Wednesday, February 14, 2007

1,500-unit housing plan near Disneyland dies

The Anaheim council’s 2-2 vote allows the Planning Commission’s rejection of the controversial proposal to stand.
By Dave McKibben, Times Staff Writer
February 14, 2007

After three hours of rancorous debate Tuesday, the Anaheim City Council split on a vote to approve a controversial housing proposal near Disneyland. As a result, City Atty. Jack White said, a previous Planning Commission ruling against the plan will stand.

The unusual 2-2 tie vote resulted from Councilwoman Lucille Kring leaving the meeting before the proposal was discussed. Kring said she had a conflict of interest because she holds a lease in the GardenWalk retail project near the site.

Mayor Curt Pringle and Councilman Harry Sidhu voted against the proposal, with council members Lorri Galloway and Bob Hernandez supporting it.

Disney officials, who have opposed the proposal from the outset, expressed relief.

“Right now our position was the winning one,” Disney spokesman Rob Doughty said. The resort “vision” for the area is protected, he said, protecting a large proportion of general fund revenue for the city.

More than two dozen business leaders and community activists spoke out against the housing proposal, including representatives of Disney and hotels in the resort district.

The public hearing on Platinum Pointe came three weeks after the Planning Commission unanimously rejected a proposal to allow 225 apartments and 1,275 condominiums on 26 acres at Katella Avenue and Haster Street. While acknowledging the merits of the lower-cost housing that the proposal would allow, the commissioners said then that it was more important to preserve a 13-year-old zoning plan that had revitalized a district once lined with tacky retail and souvenir shops and seedy motels.

Disney officials have opposed the proposal ever since the council gave it the green light in August by voting 4 to 1 to permit residential complexes within an area of the resort being rezoned for upscale hotel-condominium projects. The matter was returned to the Planning Commission once a specific plan was submitted.

Disney officials have argued that the dispute is not a referendum on lower-cost housing but on continuing the revitalization plan in the resort.

In a last-ditch attempt to derail the proposal, officials from Disney distributed an “urgent” e-mail to community leaders asking them to “help save the Anaheim resort area” by calling council members or attending Tuesday’s meeting.

Lower-cost-housing advocates say there was a flaw in the 1994 resort plan and that building more hotels would exacerbate the city’s shortage of cheaper housing.

“What better place to have affordable housing than next to the job source itself … Disneyland,” said Cesar Covarrubias of the Kennedy Commission, an Orange County-based housing advocacy group.

Posted by M at 14:17:56 | Permalink | No Comments »

Grand Avenue project passes go

City and county OK the $2.05-billion plan to reshape downtown L.A.
By Cara Mia DiMassa and Jack Leonard, Times Staff Writers
February 14, 2007

Grand Avenue Project A new Bunker HillUnveiling

Grand plans Makeover

Despite criticism about tax breaks and land giveaways, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council gave final approvals Tuesday to a sprawling mini-city atop Bunker Hill that will alter L.A.’s skyline and set a course for future development in downtown.

Elected officials and other backers of the Grand Avenue project described the vote as a turning point for Los Angeles, whose civic leaders have tried for decades without success to establish a central cultural hub downtown that would draw people from throughout the region.


“This is a historic day for Los Angeles. It changes the entire complexion of the center of our city,” said civic booster Eli Broad, who is spearheading the development.

The $2.05-billion Grand Avenue project would be the largest single development in downtown history, and would be built almost entirely on public land that would be leased for 99 years to mega-developer the Related Cos. It has few if any equals in the region, in part because of the complexity and scope of the private-public partnership.

The project also has emerged as Los Angeles’ most ambitious effort to create dense, high-rise residential developments next to rail lines, offices, cultural attractions and shopping.

Though some consider the project a model for “smart growth” aimed at encouraging people to walk and use mass transit rather than drive, others see it as a tax giveaway that is not in the interests of local government. Critics complain that Related is essentially getting a double subsidy: The city and county are leasing the developer public land for a profit-making business at the same time that the city is granting breaks on future hotel and parking taxes.

They also question whether the project would be the regional magnet its backers hope.

Both the council and board voted Tuesday, in part to demonstrate their lock-step support for the project. The City Council approved the deal 13 to 0, with Councilman Ed Reyes absent. The supervisors approved the project 4 to 1, with Mike Antonovich voting against it.

By approving the deal, the governmental bodies agreed to transfer the land for the first phase of the project — a county-owned parcel — to the Grand Avenue Authority, a joint city-county agency that will in turn lease it to Related. (Later phases include land owned by the city’s redevelopment agency.)

The votes green-light all three phases of Grand Avenue, which calls for at least five new high-rise buildings and 3.6 million square feet of development.

The first phase would include two translucent glass residential towers to be designed by Frank Gehry, one 49 stories and the other 24.

One tower would include a five-star Mandarin Oriental hotel. Two hundred of the 1,000 housing units included in the first phase would be reserved for low-income residents.

