- Email: [email protected]
Design procedures for the Bay Area
Design Procedures for the Bay Area by TALLIE
6. MAULE and
JOHN E. BURCHARD
General Background Several years ago, the five major counties of the San Francisco Bay Area voted, separately, as to whether they wished jointly to underwrite bonds for a common rapid transit system. The three most significantly urban counties, San Francisco at the West, and Alameda and Contra Costa in the East Bay, voted favorably. Rapidly-urbanizing San Mateo elected not to join. So did rural-suburban Marin county to the north across the Golden Gate. The system now under construction is largely financed by general obligation bonds of the three counties authorized in 1962 for which the citizens are, in the pinch, ultimately liable. The direction is by a Board of Directors, politically though variously selected, four for each county. This board does more direct managing than would be usual in private corporations. Under California law it must hold most of its meetings in public. Day-to-day management is conducted by a General Manager, and a modest sized staff, covering problems mainly of engineering and construction, but also of law, finance, public relations and so on. Actual design and construction work has been contracted to a Joint Venture of nationally distinguished engineering firms: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Tudor, Bechtel--otherwise known as PBTB. This organization has a very large working group of all sorts of engineering specialists. Architectural and similar design services are subcontracted by PBTB to individual architects and designers. This is the general administrative organization under which the architectural design procedures of BARTD have evolved. huge
of the
System
The first stage of BARTD’s projects will be completed a few years from now and ready for passengers. There will be much to admire in its 75 miles of line and its 33-38 stations (Fig. A). Passengers who approach outlying stations in their own automobiles will find handsome, well-landscaped parking lots or convenient discharge points (Fig. B). They will enter the stations easily and encounter good-looking and imaginative fare collection and ticket selling equipment (Fig. C). They will be directed where to go and what to do by simple, clear, and attractive signs designed and located by Ernest Born, FAIA (see Fig. D). They will be carried to or from the boarding platforms by modern rapid escalators. The cars (Fig. E) designed by Sundberg-Ferar (discussed by Sundberg elsewhere in this issue) will be very fast for a metropolitan system. They will be air conditioned, devoid of Muzak and of any advertising except at the bulkheads, with unusually comfortable, even luxurious seating-some
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
423
Tallie
B. Maule
think
too luxurious.
John
and
E. Burchard
They
will be more
like the cabin
of a first-class
aircraft
than, say, a New York subway car. As a passenger rides the many miles of aerial line, looking
through
windows,
he will, given present
a line every mile
of which
has been
contribution ture which
of course, has been
of Albany a strong
between
landscaped
theme
and other special
mounds structure
treated
the aerial
in an urban The
stations
a general (Fig.
of architect community
I), Ernest
provide
stone and concrete.
Street stations
Mission
have ameliorated J,
provided
Montgomery
Street
with the skillful has made thing
like a precise
his associates opportunity work.
below
At North
in
by interesting
of tough
(Fig.
0).
Owings
with
a comparable
Q and
TALLIE
R,
B. MAULE,
enginering Bechtel.
AIA,
consultants
He received
homa A. & M. University
and
where
graduate
Perugia,
and
where
is Coordinating
to
SFBARTD,
work
at
the
with
Skidmore,
the planning
and
design of the
large
undertakings,
and
Institute
an
system at a
for the general
degree He
Merrill Oak
from Okla-
from
Princeton
has done addiper
Academy
peace-time
and
with
Brinckerhoff-Tudor-
ltaliana
American
Owings and
in his own firm in San Francisco.
FAIA,
degree
Fellow.
Universita
an associate other
Architect
of Fine Arts
Fellow of the
some-
are involved,
Parsons,
he was Lowell Palmer
is a
AIA,
into
control
a Bachelor in Architecture a Master
at
coupled
McCue,
Dailey,
air rights
have
problem
P) together
the train
(Figs.
& Merrill
Oakland
(Fig.
to watch
and Tarics
treatments,
late Gardner
Merritt
sculptural
at Civic Center
Skidmore,
The
at Lake
Figs.
within
in one of the
AIA. Reid
those of downtown
patrons
tional
if
element
diversity
of display cases (Figs. K, N). Gerald
for interested
and
walls
floor, wall and lighting
a plaza
Berkeley,
that,
the hand-
a cohesive
sort will appear
permissible
dealing
stations,
hard watch
developed
It shows
of local
and Knowles,
beams.
elegance
and
of another
low ceilings
tapering
the most compact
areas
the robust
G, itself
can become
openness
sculpture
exploitation
meandering sitting
At Balboa Park and Glen Park the opportunity of topography to
has exploited
(Fig. H) by Hertzka
sophisticated
texture.
in the
and Walker
between
in Fig.
a
struc-
help,
areas,
transition
illustrated
unity.
considerable
and
the aerial
walkway,
by activity
FAIA,
to make
all of this will
F) by Sasaki
varied
generous
than a barrier.
the relatively
L, M) by coffers
under
will offer a large display
Concrete
and
beautification
(Fig.
but
a graceful
Don Emmons,
FAIA,
with
concept
structure,
architectural
Born,
parkway urban
and the neighborhood
themselves
stations
his ride
it passes. Not
and punctuated
rather
system-wide
This
It provides
scale of the aerial some creation
linear
with HUD
of a continuous
features.
sensitively,
which
as the 2.7-mile
completed,
traverse
to enhance
through
and El Cerrito.
provides
and budget,
landscaped
to the community
be elaborate, cities
decently
design
Stranieri
he was active Ridge,
was for eleven
in
in Rome. As
years
in
Tennessee principal
He is a member of the American
of Architects.
