
Unfortunately, it ain’t gonna happen. Not with Trump wanting to “rebuild” the US military
If the GOP Congress does not block Trump’s plan, there could be a trillion dollar stimulus program for transportation, airports and such. The problem is, with the Bay Area infighting, other other metro areas which are more cohesive are likely to beat out the BA for the lion’s share of any stimulus package.
Great, you have $10 billion dollars to build this?
Central Subway corridor (3rd and 4th) has much more traffic than Van Ness, probably about twice as much. A subway under Geary with a stop at Van Ness should have a higher priority than Van Ness. We sure need more subwaze in SF. Also fun to spend billions unbudgeted.
This was probably beaten to death in a recent thread, but the subject of mass transit on Geary is of vital significance to SF. Of course, a subway under its length would be the ideal, but I don’t see it happening for decades.
We certainly should move forward with the proposed BRT alternative. I was recently in Mexico City and made extensive use of the excellent service there. Such a system would vastly improve the commute from the Richmond to Downtown. Just perhaps we could quickly extend it to include a bus tunnel east of Van Ness with a portal surfacing out the west slope of Cathedral Hill.
seriously, we are probably not in the top 200 ciities worldwide for public transit. its a joke.
Methinks you haven’t visited many third-world shanty towns…
I have. Their transit systems are better (and cleaner) than SFs. Maybe if you did a little bit of travelling you’d realize that.
i agree. i travel 200,000+ miles every year. in cities throughout South America, EU (even eastern EU), and Asia, transit is better than in SF.
I can’t be the only one who thinks this is a really stupid idea.
As the saying goes, it is in the eye of the beholder. I like this project.
There’s probably not a piece of art in the world that appeals to everybody.
They look like people throwing up their hands in frustration at a delayed bus…
THIS IS GREAT! Man you all hate everything! I agree also though that i would rather have more trees, but I will happily take this vs nothing.
Trees, trees, trees!
We have enough dubious art in this city already.
I can only imagine all the litter and pee these pieces of art will collect!
Wait, did this “art” cost money? How much and who paid? They look like IKEA pendant lights.
I think it does. And since it’s a notable artists, we are likely also paying a pretty penny for the “privilege” to have art that looks like a kindergartener made it out of bendy straws and foam balls.
Why does this City that cannot keep up with basic maintenance of streets, bus shelters, litter removal, sh*t removal etc. bother to budget money for ‘art’ that will basically become an eyesore within a couple of years? Do the Supes not realize SF ranks 146 out of 150 of the best maintained cities in the U.S. This doesn’t even qualify as putting earrings on a pig.
Love it, love it, love it!!
This is temporary, right? I love that there was public outcry against a Richard Serra installation (be it 20 years ago) but we are stuck with this type of crap.
Don’t we still have Richard Serra’s installation in Mission Bay? I can’t fathom how we chose to put two pieces of rusting steel and call it art. Hell, putting a few railroad tracks sticking up would have been cheaper and more fitting for the location (former rail yards).
In that case, a reference by native San Franciscan and former steel worker to the previous usage and history of the area seems fitting. I was referring to the rejected one at the Legion.
This piece should be on the Market Street BRT platform. It interferes with the views of the Civic Center neo-classical buildings. No consultation with anyone. It will not happen at this location.
Lets move forward… change is good.
I don’t really get the point of it but if it has to exist it should continue the entire length of Van Ness (shiver) alternating colors and heights. Should be solar illuminated for an interesting glowing nighttime effect
Seems like the goal of public art now days is to not offend anyone. Make it abstract, but colorful. Absolutely no historical references. It can’t inspire or educate anyone. Kind of like how a McDonald’s burger no longer qualifies as real food, anonymous and ultimately meaningless, what the SF art commission approves no longer really qualifies as art.
Agree with Jim Haas. Whatever the merits of the art, placing it in front of City Hall is completely inappropriate.
The stops at Market or Geary/O’Farrell would be better locations. Both are or soon will be ringed with modern architecture. Beyond that, what about maintenance?
The city spent mucho tax dollars on the light strip along The Embarcadero as well as the upward light towers in front of the Ferry Building. Both were part of the “set aside” for public art associated with that capital project. Neither has functioned for at least ten years.
Passive public art (like Cupid’s Bow) at least don’t require much maintenance. Anything with light or water (see: Vaillancourt Fountain), count on becoming a non-functional eyesore. And anyone who thinks that’s going to improve with the structural deficit we face (not to mention what Trump might do to the city’s finances) is smoking something.
As I tried to point out back at the beginning, putting these vertical bowling pins in the center of a traffic artery seems like asking for trouble. Cars are going to hit them “accidentally” for sure but I also think some are going to hit them with things projected from cars not so accidentally (like bowling over mailboxes in rural areas). I look for most of them to be bent over within a few years.
I’m Mr. Meeseeks! Look at me!
My exact thought.
Waste of money! Trees would be better!
The things are located at bus stops where people who have spray paint cans in their backpacks have time on their hands. Gosh, wonder what will happen!
Although they are cute and whimsical, I think the location is a very poor choice. I think these art pieces would look great in the Castro, or the Valencia Street corridor….maybe Hayes Valley. But our grand city hall deserves a little more elegance that would be commensurate to its architecture.
Cheerful & inoffensive. Some might say approaching corporate logo design.
Visual prozac perhaps?