The San Francisco Federal Building is an eighteen-story, 71.3-meter-high building located at 90 Seventh Street, on the corner of Mission Street, in the South of Market neighborhood of San Francisco "San Francisco (California)"), California, United States. It was designed by the architectural firm Morphosis as a supplement to the Phillip Burton Federal Building, located a few blocks away. Architect Thom Mayne of Morphosis designed the building using a juxtaposition of concrete walls, perforated metal panels, and faceted wood ceilings.[5] The building was initially estimated to be completed in 2005, but construction problems delayed the project's completion until 2007.
The building was designed to be “green” and consume less than half the energy of a conventional office building. The use of natural light to illuminate 80% of its surface contributed to it being the first federal building certified by the US Green Building Council's LEED program. conditioning.[7][8] However, the result has been criticized and described as unsatisfactory by employees working in the building, which has received low workplace satisfaction scores.[9].
Most of the building's elevators stop only on one in three floors to promote interaction between workers and health. Users of the building, after leaving the elevator, have to go up or down one floor using the stairs. However, there are also elevators that stop on all floors for users with reduced mobility or who do not want to use the stairs. As of 2019, his yard had become a large illegal drug market at night.[10].
Reception
John King, architecture critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, described the building as “both intimidating and dazzling, including its stainless steel panels that fold over the wide concrete structure like an immense origami whim. Whether you like it or not, this is provocative architecture at its finest. The eighteen-story tower and its four-story annex show how the buildings can fit together. They show that simple materials can be used in a fresh way, and they invite you to reflect on the relationship between design and environment. "[8] According to his Los Angeles Times colleague, Christopher Hawthorne, the building "shows what happens when a renowned American architect is forced [...] to embrace sustainability, and stages the confrontation between the prerogatives of architectural creativity and the fundamentals of sustainable design."[11] Hawthorne described the result. as a "burly, aggressive tower" and "perhaps the most ambitious of the federal government's efforts, through the General Services Administration's "design excellence" program, to construct new courthouses and office buildings that are models of cutting-edge design."[11] The San Francisco Federal Building has also been considered an example of the "innovative public building projects that embrace contemporary design styles and materials" that were promoted by the 1962 directive. «Guiding principles of federal architecture».[12].
provocative architecture
Introduction
The San Francisco Federal Building is an eighteen-story, 71.3-meter-high building located at 90 Seventh Street, on the corner of Mission Street, in the South of Market neighborhood of San Francisco "San Francisco (California)"), California, United States. It was designed by the architectural firm Morphosis as a supplement to the Phillip Burton Federal Building, located a few blocks away. Architect Thom Mayne of Morphosis designed the building using a juxtaposition of concrete walls, perforated metal panels, and faceted wood ceilings.[5] The building was initially estimated to be completed in 2005, but construction problems delayed the project's completion until 2007.
The building was designed to be “green” and consume less than half the energy of a conventional office building. The use of natural light to illuminate 80% of its surface contributed to it being the first federal building certified by the US Green Building Council's LEED program. conditioning.[7][8] However, the result has been criticized and described as unsatisfactory by employees working in the building, which has received low workplace satisfaction scores.[9].
Most of the building's elevators stop only on one in three floors to promote interaction between workers and health. Users of the building, after leaving the elevator, have to go up or down one floor using the stairs. However, there are also elevators that stop on all floors for users with reduced mobility or who do not want to use the stairs. As of 2019, his yard had become a large illegal drug market at night.[10].
Reception
John King, architecture critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, described the building as “both intimidating and dazzling, including its stainless steel panels that fold over the wide concrete structure like an immense origami whim. Whether you like it or not, this is provocative architecture at its finest. The eighteen-story tower and its four-story annex show how the buildings can fit together. They show that simple materials can be used in a fresh way, and they invite you to reflect on the relationship between design and environment. "[8] According to his colleague, Christopher Hawthorne, the building "shows what happens when a renowned American architect is forced [...] to embrace sustainability, and stages the confrontation between the prerogatives of architectural creativity and the fundamentals of sustainable design."[11] Hawthorne described the result. as a "burly, aggressive tower" and "perhaps the most ambitious of the federal government's efforts, through the General Services Administration's "design excellence" program, to construct new courthouses and office buildings that are models of cutting-edge design."[11] The San Francisco Federal Building has also been considered an example of the "innovative public building projects that embrace contemporary design styles and materials" that were promoted by the 1962 directive. «Guiding principles of federal architecture».[12].