Journal of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures for the Bay commodious
surface
and Hunt,
AIA,
development.
entrance
to the station
has been
plaza which
will protect
in a BARTD
Berkeley
At the main
station,
ing closely with the city landscape Abey,
ASLA)
have collaborated
Maher
architects,
established
by Kitchen
the open space in the
and Martens,
(Royston,
in the design
Area
AIA,
Hanamoto,
of a pleasant
work-
Beck
civic
and
and transit
space (Figs. S, T, U). One of the interesting in a number forceful
of aerial
and essentially
same strong
design
of the escalators. required quite
at least to the professionally
For these the controlling
identical.
forces
They
protective
different
results,
stations.
The
all had platforms
canopies
Orinda,
(Figs. W, X) and by Theodore
V, by Joseph
be enough
to illustrate
Esherick,
this framework
de Mars,
FAIA,
at Hayward
without
degenerating
Barnardi,
at El
FAIA,
at San Leandro
FAIA,
the variety
the diagonals
and width and all
Yet within
by Vernon
occurs
were both
there were the
and
of the same length
were achieved
de1 Norte,
may
of the line
of the same length.
appearances Fig.
was comparable,
in the horizontality
Cerrito This
terrain
minded,
conditions
arld
(Fig. Y). into
a
catalogue.
The Design Attitude These To
stations
have
been
a
will
attempted monstrous really
fashioned
kind
beginning
at least,
the
exciting
Bay
Area
the
It
does not belong of Moscow
painting
provided The
even
in a subway will
and sculpture
(All do not.)
can
not
be
anyway
by those architects but plans
argued whether
in Stockholm
to wait
are underway
that
have
Piranesic
it be the oldIn
proliferation
although
the of
space for
in art in the subway.
the benefactions
for trying
Montreal.
would
brutalism.
the attractive
who believe
will have
of
situation
Canadian
have
to be found
installations
or enterprises,
monumentality physical
or the contemporary
the stations
this has been citizens
have
in
extravagance.
grandeur
abstract
not
this
to elicit
of private these when
the time is ripe.
JOHN Dean
E. BURCHARD,
the Massachusetts ceived
HON.
AIA,
is Consultant
Emeritus of the School of Humanities Institute
B.S. and MS.
Michigan
of Technology,
degrees.
have awarded
spectively. He is a member of Tau President
of the American
served
as a trustee
Mount
Holyoke
Environmental Among
his extensive
America,” with Oscar Scientific
Design
Handlin;
and the University
and
of Arts
Boston Museum
and
was Acting
the
University
major
with Albert Progress,”
of
at re-
publications
Bush-Brown; “The
degrees,
of re-
and “Mid-Century:
an honorary member of the American
and Sciences.
He
of
and
of
College
of
Dean of
Fine Arts of the
California
are
“The
Historian The
for which he was editor
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
D.Arch.
Beta Pi, and a Fellow and former
Academy
of the
College,
L.H.D.
and
from which he had
Union College
him Hon.
for SFBARTD
and Social Science
Institute
Social
at
Berkeley,
Architecture and
has
the
Implications
and annotator.
of
City,” He
of is
of Architects.
425
Tallie B. Maule and John
E. Burchard
The stations will not have the consistency of Harry Weese’s characteristically original designs for Washington, D.C.; nor will they be governed by what we believe to be a foolish purity about advertising. The BARTD position is that advertising is a central element of modern life; that some of the best contemporary art is, in fact, advertising art; that advertising can help to enliven the traveller’s journey. The policy is, therefore, not to suppress but to control its scale, its location, its proliferation, so that it adorns and does not desecrate, that its messages do not drown out the information which the traveller needs from the system itself. All this has been accomplished by policy determination and practical applications worked out by the individual station architects; however, not without some objections by the brokers of advertsing. Hence, the policy in the end is one of maximizing amenity rather than revenue. Finally the architects have had great freedom in the choice of materials and colorings and many of the furnishings. The combinations they have chosen and which have been approved are, in general, more restrained than those in Montreal. The detailing and the quality of finish will be quite comparable with the best work in Stockholm, which is probably the best in the world at the present time.
Landscaping
Program Restored
The landscaping program is no less pleasant. Before his resignation in September 1966, the original landscape consultant, Lawrence Halprin, ASLA, had developed a landscaping budget for the entire system calling for about $11 million. In an economy move, which dominated BARTD’s directorate and management at about that time, this was halved. Today it has all been restored and designing is proceeding on the assumption that the funds will be forthcoming. (This does not mean that the directorate has become less vigilant about “extravagance,” but, rather, that it realizes there are a number of possible economies in passenger and community amenity which are simply false economies.) At the time of Halprin’s resignation he had prepared a rather general manual of landscape criteria for line sections as well as station areas, primarily directed toward plant materials but with some standards for site furniture. In the reconstituted landscape program, after his departure, his manual was issued to the new project landscape architects but it was so incomplete that we freed the designers of any obligation to comply with it. Halprin had also begun the design of the linear park project which he also declined to complete. It was subsequently decided to give Sasaki-Walker the freedom of a completely new start. Halprin had some interesting ideas also about the handling and location of aerial structures on streets in some of the more congested areas, which may or may not have been well worked out but which, in BARTD’s view, were quite impractical in the prevailing economic and political climate and so nothing came of them.