The municipal bodies also approved the development of a 16-acre park between the Music Center and City Hall as part of the project’s first phase — one of the civic benefits that backers said was vital to the project’s success.

The development marks the furthest-reaching effort by local leaders to turn downtown into a 24-hour district on par with areas of New York, Chicago, London and Paris. Downtown has long retained a reputation as a sleepy district that virtually shuts down at sunset, though a recent boom in lofts and other high-end residential development is slowly changing that.

The project will rise in an area that since the early 1960s has been at the center of plans for downtown’s revival. Through the 1950s, Bunker Hill was a funky — even seedy — collection of Victorian apartment buildings and boardinghouses that inspired some Los Angeles writers. The city leveled the neighborhood to make way for an extension of the high-rise district.

Backers believe that Grand Avenue can succeed where other downtown revitalizations have failed. They said that it would rise amid such cultural landmarks as Walt Disney Concert Hall, the other venues of the Music Center and the Museum of Contemporary Art at a time when downtown is suddenly a hot destination for the first time in decades.

But even some supporters said it remained to be seen whether such a massive undertaking could change the way people think about the city center.

“Done right, redevelopment is a tool for good. Done wrong, it’s horrible,” county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. “I really believe, let me tell you, there have been more pairs of eyes looking over this project than any I can ever remember.”

Though the project has attracted mostly praise at recent public meetings, the tax breaks and other public support have their detractors.

“The desire for an iconic skyline, that’s just for aesthetics,” said Antonovich, a longtime opponent of the project. “That should be borne by a developer and not the taxpayers who reside in the entire county.”

Christopher Sutton, an attorney for the Westin Bonaventure Hotel, which has opposed the tax breaks for the Mandarin Oriental, told the City Council and the Board of Supervisors that his client was prepared to take legal action to block the project if necessary. He called the project a “direct threat” to the Bonaventure.

The hotel issued a similar ultimatum when the convention center at L.A. Live, another mega-project being built at the south end of downtown, received a larger tax rebate in 2005. But that project has moved forward and will open its first phase this year.

Related Cos. said the Grand Avenue project was not feasible without the subsidies. The developer has spent months negotiating behind the scenes for the tax breaks, an increasingly common incentive used by cities to attract catalytic projects.

Early estimates put the tax rebates for Grand Avenue at $40 million over 20 years. But a recent report from the city’s legislative analyst estimated that the rebates could cost $66 million. The largest tax break would be in the 14% city hotel tax, a maximum of $60.5 million over 20 years, the report said.

From the beginning, the Grand Avenue project has been marked by a nontraditional public-private marriage. Besides the proposed tax breaks, government agencies are providing the land, investing in street improvements and subsidizing affordable housing in the project.

Related and its fiscal partners, meanwhile, are taking much of the financial risk — particularly tenuous in a downtown real estate market that has shown signs of softening. They also are subject to a number of requirements, including the condition that all construction and permanent jobs in the development meet the city’s “prevailing” or “living” wage requirements.

In addition, the agreement calls for developers to give at least 30% of jobs to workers living within five miles of the site. That clause was criticized by Antonovich, who described the city deal as unfair to workers who live elsewhere in the county.

“It’s Jim Crow of the 21st century,” Antonovich said. “We’re denying them their constitutional rights to work in their own county?”

Despite those criticisms, several civic leaders said it was rare for the city and county to cooperate so fully as they have to move the Grand Avenue project forward.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who serves on the joint powers authority board, called the level of cooperation unprecedented.

Though the city, county and developer each would bear a portion of the project’s financial risk, each also would profit if the development was a success.

The city and county could reap substantial tax revenue from the project, far more than they receive now from the properties, which are either vacant or parking lots.

Related has written a $50-million check to the civic agencies, which represents the prepaid ground lease on the first phase and a portion of the second phase of the project.

Related has said that construction of the first phase is expected to start in October and be completed in June 2011.


cara.dimassa@latimes.com

jack.leonard@latimes.com

Posted by M at 14:07:31 | Permalink | No Comments »

Beyond Moscow, Dachas Make Way for Suburbia

Price Boom in City Fuels Middle-Class Exodus

By Peter Finn Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A11 Washington Post Foreign Service

PEREDELKINO, Russia — The unpaved, unlit roads are clogged with traffic. Getting to and from work in the center of Moscow is a 90-minute crawl each way. The schools are lousy. There are no stores within walking distance. Local health-care facilities are primitive.

And Ekaterina Korobtsova couldn’t be happier.

In December, Korobtsova, her husband and their 3-year-old son left their Moscow apartment and moved into an all-pine, 2,700-square-foot home in this settlement a few miles outside Moscow’s city limits.

“When I was pregnant four years ago, I discovered there is no oxygen in Moscow,” said Korobtsova, 39, a senior manager in a telecommunications company. “Here, we have fresh air. We can walk in the forest. We will hear birds sing in the spring. And we don’t have to smell our neighbors’ cooking.”