The construction cost of the building was $144 million.[11] The architect's decision to eliminate the usual HVAC system saved $11 million.[13] At the same time, the non-functional use of extensive metal sunshades folded at ground level, which some believe are purely for aesthetic reasons and required significant galvanized steel reinforcements, added several million dollars to the cost of the project.[11].
The Morphosis design was chosen, at least in part, for its projected energy efficiency, a requirement of the General Services Administration (GSA). However, at the time of its design the GSA did not require LEED certification, and the building was not evaluated for this certification until after its construction; the result was negative. Mayne said, “I wasn't arrogant, but I was confident: I just assumed we would get [LEED's highest] platinum certification. “All of a sudden we went through LEED and it didn’t work.” Ultimately, the building only achieved LEED silver certification, two levels below platinum.[14].
The building has been criticized by its employees for being dysfunctional. According to one employee interviewed by BeyondChron.com, "workers try to alleviate the heat by opening the windows, which not only causes papers to fly, but, depending on the distance from the window, makes it virtually impossible to create a stable temperature for all workers [...] some employees have to use umbrellas to protect their cubicles from the sun."[14]
Mayne believed that the federal government should be a model in promoting worker health and physical exercise. This led him to specify that passenger elevators only stop on one in every three floors, which means that a good part of the workers and visitors have to go up or down one or two floors of the stairs to reach their destination. There are also elevators for people with reduced mobility that stop on all floors, but they have become commonly used also by people without mobility problems, causing congestion.[14].
Unlike most large government office buildings, the San Francisco Federal Building does not have a cafeteria within the building itself. Instead, the cafeteria was placed just outside the building, in the public plaza, again due to the architect's belief that this would encourage employees to walk, interact with each other, and improve their health, a situation that appears not to be appreciated by some of the two thousand four hundred employees working in the building.[14]
In 2010, the GSA commissioned a survey to determine the satisfaction of employees working in twenty-two federal buildings across the country, including the San Francisco Federal Building. The buildings included in this study achieved satisfaction scores between 13% and 98%; Seventeen of the twenty-two buildings achieved greater than 50% satisfaction. While incorporating many green concepts more aggressively than other buildings, the building with the lowest employee satisfaction was the San Francisco Federal Building, at just 13%; the next least satisfactory scored 26%. The building obtained scores significantly lower than the median in the categories of thermal comfort, lighting and acoustics.[9].
In 2020, then-President Donald Trump issued an executive order “on promoting beautiful federal architecture.” This order mentions the building as an example of unsatisfactory design, stating that "to design the San Francisco Federal Building the GSA chose an architect who describes his designs as "art for art's sake" architecture, designed primarily to be appreciated by other architects. While elite architects praised the result, many San Franciscans consider it one of the ugliest buildings in their city.”[15] This executive order was revoked by President Joe Biden in February 2021.[16].
Awards
The San Francisco Federal Building won a design award from the San Francisco branch of the American Institute of Architects in 2008, which praised its open spaces and environmentally friendly design.[17] The building received LEED silver certification from the US Green Building Council.[18] In June 2012, the Building Owner and Managers Association (BOMA) named the San Francisco Federal Building "outstanding building of the year" in the government category. The GSA was also recognized by the commercial real estate industry for the quality of its buildings and excellence in building management and operations.[19].
• - Annex: Tallest buildings in San Francisco.
• - Annex: Tallest buildings in the United States.
• - Wikimedia Commons hosts a multimedia category on San Francisco Federal Building "commons:Category:United States Federal Building (San Francisco, California)").
• - San Francisco Federal Building Archived August 20, 2016 at the Wayback Machine. at USGSA.
[7] ↑ Alter, Lloyd (9 de marzo de 2007). «San Francisco Federal Building». TreeHugger (en inglés). Archivado desde el original el 22 de febrero de 2017. Consultado el 11 de abril de 2022.: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/san_francisco_f_1.php
[11] ↑ a b c d Christopher Hawthorne (21 de marzo de 2007). «Green clashes with design in S.F. tower» (en inglés). Archivado desde el original el 26 de julio de 2014. Consultado el 11 de abril de 2022.: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/21/entertainment/et-sanfran21
[19] ↑ Madison, Traci (23 de julio de 2012). «San Francisco Federal Building captures BOMA International TOBY Award» (en inglés). U.S. General Services Administration. Archivado desde el original el 2 de octubre de 2012. Consultado el 11 de abril de 2022.: https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/139031
Los Angeles Times
The construction cost of the building was $144 million.[11] The architect's decision to eliminate the usual HVAC system saved $11 million.[13] At the same time, the non-functional use of extensive metal sunshades folded at ground level, which some believe are purely for aesthetic reasons and required significant galvanized steel reinforcements, added several million dollars to the cost of the project.[11].