426
Jcmmd of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures
for the Bay Area
The landscape design situation thus became fluid. The first task of those who cared about landscaping was to get the budget restored. Once this had been done and Sasaki and Walker were well on their way with the linear park project (which, by the way, has been such a success locally that the citizens have asked that it be extended), the station architects were asked to name the landscape architects with whom they would like to associate themselves, just as would be the practice in a single private project. We did this instead of selecting a landscaper for the system because we knew that qome of our station designs might be described as “hard-edge” and others as “soft-focus” and we felt it reasonable that the landscapers should be in sympathy with the architect with whom they were to work. The several suggestions wcrc reviewed and. as it developed, the desired landscape architects were appointed. The program, then, had two prongs. One concerned the station areas. the other the line between the stations. We decided to have the station landscape architect continue down the line until he encountered another landscape architect designing from his station base. We would then find and agree upon a reasonable topographical or man-made feature to make the boundary. This might have resulted, but did not result, in confusion of ideas. Omitting subway stations-between which, of course, BARTD has neither landscaping responsibilities or powers-the lines will work out as follows; from Richmond to Oakland all the work, except the linear park, will be done by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, ASLA, who also have the City of Berkeley’s plaza. Anthony Guzzardo, ASLA, has the line from Concord to Orinda and from Fruitvale to Bayfair. South of Bayfair, except for the work of Ralph Jones, ASLA, at Hayward, Robert Kitchen, FATA, is involved. Sometimes we wish we had some responsibility for the streets above the subway. The new plans for Market Street Beautification made by city architects rigorously exclude skylights which we badly need for the amenities of the Market Street Stations. Our view is that we can design skylights which are completely compatible with the street design and, indeed would enhance it. The outcome will surely be no skylights and this will modestly impair the attractiveness of the mezzanines involved. But there is never much cause for optimism when architects fall out over aesthetic bones. The parking lots offered a special problem. When Don Emmons, FATA, then Consulting Architect resigned, (simultaneously with Halprin) one of the explicit charges he made was that station site planning had been proceeding without plan or architectural guidance. This was not ill-founded. What simple engineering considerations had produced was not nearly as good as what was possible. Under the “new look,” the architect, his landscape architect, and the engineer made a team. If there was a captain it was the architect though he had, of course, to meet the engineering requirements. The results, we think, are remarkably better than the earlier lay-outs to which Emmons objected. There is better circulation. There are more comfortable approaches from the parked car to the station. Any significant existing trees have been
Vol. 286. No. 5, November 1968
427
Talk
U. hfaule and John
preserved.
There
including
E. Uurchard
has been judicious
a few “spectaculars.”
loss of parking
and generous
addition
of other
planting
In only one case has there been any substantial
spaces and these are acceptable.
The Design Program Emmon’s design
contributions
and
consonance principal
construction
had
been
with standard
joint
professional
responsibility
the work, PBTB American The
After
were major.
Institute AIA
be given
was selected
assigned
of his firm, project. Emmons
would
then consulted
a consulting
architect rather
be involved
then
Consulting
program.
appointed
who
than as a member
in final
consulted
designs
public
officials
to draw up a list of candidates.
Consulting
was appointed
be
of the
one who would have done outstanding
not
PBTB
schools
do most
on how to set up the architectural
that
in
that the
PBTB
firm would
was appointed
Halprin
engineers
which
this guidance,
heads of architectural
to
recommendations
who would act as an individual
and whose
Given
BARTD
society
of directing
to the profession
would have the respect of the profession, design work himself,
by
task
over other competitors.
of Architects
recommended
the primary
Architect
in Sept.
Landscape
Architect,
1963.
for
the
and
the
From
this list,
Early
in
1964,
on the recommenda-
tion of Emmons. ’ Much
has been made (and probably
the fact that Emmons BARTD
and Halprin
organization,
being,
in effect,
not to the actual
client
General
or its Board
made
Manager against
in the Joint nate
Venture,
the work
fragile.
He
Assistant
reported
according
to
and he, finally, to an organization
as Consultant
whether
process),
to make
Coordinator,
Tallie
influential
a more
Coordinator
428
who
of and
by its
case could Staff
be
Architect to coordithe
to the Manager
of
Director,
reported
was to
of Emmons E. Burchard,
William
Bugge-
and
other
of Directors
and
matters not
recommendations
and Halprin Hon.