Korobtsova is part of a wave of homesteaders transforming the forested environs of Moscow into the beginnings of suburbia. Billboards across the city advertise developments with names such as Navaho, Monaco, Chelsea, Sherwood or, injecting a little Russian flavor, Barvika Hills.

For decades, bucolic, peaceful villages such as Peredelkino were summer retreats for Muscovites escaping to modest country homes known as dachas. Peredelkino was known as a writers’ village. Boris Pasternak, author of the novel “Doctor Zhivago,” had a dacha here and is buried here as well.

But as in much of the countryside around Moscow, Peredelkino’s old character is fast vanishing. New apartment buildings, townhouse developments and gated communities of sumptuous villas are appearing beyond the capital’s outer beltway as Muscovites abandon urban living.

The super-rich trekked out of the city first. Now they are being followed by members of a rising middle class seeking cheaper housing in a cleaner environment.

Helping fuel the trend is a real-estate boom that is driving up prices in the city by about 30 percent a year. New but bare and unpainted apartments there now start at about $250 a square foot. In the suburbs, the cost is about $100.

“Moscow is extremely expensive, fantastically expensive, for real estate,” said Andrei Treivish, a professor at the Institute of Geography in Moscow. “The suburbs are growing not only due to the people from the city but people from other regions in Russia looking for a foothold near the city.”

In 2004, for the first time, construction of new residences, including apartments, in the region that rings Moscow exceeded the amount of new building in the city, according to government statistics.

Detached single-family homes outside Moscow range from $500,000 to the tens of million of dollars in the most exclusive neighborhoods, where Ferrari showrooms and Dolce & Gabbana boutiques grace onetime country roads.

Russians quaintly call their villas “cottages,” a misnomer for the neo-Georgian and neo-Gothic mansions springing up in the pine forests.

Set in a village of fabulous houses in Veshki, just northwest of the city line, Vladimir Kudr’s 6,500-square-foot home boasts a sauna and a small swimming pool in the basement, vaulted, light-filled rooms and lots of marble.

“We have horseback riding, bike riding, the forest, lakes, clean air,” said Kudr, 39, a computer-game entrepreneur who is married with three children. “For a family, it’s perfect.”

A more modest version of that lifestyle is increasingly feasible for middle-class Muscovites as mortgage lending, unheard of just five years ago, brings home ownership within their grasp.

Lending has grown to $6 billion annually, up from about $1 billion when Russian banks first started offering mortgages three years ago, according to government figures. The government has been pushing banks to lower mortgage interest rates, which currently stand at 11 percent.

Other city residents, such as Korobtsova and her husband, are selling or renting their city apartments, some of which were acquired in the privatizations of the 1990s, to finance larger homes in the suburbs.

“In five or 10 years, Moscow will look more like a Western metropolitan area,” said Oleg Repchenko, head of IRN, a real-estate analytical group. He predicts that services, improved transport links and schools will quickly follow. “Suburbanization is in its infancy, but it’s accelerating,” he said.

Big-box stores such as Ikea have already appeared in the outer ring, and half of all new office development is occurring there, Repchenko said.

To cater to the middle class, more modest townhouse developments have begun to appear in the past couple of years, with starting prices of around $300,000.

Aleksey Yefremov and his wife sold their Moscow apartment and moved into a townhouse in Dolgoprudny, just north of the city, last year. “Nobody is walking loudly upstairs. Nobody dumps their garbage on my doorstep. And the snow next to my house is white,” said Yefremov, a 52-year-old management consultant. “It feels like home.”

Posted by M at 08:02:13 | Permalink | No Comments »

Flying the cleanly skies?

Without a viable jet-fuel alternative, air travel in 30 years may be only for the wealthy.

Just a few decades from now, people may look back at the early 21st century with both fondness and horror as the Era of the Cheap Airline Flight. They may wax nostalgic for the days when visiting distant relatives and taking vacations in exotic locales were easily affordable for the masses. But they also may be alarmed at how long it took the world to realize the havoc that unfettered air travel was wreaking on the world’s climate.

At least one travel industry official predicts that in 30 years, long-distance flying will be undertaken only by the wealthy as ticket prices rise dramatically – and the number of flights shrinks proportionately – to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases created by air travel.

 

Jet engines burn kerosene, which gives off carbon dioxide (CO2), a leading cause of global warming. Airline flights today make up less than 3 percent of man-made CO2 emissions, though they also spew nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, soot, and water vapor that may double their total warming effect on the climate.

Now two factors are conspiring to make airline travel a hot topic in the global-warming debate: If current trends continue, the number of airline tickets sold per year will double to more than 9 billion by 2025, according to a new study by the Airports Council International. At the same time, experts see no viable jet-fuel alternative to kerosene. While some modest fuel-conservation measures still can be taken, more and more people are concluding that fewer flights may be the only way to cut airline emissions significantly.

