Michael Maltzan won the commission for an SFSU $250million performance center (or $268, according to LATimes sources, but who's counting?). Latest from Archpaper. Meanwhile, SFSU still considers urban studies and planning a disposable major (see this).
Will it get built? Should it get built? My quick take here. [Update: the name behind the building is Manny Mashouf, otherwise known as the founder of the bebe brand].
3 Comments
Javier - it's 3 phases over 9 years. Do they really have to sell all the bonds, all at once?
Also, give some props to the university if they've raised the money to do the designs - we can all debate whether that should go to the students or general funds, but I'm thrilled people are going to be at work on it.
Should it get built? You've seen the piss ante shite that passes for most buildings these days, correct? Whatever the faults this may ultimately have, it's one of MM's best looking large scale buildings thus far. I'm going to vote yes...
Greg, your points are well taken. But there are a lot of assumptions in what you're saying and what the critics are reporting. First of all, you suggest that the designs were paid with money they raised. That's not entirely clear and for all we know, the firms themselves balanced the fees on their own backs. We all know that's common.
But the larger issue is that, even though the project will be 20% private-funded, that leaves 80% of the money to be mostly borrowed. (Oh, and then it has the name of the person that donated merely $10 million out of hundreds of millions that was needed). If you study what has happened all over the state at so-called public universities, the borrowing is guaranteed by collateral from raising tuition while cutting programs (like urban studies!).
Yes, Maltzan's design is not "piss shite," but we continue to latch onto such a reductive view of what a well-meaning, intellectual architect is supposed to offer or defend. Let others worry about the messy work. The architect only produces the sexiest possible scheme and finest details, which at the end of the day offers no alternatives to the client's exclusivist ideas of service or publicness. And I'm speaking only in general terms, not judging SFSU yet on how the building will serve the public, for example) And... then architects complain later because no one wants to listen to their ideas outside of the superficial appearance.
It would be the biggest building, or the group of buildings, in SFSU campus. There are already overflow of creative arts majors in the job market. Very small percentage of the fine arts graduates make living from their degrees. So, I am thinking that these "instant legacy" type of arts buildings are usually DOA. The building offers five auditoriums in one spot.. Whoa! "Let them eat dance."
As an architect I can see the skills of the architects in the building design, but I am also inclined to say "what a waste" considering a lot of money will be coming from public pockets for this overkill project. A real "shite piss" considering the recent cuts from CAL SU system budget.
They could expand on Urban Studies program with the fraction of the money and still build a decent performance hall (like in the featured rendering) and adequate number of arts classrooms around them. That could also keep few architects busy for few years, if the jobs are the sympathy factor.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.