AIA,
(or anyone for changes
B. Maule,
AIA, a designer
slot in the Joint
of Engineering
and
in Septem-
was appointed
of amenity.
to the Joint
He
in policy
the Coordinator
and
he became
and so on, was moved
a peer
of Construction
Journal
he
in the
heatl, now called
of large experience,
Venture;
reported,
Venture
else involved
or not asked to do so. In turn the new architectural
into
either
of communication
reported
Project
was free at any time to talk to any architect design
Venture
He was expected
his line
made)
part of the
chart of 1965.
of the resignation
Board
by the
Coordinator,
to the overall
on architectural
to the
AIA.
but
who in turn
ber 1966, and after some delay, John however,
to the Joint as represented
occupied
Thresher,
a Sub-Project
have been the right
An even stronger
spot
architects
of Engineering,
As a consequence
consultants
of Directors.
then Sprague
should
be BARTD,
organizational
of the project
Manager
Engineering
who would
the weak
something
were not keyed into
of the
and,
of the Franklin
like
Institute
Design Procedures
them, reported recognition, on and other visual path of designers
for the Bay Area
directly to the overall Project Director, Mr. Bugge. This the organizational charts, of the importance of architectural elements certainly has had something to do with the easier in the last year and a half.
But there were certainly other equally important factors. Anyone who has observed management closely knows that positions on an organizational chart cannot predict how much influence a given individual may have. One of the other factors was the internal catharsis caused by the resignations of Emmons and Halprin; another was a change in thinking in the Board, which had become overly nervous about mounting costs and had been on an econom) course which forced them to make decisions contrary to what Emmons and Halprin wished. Finally, there may have been the way the work was done. The Consultant’s job with the Board is one of exposition and persuasion. But this is not enough. Not only must he have much knowledge of what is going on even in the smallest corners but he must have a chance to influence this work before it is too late. Consequently, he cannot simply leave large advice, however good, and go away. How effective he can be is completely related to the strength and influence of the Coordinating Architect in the Joint Venture who has to be still more closely connected to the details. Unless the Consultant can work harmoniously with the Coordinating Architect and unless the latter is able to wield power when he has to (although the wielding of power is of course a last resort and not something to use often), good results cannot be produced. This is, then, the relation that we have tried to establish; to see that the decisions made early do not have damaging potentials; to insist that the work in the trenches shall be in keeping with decisions which have been made and not contrived, instead, to defeat it; to argue with architects and designers vigorously and critically before the project has jelled, but to be in agreement with the architects and engineers by the time the project comes before the Board for approval so that the Consultant can honestly advocate its adoption. He had said more than once that if there has to bc professional bickering at the Board level he will have failed in his mission. Architects
Standards
Manual
Distributed
Working somewhat differently before his resignation, partly because the stage of the work required different treatment, the contributions of Emmons were, nevertheless, major. So are their residues. He brought about the design of the prize-winning aerial bent. He prepared elaborate and generally excellent system-wide standards and criteria including provisions for fare collection, vehicle clearance, ventilation, structural requirements, escalator arrangements and many others. Together with comparable data supplied by special consultants in sanitation, electricity, acoustics and so on, this information was officially adopted and published as SFBARTD Manual 01 ArLlLitectlrl-al Standards and distributed as a guide to project architects and engineers. It is
Vol. 286, No. 5. November 1968
429
Talkie B. Maule and John
E. Burchard
still a good “bible” although standards often change with time and greater knowledge, even though we have been libel-al about sensible exception. Moreover, given the decision that there would be many architects, we tried to reduce the standards to which each was to conform, to the absolute minimum consistent with safety, public identification, mechanized operations and unambiguous communications. Emmons also prepared “definitive” designs for about half of the 33 original stations. These definitives were given to the project architects as a sort of graphic program for further development of the individual designs. It was also his role to advise the Joint Venture on the final selection of individual station architects, all of whom had been designated before his resignation.
The Design Process Was it wise to have many architects, or would it not have been better to use a single architect for the whole system? The question is moot. Strong theoretical arguments can be made for either position. The majority of the great systems have had a multiplicity of architects. We are happy with the results obtained. To have a variety was the recommendation of the AIA, but we think that neither BARTD’s nor any other system’s experience would permit anyone to say categorically that better results could be obtained with one or many. It depends upon what you are looking for. A great many of the specifics cited by Emmons on his resignation dealing with details of design decisions were well founded; and in the vast majority of cases what he then proposed is essentially what now is. In a few cases we think he was wrong and so did the station architects involved. Nobody bats 1.000 in this game, and we know we will not. The present design procedures which work with very little friction and, we think, with generally good results are merely those of any smooth-running team-organization. The architects, like architects anywhere, are supplied with some boundary conditions by the client. The client has tried to make these as few as possible, but in a public transportation system there are, perforce, still a good many. The architect presents his proposals at various established stages for a sequence of reviews and approvals. The first of these are technical to make sure that all the legitimate engineering and economic criteria have been met. They occur first in-house in the Joint Venture. Then there is a further review by the District Design Review Group made up of staff both from the District and the Joint Venture and crossing all the lines of design. Through all these stages, Maule has been principal coordinator. He works closely with Burchard who occasionally intervenes but more often does not. Burchard then reviews the project with Maule and the architect. After all these critics have been answered or after the design has been altered to take account of their criticism the architect then makes a full-dress public presentation to a special committee of the Board of Directors, the Visual Design Committee.