In Britain, a prosperous island country that makes heavy use of air travel, CO2 emissions from flights will surpass those from automobile trips in the next six to eight years, says Alice Bows, a senior research fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

Four years ago, the British government pledged to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 60 percent by midcentury. As the difficulty in achieving that goal has become more evident, air travel has become the whipping boy for environmentalists. Prime Minister Tony Blair was criticized for flying to Miami for a Christmas holiday, and Prince Charles was viewed as a hypocrite for boarding a jet to Philadelphia to accept an environmental award. Last summer, the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, called taking a vacation by airline “a symptom of sin” in which “people ignore the consequences of their actions.” The bishop vowed he would not board an airplane in 2007.

Asking the British people to cut down on air travel is impractical, Mr. Blair says. But the government has just upped a tax on airline flights from £10 to £40 ($19 to $76), depending on the length of the flight, in the name of reducing air travel and CO2 emissions.

For years, airline companies have worked to increase fuel efficiency (and coincidentally reduce CO2 emissions) to counter the skyrocketing price of kerosene. New aircraft, such as Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner due out in the summer of 2008, will be made of lighter composite materials and employ other fuel-saving measures. But these improvements won’t be nearly enough to offset the predicted increase in demand for air travel (including air freight).

Other fuel-saving suggestions include pulling planes from the gate to the runway with their engines only idling, reducing the fuel used to taxi into position for takeoff.

Modernized air-traffic control systems could reduce the number of planes circling airports waiting to land or take off, says John Meenan, executive vice president of the Air Transport Association of America, which represents the nation’s airlines. Commercial airliners today follow ground beacons to their destinations that result in indirect and inefficient zigzag routes, Mr. Meenan says. A new air traffic management system could yield a 12 to 15 percent improvement in environmental performance.

“It’s a matter of making the investment to make that happen,” he says.

In the long term, biofuels, possibly ethanol made from switch grass or biowaste, could provide an alternative. But no one knows when that could happen. “One of the realities we’re dealing with in aviation is that there are no alternatives” to CO2-emitting kerosene fuels, Meenan says.

The European Union has proposed incorporating aviation into its carbon-emissions trading plan by 2011, a so-called “cap and trade” scheme. That would allow airlines to “buy” the right to emit carbon from other industries, such as power generation, which could sell carbon credits if they reduced their emissions below their cap.

People aren’t going to give up airline travel easily. For long-distance travel, there’s really no practical replacement. “We think the free movement of people and goods is a pretty fundamental right,” says Graham Lancaster, a spokesman for Britain’s Federation of Tour Operators.

The effect of a drastic reduction of airline flights on the world economy would be significant. Aviation drives about 9 percent of world GDP, Meenan says.

“The countries that would be hit hardest would be developing countries, because they’re more dependent on tourism,” says Justin Francis, CEO of responsibletravel.com, an online travel agency specializing in ecotourism based in Brighton, England. In half of the developing countries, tourism is one of the top three industries, he says.

“My view is that we must fly less,” Mr. Francis says, adding that the ecoconscious might decide to take only one big vacation flight each year and take shorter nonflying vacations the rest of the year. Hopping around Europe every few weeks on the low-cost airlines that have sprung up in recent years would have to end, he says.

“The world is coming to realize the biggest threat we face is carbon emissions,” Francis says. “Governments are under pressure to take action. One of the places they will look is the airline industry because it is such a rapidly growing source of emissions.”

Posted by M at 07:41:52 | Permalink | No Comments »

When it comes to the tops in architecture, it’s all about how it makes people feel

John King; Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Golden Gate Bridge delights the eye. Chronicle photo,... The abstract form and copper facade of the de Young Museu... Yosemite's Ahwahnee Hotel made the cut. Chronicle photo, ... The architects' nomination of the Marin Civic Center didn...

Too bad it can’t convey another important fact: Beauty is more than skin deep.

Voting was simple: The people surveyed were shown photographs of 248 structures and asked to rate each one on a scale of 1 to 5.

The Empire State Building scored highest and then the White House. The Golden Gate Bridge came in at a robust No. 5 between the Jefferson Memorial and the U.S. Capitol.

From there on, the list is the architectural equivalent of comfort food. There are such postcard-worthy icons as the Sears Tower (No. 42) and the Transamerica Pyramid (No. 61), and an abundance of neo-classical landmarks of the City Beautiful movement: Take a bow, San Francisco City Hall (No. 49), and don’t feel too bad about trailing the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., by 21 slots.

More eye candy? The parade of upper-crust hotels that begins with the Biltmore Estate (No. 8) is graced by the Ahwahnee Hotel at No. 26 and our Fairmont Hotel at No. 89, and concludes with Denver’s Brown Palace Hotel (No. 148).

But the reality check for me isn’t the Top 150, a number chosen to mark the AIA’s 150th anniversary. It’s the Other 98 — the also-rans that were nominated by architects but didn’t get enough votes to make the list of favorites.

At least a dozen buildings in the reject pile strike me as candidates for any serious list of the best American architecture of the past 100 years. There’s the First Church of Christ Scientist in Berkeley, the Bay Area building most revered by architects, and the Salk Institute in La Jolla, one of several Louis Kahn masterpieces that didn’t make the cut. In Chicago, the losers include the Inland Steel and John Hancock buildings — perhaps the finest modern landmarks in that architectural Oz.