The Morphosis design was chosen, at least in part, for its projected energy efficiency, a requirement of the General Services Administration (GSA). However, at the time of its design the GSA did not require LEED certification, and the building was not evaluated for this certification until after its construction; the result was negative. Mayne said, “I wasn't arrogant, but I was confident: I just assumed we would get [LEED's highest] platinum certification. “All of a sudden we went through LEED and it didn’t work.” Ultimately, the building only achieved LEED silver certification, two levels below platinum.[14].
The building has been criticized by its employees for being dysfunctional. According to one employee interviewed by BeyondChron.com, "workers try to alleviate the heat by opening the windows, which not only causes papers to fly, but, depending on the distance from the window, makes it virtually impossible to create a stable temperature for all workers [...] some employees have to use umbrellas to protect their cubicles from the sun."[14]
Mayne believed that the federal government should be a model in promoting worker health and physical exercise. This led him to specify that passenger elevators only stop on one in every three floors, which means that a good part of the workers and visitors have to go up or down one or two floors of the stairs to reach their destination. There are also elevators for people with reduced mobility that stop on all floors, but they have become commonly used also by people without mobility problems, causing congestion.[14].
Unlike most large government office buildings, the San Francisco Federal Building does not have a cafeteria within the building itself. Instead, the cafeteria was placed just outside the building, in the public plaza, again due to the architect's belief that this would encourage employees to walk, interact with each other, and improve their health, a situation that appears not to be appreciated by some of the two thousand four hundred employees working in the building.[14]
In 2010, the GSA commissioned a survey to determine the satisfaction of employees working in twenty-two federal buildings across the country, including the San Francisco Federal Building. The buildings included in this study achieved satisfaction scores between 13% and 98%; Seventeen of the twenty-two buildings achieved greater than 50% satisfaction. While incorporating many green concepts more aggressively than other buildings, the building with the lowest employee satisfaction was the San Francisco Federal Building, at just 13%; the next least satisfactory scored 26%. The building obtained scores significantly lower than the median in the categories of thermal comfort, lighting and acoustics.[9].
In 2020, then-President Donald Trump issued an executive order “on promoting beautiful federal architecture.” This order mentions the building as an example of unsatisfactory design, stating that "to design the San Francisco Federal Building the GSA chose an architect who describes his designs as "art for art's sake" architecture, designed primarily to be appreciated by other architects. While elite architects praised the result, many San Franciscans consider it one of the ugliest buildings in their city.”[15] This executive order was revoked by President Joe Biden in February 2021.[16].
Awards
The San Francisco Federal Building won a design award from the San Francisco branch of the American Institute of Architects in 2008, which praised its open spaces and environmentally friendly design.[17] The building received LEED silver certification from the US Green Building Council.[18] In June 2012, the Building Owner and Managers Association (BOMA) named the San Francisco Federal Building "outstanding building of the year" in the government category. The GSA was also recognized by the commercial real estate industry for the quality of its buildings and excellence in building management and operations.[19].
• - Annex: Tallest buildings in San Francisco.
• - Annex: Tallest buildings in the United States.
• - Wikimedia Commons hosts a multimedia category on San Francisco Federal Building "commons:Category:United States Federal Building (San Francisco, California)").
• - San Francisco Federal Building Archived August 20, 2016 at the Wayback Machine. at USGSA.
[7] ↑ Alter, Lloyd (9 de marzo de 2007). «San Francisco Federal Building». TreeHugger (en inglés). Archivado desde el original el 22 de febrero de 2017. Consultado el 11 de abril de 2022.: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/san_francisco_f_1.php
[11] ↑ a b c d Christopher Hawthorne (21 de marzo de 2007). «Green clashes with design in S.F. tower» (en inglés). Archivado desde el original el 26 de julio de 2014. Consultado el 11 de abril de 2022.: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/21/entertainment/et-sanfran21
[19] ↑ Madison, Traci (23 de julio de 2012). «San Francisco Federal Building captures BOMA International TOBY Award» (en inglés). U.S. General Services Administration. Archivado desde el original el 2 de octubre de 2012. Consultado el 11 de abril de 2022.: https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/139031