430
Journal
of the
Franklin
Institute
Design
This
is essentially
deciding First,
similar
body of a private
the hearing
to the presentation corporation
in Burchard has either -or
who (having
succeeded
has been
expositor
convinced
and advocate
times exhaustive
one, open
Secondly,
been
in having
made-in
questions
put by the Committee.
of some detail may be requested;
are sent back for revision
result. In the last of these included.
reviews
curiously
perhaps
only
drawings,
a third
may examine
Board
they represented
viously approved. recommendation The
a review
in this whole
process
program.
total
arc
design,
has
work,
although which
now
time to time, Maule
from
what
had
re-reported
is central.
been
pre-
and the new
of appeal,
provides
authority
a simliar
channel
but the existence
utility.
even
of this ultimate
the sequence
as required,
worry
of architectural
about
reviews,
of the work
of
architects. Hc provides a purposes seem in conllict. from
channel
It never had to be used.) Maule
criteria
He is the day-by-day
He is the monitor
(Burchard
arrange
materials
but these would not go back to the deviation
landscape and other
important
oftcu
explained.
of the architectural
architectural
finish
landmark,
and the like. From
a major
more
of pl-eliminn,y
of the architect’s
the project architects and the project channel of appeal when architectural highest
and
It is a principal
revised details
in consequence
approval;
but most of the time approvals
In such cases they are meticulously
role of Maule
coordinator
with his proposals
Sometimes, before
programs
aspects.
supervision
and Burchard unless
color
called
fixed the design in all of its major it represents
up to this point,
accordince
can now assist the architect as and somearises, from the penetrating
the elaboration
goes to working
with all
that he was wrong), if the occasion
approval,
tliffercnccs.
has a sort of advocate
a suggestor-moderator-critic changes
designs
last
might make to the
to full press coverage
the architect
of this review,
The
an architect
the Bay Area
with two not unimportant
is by law a public
that that does to limit discussion.
for
Procedures
Maule,
is probably
has to establish time
and
and
and enforce
money
coordinate
to the its most
schedules,
in all matters
with Burchard. Burchard things
plays a more general
he believes
government.
He is, in a sense,
his cognizance
confidence respect
sometimes
the Board
and a kind of aesthetic
as a way of encouraging its aspirations
role. He watches work in progress
will be harmful;
ought
the Board’s to be.
of the Board.
each other
He
of Directors’
conscience
on matters
and
He would cease to be effective
useless
of
too, but more
than in lecturing
be helpless
or if they were not completely
referee
for the Board
own aspirations
would
to prevent
he acts as advoca tc with a tit>
it what
without
if he and Maule
his
did not
open with one another
or if
they were to come to work at cross purposes. That would
is why a more not
detailed
be enlightening.
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
description
Different
of design
situations
and
methods different
at KAR’I‘D personalities
431
l‘allie
B.
Ma&e
and
/ohn
E. Burchard
will surely call for different structures. You try to get the best people you can find to consummate a program. Every day you remember that each of these best people has a different set of priorities and that singly each would not be very good in his own field if he did not hold the priorities of his area to be of the highest importance. Waverers are not helpful here. You then try to reconcile, to heckle, to cajole and, mildly, threaten this team into the right amount of give and take. But you do not try to design for the designers; only to press them at all times really to do the best they know how; you try to be their sympathetic and comprehending friend, their critic but not their boss; you seek freedoms for them, not constraints; and then you pray a little. Lessons
for the
Future
Prayers may not be enough for any American community. We have shown the optimistic side of the picture and we believe this much optimism to be warranted. But there have been larger failures in BARTD which others planning metropolitan systems ought to ponder. None of these, it seems to us, are the fault of BARTD’s Board of Directors, its managerial staff, or the Joint Venture of PBTB. It is therefore somewhat easier to talk about them. What are some of the principal defects that may thus be engendered? ONE: When it is done the system will probably have cost the greater part of $1 billion. This cannot be looked upon as an outlay of irrecoverable cash to be compared directly with a relief program, for example. Rather it is expected in the end to be a self-liquidating investment. This may or may not turn out to be so. It has not been the history of much, if any, public transportation, ever. If the region were to underwrite a billion dollars worth of something, was public transport, in general, or public transport of the BARTD type, in particular, the best thing to bet on? We do not imply that it was not; but we are sure that nobody knows whether it was. The weapons of operations-analysis and cost benefit analysis are now sharp enough and the potentials of assisting computer technology are now sufficiently advanced so that a forward-looking metropolis could undertake such analyses and obtain at least some guidance as to where the largest probable benefits were. Whether (if the people knew) they would then decide rationally may be quite a different matter. TWO: BARTD is not an integrated metropolitan transport system. It is more nearly a high-speed, luxurious interurban and commuter service extending well into the country. It is capable of some local use in the downtown areas but it does not provide really convenient access to most of the important points in San Francisco whether Union Square, North Beach, The Japanese Trade Center, the parks, the Opera House, Candlestick Park, The Cow Palace or the Airport; over in the East Bay its relations to the main things in Oakland is but a little better while the walk to any central point on the Berkeley campus of the University of California will be long and tiring and all uphill.