So what gives? Are the all-powerful 1,804 people surveyed a bunch of backward-looking traditionalists? Or am I an insider who’s been corrupted — ignoring the virtues of curb appeal for an elitist brand of austere chic?

For example: Earlier this month I passed through the Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. Standing in line and checking my bags, I was transported by the terminal’s column-free sweep and seemingly weightless curved roof. It captures the sense of imminent flight that other airports try vainly to achieve.

Savoring the unexpected kick, I looked up Dulles when I got back home. Not only was it by modern master Eero Saarinen, the AIA in 1991 selected it as one of 10 “all-time works of American architects.”

In 2007, it doesn’t make the cut.

The official AIA spin likens the Top 150 to a scenic public service.

“The thing we were trying to do was set up a dialogue with the public,” says RK Stewart, this year’s president of the institution and a principal at the San Francisco firm Gensler. “This isn’t necessarily the design professional’s view of the best buildings, but the emotional connection to where people live and work and play.”

It’s a smart distinction, and one worth remembering the next time I swoon at a particularly taut mullion. Architects and critics can bring expectations to a building that are at odds with real life. The general public isn’t looking for cultural sustenance, or a three-dimensional manifesto on the inequities of capitalism. The starting point is more basic: How does it feel?

That’s why I have no quibbles with the Giants’ ballpark coming in at No. 104. It’s a genuine treat, from the way it cozies up to King Street to the way that China Basin collides with right field. The faux Fenway exterior is a bit much, but no big deal.

And great buildings can succeed as both art and ambience. Stop by San Francisco’s City Hall for all the proof you need.

But the best of those 98 also-rans have a point to make as well: There’s more to architecture than a picture can convey.

That’s because buildings are the most interactive art form that exists. Their materials are as essential as the care with which they’re assembled. The interior spaces tell stories of their own. Their appearance is transformed by each change in perspective or shift of the sun.

So when a list of “America’s Favorite Architecture” relies on single photos shown to people selected at random, we’re missing what endures.

No wonder the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum in Golden Gate Park fell short of the Top 150: The abstract form and copper facade aren’t as photogenic as, say, the Dolphin and Swan hotels at Walt Disney World (No. 70). But the suave decorum of the lobby, or the intricate knit of museum and park … those elements linger in the memory long after what can be a dour first impression.

According to Stewart, his hope is that the list of favorites will jog his peers to ask “why doesn’t it (modern architecture) resonate with the public the way it resonates with the profession?”

Good question. But don’t forget this. The best buildings reveal their pleasures over time — not just at first glance.


America’s Top 150 Structures

The following are the 150 favorite pieces of American architecture, according to the public poll “America’s Favorite Architecture” conducted by The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Harris Interactive, are as follows. They are listed by rank, name of building and the architect. For more details on the winners, visit www.aia150.org.