432
Journal of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures
for the Bay Areu
If BARTD does become a big transportation success it will be because somebody else has provided all the feederlines, separately owned, separately managed, and jealously so; it will be because private motor cars have played a major role in delivering commuters to outlying stations as a sort of revival 01 the old song about the 5:15. The people of the Bay Area never really discussed whether what they actually wanted was an integrated transportation system, and they went out of their way in the BARTD charter to be sure that the BARTD directors and management did not indulge any illegitimate aspirations of that sort. This decision, or non.decision, has of course been a major conditioner of design. It was not a decision made by the management or the Board of BARTD. It is hard to believe that they might have stretched the powers of their charter far enough to have made any difference. We do not know how hard they tried to get a broader charter; perhaps not very hard. But even if they had, one could not be sanguine of their success, given the abrasive and divisive nature of the local rivalries. The fact is that American metropolises need integrated systems right now; that systems engineers are almost certainly able to design them now. We know of no system yet in advanced planning in the United States that promises this or which goes much further than to think in interurban, suburban, or simply downtown terms. This is, of course, more complicated than the need for single ownership and management. It is an indispensable condition but it is not sufficient. It will then require imagination and money and an ability to deal with the many who regard the American automobile as their only true castle, superior to those of the Middle Ages in that it is their privilege to move it anywhere, any time and be guaranteed a place to put it upon arrival. BARTD will be something which many people of the Bay Area can use and enjoy and something of which they can be proud, but it will not serve the metropolitan area in the way the networks of the Paris Metro or the London Underground do. THREE: One of the conditions implied in the premises of BARTD and the one almost always implied in American systems is that it should hopefull) become self-supporting at a very early date. This imposes conditions which may or may not be favorable to the rational development of an area. It almost guarantees that the route shall be designed to tap the largest concentrations of potential customers and this must, perforce, ignore more delayed developmental potential such as might occur when a line moves into an undeveloped area; it may even tend to put the line through centers of relative affluence rather than through the pockets of poverty which have more need for it. This, too, is not a local criticism but a general one which has been wcllsummarized several times by Robert Alexander, FAIA, in Los Angeles. It is a criticism of the ongoing philosophy of rapid transit location. In addition, BARTD made an early and characteristically American decision that somchow fares should be more or less related to the distance traveled. (It is not the
Vol.
286,
No.
5, November
1968
433
Tallie B. Made
and John E. Burchard
theory of the United States Post Ofice, but no matter.) The consequences of this natural decision has been a system of graduated fares. It has resulted in the design of an ingenious, attractive, and perhaps nearly fool-proof system of ticket sale and collection including a way to make it easy for an erring customer to make up his deficit. Perhaps a single fare system, though much simpler, would have raised other difficulties. But the philosophical question remains whether metropolitan public transit is not of such fundamental necessity to the lower income groups who need it most and who cannot possibly pay the fares required by a deficit-free system, that fareless or almost fareless public transport would not be the logical thing for a modern city; it does seem easier to gain public support for Astrodomes. FOUR: A system like BARTD will inevitably bring enormous economic advantages to many and perhaps diseconomies to a few. But neither is planned. The narrowness of BAKTD’s powers coupled with the lack of real in any of the communities in which BARTD is being planning preparedness built to serve, guarantees this. Given their charter, BARTD people may even have exceeded their authority in trying for SO many neighborhood conversations as they did. But the major ingredient was missing, the power of the transport district to make its own investments which might have then helped to subsidize the transportation itself; or at least to be able to take enough land in the neighborhood of all stations, except the most central ones, to ensure the kind of orderly development whereby the public interest as well as the private might have been fostered. Such powers could have been adequately guarded against abuse, as they presumably have been in Montreal. They would have materially increased the flexibility and amenity of station design and promoted a much better total system. Their absence and the narrowness with which the available powers have been construed have not only forfeited some nonrecurrent communal opportunities but in a few cases have actually produced minor disasters on sites where recalcitrant adjacent property owners have there are not many of proved impossible to negotiate with. Fortunately, these. But it is a pity that wider powers were not given which could have led to major local improvements so that the major fruits would not fall, often by sheer accident, to small and frequently not very civic-minded entrepreneurs from morticians to minor-league supermarket owners. FIVE: The above are perhaps the main metropolitan lessons for which BARTD dramatic example of opportunities foresimply provides another gone. The final point we would make is that the early history points up an example of another important, common problem in the design of complex systems where many &ills are needed and where no one should be dictatorially dominant even if his field accounts for a large percentage of the work. This issue should not be reduced to the simple worn-out question as to who ought to be on top, with the corollary that architects are improvident and unrealistic (as many, alas, are) and that engineers are insensitive (as many, alas,
434
Journal of the Franklin Institute
Design
FIG. A. The San Francisco
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
Bay Area Rapid
Procedures
Transit
for
the Bay Area
System.