1 Empire State Building — New York City William Lamb, Shreve, Lamb & Harmon
2 The White House — Washington, D.C. James Hoban
3 Washington National Cathedral — Washington, D.C. George F. Bodley and Henry Vaughan, FAIA
4 Thomas Jefferson Memorial — Washington D.C. John Russell Pope, FAIA
5 Golden Gate Bridge — San Francisco Irving F. Morrow and Gertrude C. Morrow
6 U.S. Capitol — Washington, D.C. William Thornton, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, Charles Bulfinch, Thomas U. Walter FAIA, Montgomery C. Meigs
7 Lincoln Memorial — Washington, D.C. Henry Bacon, FAIA
8 Biltmore Estate (Vanderbilt Residence) — Asheville, NC Richard Morris Hunt, FAIA
9 Chrysler Building — New York City William Van Alen, FAIA
10 Vietnam Veterans Memorial — Washington, D.C. Maya Lin with Cooper– Lecky Partnership
11 St. Patrick’s Cathedral — New York City James Renwick, FAIA
12 Washington Monument — Washington, D.C. Robert Mills
13 Grand Central Station — New York City Reed and Stern; Warren and Wetmore
14 The Gateway Arch — St. Louis Eero Saarinen, FAIA
15 Supreme Court of the United States — Washington, D.C. Cass Gilbert, FAIA
16 St. Regis Hotel — New York City Trowbridge & Livingston
17 Metropolitan Museum of Art Ð New York City Calvert Vaux, FAIA; McKim, Mead & White; Richard Morris Hunt, FAIA; Kevin Roche, FAIA; John Dinkeloo, FAIA
18 Hotel Del Coronado — San Diego James Reid, FAIA
19 World Trade Center — New York City Minoru Yamasaki, FAIA; Antonio Brittiochi; Emery Roth & Sons
20 Brooklyn Bridge — New York City John Augustus Roebling
21 Philadelphia City Hall — Philadelphia John McArthur Jr., FAIA
22 Bellagio Hotel and Casino — Las Vegas Deruyter Butler; Atlandia Design
23 Cathedral of St. John the Divine — New York City Heins & La Farge; Ralph Adams Cram
24 Philadelphia Museum of Art — Philadelphia Horace Trumbauer, Zantzinger, Borie, and Medary
25 Trinity Church — Boston Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA
26 Ahwahnee Hotel — Yosemite Valley, CA Gilbert Stanley Underwood
27 Monticello — Charlottesville, VA Thomas Jefferson
28 Library of Congress — Washington, D.C. John L. Smithmeyer, FAIA and Paul J. Pelz, FAIA
29 Kaufmann Residence (Fallingwater) — Bear Run, PA Frank Lloyd Wright
30 Taliesin — Spring Green, WI Frank Lloyd Wright
31 Wrigley Field — Chicago Zachary Taylor Davis
32 Wanamaker’s Department Store — Philadelphia Daniel Burnham, FAIA Building Architect
33 Rose Center for Earth and Space — New York City James Stewart Polshek, FAIA
34 National Gallery of Art, West Building — Washington, D.C. John Russell Pope, FAIA
35 Allegheny County Courthouse — Pittsburgh Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA
36 Old Faithful Inn — Yellowstone National Park, WY Robert Reamer
37 Union Station — Washington, D.C. Daniel Burnham, FAIA
38 Tribune Tower — Chicago Howells & Hood
39 Delano Hotel — Miami Beach Robert Swartburg; Philippe Starck (interior)
40 Union Station — St. Louis Theodore C. Link, FAIA
41 Hearst Residence (Hearst Castle) — San Simeon, CA Julia Morgan
42 Sears Tower — Chicago Bruce Graham, FAIA, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
43 Crane Library — Quincy, MA Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA
44 Woolworth Building — New York City Cass Gilbert, FAIA
45 Cincinnati Union Terminal — Cincinnati Alfred Fellheimer, FAIA and Stewart Wagner, FAIA; Paul Philippe Cret, consulting architect
46 Waldorf Astoria — New York City Schultze & Weaver
47 New York Public Library — New York City Carrere & Hastings
48 Carnegie Hall — New York City William B. Tuthill, FAIA; Richard Morris Hunt, FAIA and Dankmar Adler, FAIA, consulting architects
49 San Francisco City Hall — San Francisco Arthur Brown Jr., FAIA
50 Virginia State Capitol — Richmond, VA Thomas Jefferson
51 Cadet Chapel, Air Force Academy — Colorado Springs, CO Walter Netsch, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
52 Field Museum of Natural History — Chicago Charles B. Atwood, D. H. Burnham & Co.
53 Apple Store Fifth Avenue — New York City Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
54 Fisher Fine Arts Library, University of Pennsylvania — Philadelphia Frank Furness, FAIA
55 Mauna Kea Beach Hotel — Kohala Coast, HI Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
56 Rockefeller Center — New York City Raymond Hood et al., FAIA
57 Denver International Airport — Denver Fentress Bradburn Architects
58 Ames Library — North Easton, MA Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA
59 Milwaukee Art Museum — Milwaukee Santiago Calatrava, FAIA
60 Thorncrown Chapel — Eureka Springs, AK E. Fay Jones, FAIA
61 TransAmerica Pyramid — San Francisco William Pereira, FAIA
62 333 Wacker Drive — Chicago William E. Pedersen, FAIA, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates
63 National Museum of Air and Space — Washington, D.C. Gyo Obata, FAIA, Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum
64 Faneuil Hall Marketplace — Boston Benjamin Thompson, FAIA
65 Crystal Cathedral — Garden Grove, CA Philip Johnson, FAIA, Johnson/Burgee
66 Gamble House — Pasadena, CA Greene and Greene
67 Nebraska State Capital — Lincoln, NE Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue
68 New York Times Building — New York City Renzo Piano, Hon. FAIA
69 Salt Lake City Public Library — Salt Lake City Moshe Safdie, FAIA; VCBO Architecture Associates
70 Dolphin and Swan Hotels, Walt Disney World — Orlando, FL Michael Graves, FAIA
71 Hearst Tower — New York City George P. Post & Sons; addition Foster + Partners
72 Flatiron Building (Fuller Building) — New York City Daniel Burnham, FAIA
73 Lake Point Tower — Chicago Schipporeit– Heinrich; Graham, Anderson, Probst & White Rank Building Architect
74 Guggenheim Museum — New York City Frank Lloyd Wright