435
Tallie
B. Maule
and John
E. Burchard
are). No Utopian, new education will, we think, correct this among the various specialists. The real problem in any very large venture is not the profession of the skipper but his quality. Big-name architects simply create other difficulties if they are dominant. Most of the time engineers will probably have the leadership. It is not the fault of most of them that they feel architecture and landscaping are a sort of nice cosmetic which can be applied if there is enough time and money in the end. Little of their education or even their subsequent experience causes them to realize that the landscaping and the architecture will be better if all the principals participate in the very first decisions when conditions are being set. Not all early engineering decisions have the stamp of inevitability. Debate usually exists even within the limits of engineering criteria, and very often in the end no measurable set of facts can point to one decision as being uniquely rational. In such a situation, (for all but the most primitive systems) it is possible that an architectural consideration, if heard, might point to a different engineering conclusion. We mean here more, of course, than this because, though a few present architects talk a fast sociological or anthropological game, they are, in fact, no better informed about these, also important factors, than the engineers. So the team needs to be a little larger than the one we have been discussing, especially in the early decision making. BARTD has suffered some from too many preconditions set by engineering a priori which considered from the point of view of engineering alone may have been perfectly sound. At the top in engineering organizations, theoretical and philosophical talk can sometimes be engaged. On the front lines, decisions
FIG. B. Site plan of the Fruitvale Station. Project Architects: Reynolds and Chamberlain; Neil1 Smith and Associates, AIA, Oakland, Calif. Project Engineer: Bechtel Cor$oration, San Francisco, Calif. Project Landscape Architects: Anthony Guxrardo Associates, San Francisco, Calif.
436
Journal of the Franklin Institute
FIG. C. Full size mock-up showing typical fare collection
equipment
and an example
of a custom public telephone installation.
08
;
on
@El
FIG. D. Preliminary design for the illuminated signs at the 19th Street Oakland Station. Signing and Graphics Consultant: Emesst Born, FAZA.
Vol. 286. No. 5. November1968
437
FIG. E. BARTD
transit
vehicle.
(SFBARTD
photograph.)
FIG. F. Linear Parkway demonstration development on the 30 to 45 foot wide right-of-way under the aerial structure. Project Landscape Architect: Sasaki, Walker Associates, Inc., Sausalito, Calif. (SFBARDT photograph.)
FIG. G. Aerial transit structure.
(Cronk & Associates photograph.)
FIG. H. Mission Street Station. Project Architect: Francisco,
Hertzka and Knowles, AZA, San
Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
__.-...____._..._-._______-.___._ FIG. I. The Glen Park Station is unique due to the site configuration which allows a 30 foot high space at the platform level. The walls for this space are of rough quarried slate in light variegated colors of yellow and green. Advertising panels are recessed. Project Architect: Ernest Born, FAZA, San Francisco, Calif.
FIG. J. Plan of the area surrounding the Civic Center Station showing its location at the eastern end of the design axis. Project San Francisco,
440
on the Market Street Line, Architect: Reid and Turks,
Calif.
Journal of the Franklin Institute
FIG. K. Plan of concourse mezzanine of the Montgomery Street Station, accompanied by a section through the station profiling the planned escalator/stairway arrangements. Project Architect: Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, San Francisco, Calif. (Dwain Faubion photograph.)
Vol. 286, No. 5, November1968
441
Tallie B. Maule and John
E. Burchard
are likely to be taken as immutable and the project sped on its way in the spirit of Admiral Farragut. Thus when it appears that a better architectural solution might have been possible we were, for a time, told that it was too late, that it would cost too much in time and money to change. This is an annoying argument but by the time it is made it may, in fact, be true. The point is, of course, that it should never have been possible to make it. The establishment of genuine dialogue between all the designing and planning teams at the very beginning of decision making and the consistent follow-up to be sure that the dialogue continues and that no eager beaver is to be allowed to swim against its tide, this is the only way around a great difficulty which is not caused because any participant is intentionally evil or stupid. And if this can become a way of life then it will not matter so much whether King Log or King Stork seems to wear the crown.
FIG. L. Civic Center Station concourse level model, and transverse section indicating concourse level, then the platform level for the municipal system, and at the bottom BARTD platform.
442
Journal
of the Franklin
the the
Institute
Design
FIG. M. Civic Center
Vol.
286,
No.
5, November
Station
1968
plan
of typical entrance wall treatment.
Procedures
and multi-level
for
section
the Bay Area
showing
443
FIG. N. Montgomery
Street
Station
mezzanine
level.
FIG. 0. Oakland 12th and 19th Street Stations, showing view from upper level. Above is the main concourse, and below is the second train platform Architect: Gerald McCue, AZA, and Associates, Berkeley, Calif.
444
Journal
of
train platform level. Projrct
the Franklin
In.;titutr
Design
Procedures
for
the Bay
Area
FIG. P. Central Administration Building and Lake Merritt Station. Aerial view showing the sunken public plaza which allows a view of the automatic train control console. Project Warner Q Levikow, AIA; Gardner Dailey Associates; San Francisco, Architects: Yuill-Thornton, Calif. (SFBARTD
photograph).
FIG. Q. North Berkeley Station. View of the entire station site showing plaza, landscaped parking, and, in the upper right, the electric substation. Project Architect: Ki/cl/rn clnd Hunt, AIA, San Francisco, Calif.
Tallie B. Maule and John
FIG. R. North
446
Berkeley
E. Burchard
Station views of the glass-peaked concourse platform. (SFBARTD photograph.)
Journal
and the loading
of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures
for the Bay Area
FIG. S. Berkeley Station plaza development plan, a cooperative effort between City and BARTD design teams. Project Architect: Ma&r and Martens, AIA, San Francisco, Calif. Project Landscape Architect: Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, ASLA, San Francisco Calif.
FIG. T. Berkeley Station cross section through main entrance showing the surface plaza and clear spans over the mezzanine and train platform levels.
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
447
Tallie
B. Maule
und
John
E. Burchard
FIG. U. Berkeley Station mezzanine level perspective.