75 Union Station — Los Angeles John Parkinson and Donald B. Parkinson
76 Willard Hotel — Washington, D.C. Henry Janeway Hardenbergh, FAIA
77 Sever Hall, Harvard University — Cambridge, MA Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA
78 Broadmoor Hotel — Colorado Springs, CO Warren & Wetmore
79 Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center — Washington, D.C. Pei Cobb Freed & Partners
80 Phillips Exeter Academy Library — Exeter, NH Louis I. Kahn, FAIA
81 The Plaza Hotel — New York City Henry Janeway Hardenbergh, FAIA
82 Sofitel Chicago Water Tower — Chicago Jean– Paul Viguier, Hon. FAIA
83 Glessner House — Chicago Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA
84 Yankee Stadium — New York City Osborn Architects & Engineers
85 Harold Washington Library Center — Chicago Hammond, Beeby & Babka
86 Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts — New York City Wallace K. Harrison, FAIA, director, board of architects
87 The Dakota Apartments — New York City Henry Janeway Hardenbergh, FAIA
88 Art Institute of Chicago — Chicago Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge
89 Fairmont Hotel — San Francisco Reid & Reid; Julia Morgan
90 Boston Public Library — Boston McKim, Mead & White
91 Hollywood Bowl — Hollywood Lloyd Wright; Allied Architects; Frank Gehry; Hodgetts + Fung Design
Associates with Gruen Associates
92 Texas State Capitol — Austin Elijah E. Myers
93 Fontainebleau — Miami Beach Morris Lapidus
94 Legal Research Building, University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, MI York & Sawyer; Gunnar Birkerts (addition)
95 J. Paul Getty Center for the Arts — Los Angeles Richard Meier, FAIA
96 High Museum — Atlanta Richard Meier, FAIA
97 Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse — Islip, NY Richard Meier, FAIA
98 Humana Building — Louisville, KY Michael Graves, FAIA
99 Walt Disney Concert Hall — Los Angeles Frank Gehry, FAIA
100 Radio City Music Hall — New York City Edward Durell Stone, FAIA
101 Paul Brown Stadium — Cincinnati NBBJ
102 United Airlines Terminal, O’Hare — Chicago Helmut Jahn, FAIA, Murphy/Jahn
103 Hyatt Regency Atlanta — Atlanta John Portman, FAIA
104 AT&T Park (San Francisco Giants Stadium) — San Francisco Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum
105 Time Warner Center — New York City David Childs, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
106 Washington, D.C., Metro — Washington, D.C. Harry Weese, FAIA
107 IDS Center — Minneapolis Philip Johnson, FAIA, Johnson/Burgee
108 Seattle Public Library — Seattle Rem Koolhaas, Office for Metropolitan Architecture
109 Museum of Modern Art — San Francisco Mario Botta, Hon. FAIA
110 Union Station — Chicago Daniel Burnham, Graham, Anderson, Probst & White 111 United Nations Headquarters — New York City International Committee of Architects, Wallace K. Harrison, chairman; Oscar
Niemeyer; Le Corbusier
112 National Building Museum (Pension Building) — Washington, D.C. Montgomery C. Meigs
113 Fenway Park — Boston Osborn Architects & Engineers
114 Dana-Thomas House — Springfield, IL Frank Lloyd Wright Rank Building Architect
115 TWA Terminal, Kennedy Airport — New York City Eero Saarinen, FAIA
116 The Athenaeum — New Harmony, IN Richard Meier, FAIA
117 Walker Art Center — Minneapolis Herzog & de Meuron
118 American Airlines Center — Dallas David M. Schwarz, FAIA; Architectural Services; HKS
119 Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa — Phoenix Albert Chase McArthur
120 Los Angeles Central Library — Los Angeles Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue
121 San Francisco International Terminal — San Francisco Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Del Campo & Maru Architects; Michael Willis Architects
122 Oriole Park at Camden Yards — Baltimore Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum
123 Taliesin West — Scottsdale, AZ Frank Lloyd Wright
124 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum — Washington, D.C. James Ingo Freed, FAIA, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners
125 Citicorp Center — New York City Hugh Stubbins & Associates; Emery Roth & Sons
126 V. C. Morris Gift Shop (Xanadu Gallery) — San Francisco Frank Lloyd Wright
127 Union Station — Kansas City, MO Jarvis Hunt
128 Rookery Building — Chicago Burnham and Root
129 Weisman Art Museum — Minneapolis Frank Gehry, FAIA
130 Douglas House — Harbor Springs, MI Richard Meier, FAIA
131 Hollyhock House — Los Angeles Frank Lloyd Wright
132 Pennzoil Place — Houston Philip Johnson, FAIA; Johnson/Burgee
133 Royalton Hotel — New York City Philippe Starck
134 Reliant Astrodome — Houston Hermon Lloyd, FAIA & W. B. Morgan; Wilson, Morris, Crain and Anderson
135 Safeco Field — Seattle NBBJ
136 Corning Museum of Glass — Corning, NY Gunnar Birkerts, FAIA
137 30th Street Station — Philadelphia Graham, Anderson, Probst & White
138 Robie House — Chicago Frank Lloyd Wright
139 Williams Tower (Transco Tower) — Houston Philip Johnson, FAIA, Johnson/Burgee
140 Stahl House (Case Study House #22) — Los Angeles Pierre Koenig
141 Apple SoHo — New York City Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
142 John Hancock Towers — Boston Henry Cobb, FAIA, Pei Cobb Freed
143 Pennsylvania Station — New York City McKim, Mead & White
144 Hyatt Regency San Francisco — San Francisco John Portman, FAIA
145 Carson Pirie Scott Ð Chicago Louis Sullivan, FAIA
146 Museum of Modern Art — New York City Philip Goodwin, FAIA and Edward Durell Stone, FAIA
147 Auditorium Building — Chicago Adler & Sullivan
148 Brown Palace Hotel — Denver, CO Frank E. Edbrooke
149 Ingalls Ice Arena, Yale University — New Haven, CT Eero Saarinen, FAIA
150 Battle Hall, University of Texas — Austin Cass Gilbert, FAIA


98 Buildings That Didn’t Make The Cut

860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments - Chicago, IL
American Folk Art Museum - New York, NY
Art & Architecture Building - Yale University, New Haven, CT
Baker House - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Beinecke Rare Book Library - Yale University, New Haven, CT
Beth Shalom Synagogue - Elkins Park, PA
Boston City Hall - Boston, MA
Bradbury Building - Los Angeles, CA
Burton Barr Library - Phoenix Public Library, Phoenix, AZ
Caltrans Carpenter Center - Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels - Los Angeles, CA
Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption - San Francisco, CA
CBS Headquarters/ Black Rock - New York
Center for British Arts/Museum of British Art - Yale University, New Haven, CT
Chapel/W15 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Crown Hall - Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL
Dallas City Hall - Dallas, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport - Dallas, TX
De Young Museum - San Francisco, CA
Denver Art Museum - Denver, CO
Denver Public Library - Denver, CO
Eames House - Pacific Palisades, CA
Ennis House/Ennis-Brown House - Los Angeles, CA
Esherick House - Chestnut Hill, PA
Experience Music Project - Seattle WA
Farnsworth House - Plano, Illinois
First Christian Church - Columbus, IN
First Church of Christ Scientist - Berkeley, CA
First Unitarian Church - Rochester, NY
Ford Foundation Headquarters - New York, NY
Frank Gehry Residence - Santa Monica, CA
Freer Gallery of Art - Washington, DC
Genzyme Center - Cambridge, MA
Gropius House - Lincoln, MA
Guaranty Building - Buffalo, NY
Horton Plaza - San Diego, CA
IBM Building - Chicago, IL
Inland Steel Building - Chicago, IL
Jacobs Field - Cleveland, OH
John Deere Headquarters - Moline, Illinois
John Hancock Building - Chicago, IL
Johnson Wax Building - Racine, WI
Kaufmann Desert House - Palm Springs, CA
Kimball Art Museum - Fort Worth, TX
Kings Road House - West Hollywood, CA
Larkin Building - Buffalo, NY
Lever House - New York, NY
Lovell Beach House - Newport Beach, CA
Macy’s - New York, NY
Marin Country Civic Center - San Rafael, CA
Marshall Fields - Chicago, IL
Minneapolis Central Library - Minneapolis, MN
Modern Art Museum Of Dallas-Fort Worth - Fort Worth, TX
Monadnock Building - Chicago, IL
Morgan Library & Museum - New York, NY
Mount Angel Library - Mount Angel, OR
Museum of Contemporary Art - Los Angeles, CA
Museum Of Fine Arts - Houston, TX
Nasher Sculpture Center - Dallas, TX
National Gallery of Art (East Wing) - Washington, DC
North Christian Church - Columbus, IN
Oakland Museum of California - Oakland, CA
O’Hare International Airport - Chicago IL
Peabody Terrace - Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Petco Park (San Diego Padres) - San Diego, CA
Philadelphia Savings Fund Society Building/PSFS - Philadelphia, PA
Phillip Johnson’s Glass House - New Canann, CT
Prada - Los Angeles, CA
Prada - New York, NY
Price Tower - Bartlesville, OK
Rachofsky House - Dallas, TX
REI Flagship Store, Seattle, WA
Reliance Building - Chicago, IL
Richards Medical Center - Philadelphia, PA
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Washington, DC
Rosenthal Center For Contemporary Art - Cincinnati, OH
Salk Institute - La Jolla, CA
San Francisco Public Library - San Francisco, CA
Sandra Day O’Connor United States Court House - Phoenix, AZ
Seagram’s Building - New York, NY
Smith House - Darien, CT
Soldier Field - Chicago, IL
Sony Plaza (AT&T Corporate Headquarters) - New York, NY
Staples Center - Los Angeles, CA
Superdome - New Orleans, LA
The Chapel of St. Ignatius - Seattle University, Seattle, WA
The Menil Collection - Houston, TX
Tiffany & Co. - New York, NY
Unity Temple - Oak Park, IL
University of Phoenix Stadium (Arizona Cardinals Stadium) - Glendale, AZ
Vanna Venturi House - Chestnut Hill, PA
Wainwright Building - St. Louis, MO
Washington Dulles International Airport - Chantilly, VA
Wexner Center for the Arts - Ohio State University - Columbus, OH
Whitney Museum - New York, NY
William J. Clinton Presidential Library - Little Rock, AR

Place appears on Tuesdays. E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page F - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Posted by M at 05:45:13 | Permalink | No Comments »