FIG. V. El Cerrito de1 Norte Station. Project Architect: Calif. (SFBARTD
DeMars and Wells, AIA, Berkeley,
photograph.)
Design
Procedures
for
FIG. W. San Leandro Station. Project Architect: Joseph Esherick/Musten San Francisco, Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
FIG. X.
Orinda
Station.
Project
San Francisco,
Architect:
]oseph
Esherick/Masten
Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
the Bay Area
Q Hurd,
r3 Hurd,
Tallie
B. Maule
and
FIG. Y. Hayward
450
John
E. Burchard
Station. Project Architect: Wurster, Bernardi Q Emmons, San Francisco, Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
AIA,
Journal of the Franklin Institute
6. MAULE and
JOHN E. BURCHARD
General Background Several years ago, the five major counties of the San Francisco Bay Area voted, separately, as to whether they wished jointly to underwrite bonds for a common rapid transit system. The three most significantly urban counties, San Francisco at the West, and Alameda and Contra Costa in the East Bay, voted favorably. Rapidly-urbanizing San Mateo elected not to join. So did rural-suburban Marin county to the north across the Golden Gate. The system now under construction is largely financed by general obligation bonds of the three counties authorized in 1962 for which the citizens are, in the pinch, ultimately liable. The direction is by a Board of Directors, politically though variously selected, four for each county. This board does more direct managing than would be usual in private corporations. Under California law it must hold most of its meetings in public. Day-to-day management is conducted by a General Manager, and a modest sized staff, covering problems mainly of engineering and construction, but also of law, finance, public relations and so on. Actual design and construction work has been contracted to a Joint Venture of nationally distinguished engineering firms: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Tudor, Bechtel--otherwise known as PBTB. This organization has a very large working group of all sorts of engineering specialists. Architectural and similar design services are subcontracted by PBTB to individual architects and designers. This is the general administrative organization under which the architectural design procedures of BARTD have evolved. huge
of the
System
The first stage of BARTD’s projects will be completed a few years from now and ready for passengers. There will be much to admire in its 75 miles of line and its 33-38 stations (Fig. A). Passengers who approach outlying stations in their own automobiles will find handsome, well-landscaped parking lots or convenient discharge points (Fig. B). They will enter the stations easily and encounter good-looking and imaginative fare collection and ticket selling equipment (Fig. C). They will be directed where to go and what to do by simple, clear, and attractive signs designed and located by Ernest Born, FAIA (see Fig. D). They will be carried to or from the boarding platforms by modern rapid escalators. The cars (Fig. E) designed by Sundberg-Ferar (discussed by Sundberg elsewhere in this issue) will be very fast for a metropolitan system. They will be air conditioned, devoid of Muzak and of any advertising except at the bulkheads, with unusually comfortable, even luxurious seating-some
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
423
Tallie
B. Maule
think
too luxurious.
John
and
E. Burchard
They
will be more
like the cabin
of a first-class
aircraft
than, say, a New York subway car. As a passenger rides the many miles of aerial line, looking
through
windows,
he will, given present
a line every mile
of which
has been
contribution ture which
of course, has been
of Albany a strong
between
landscaped
theme
and other special
mounds structure
treated
the aerial
in an urban The
stations
a general (Fig.
of architect community
I), Ernest
provide
stone and concrete.
Street stations
Mission
have ameliorated J,
provided
Montgomery
Street
with the skillful has made thing
like a precise
his associates opportunity work.
below
At North
in
by interesting
of tough
(Fig.
0).
Owings
with
a comparable
Q and
TALLIE
R,
B. MAULE,
enginering Bechtel.
AIA,
consultants
He received
homa A. & M. University
and
where
graduate
Perugia,
and
where
is Coordinating
to
SFBARTD,
work
at
the
with
Skidmore,
the planning
and
design of the
large
undertakings,
and
Institute
an
system at a
for the general
degree He
Merrill Oak
from Okla-
from
Princeton
has done addiper
Academy
peace-time
and
with
Brinckerhoff-Tudor-
ltaliana
American
Owings and
in his own firm in San Francisco.
FAIA,
degree
Fellow.
Universita
an associate other
Architect
of Fine Arts
Fellow of the
some-
are involved,
Parsons,
he was Lowell Palmer
is a
AIA,
into
control
a Bachelor in Architecture a Master
at
coupled
McCue,
Dailey,
air rights
have
problem
P) together
the train
(Figs.
& Merrill
Oakland
(Fig.
to watch
and Tarics
treatments,
late Gardner
Merritt
sculptural
at Civic Center
Skidmore,
The
at Lake
Figs.
within
in one of the
AIA. Reid
those of downtown
patrons
tional
if
element
diversity
of display cases (Figs. K, N). Gerald
for interested
and
walls
floor, wall and lighting
a plaza
Berkeley,
that,
the hand-
a cohesive
sort will appear
permissible
dealing
stations,
hard watch
developed
It shows
of local
and Knowles,
beams.
elegance
and
of another
low ceilings
tapering
the most compact
areas
the robust
G, itself
can become
openness
sculpture
exploitation
meandering sitting
At Balboa Park and Glen Park the opportunity of topography to
has exploited
(Fig. H) by Hertzka
sophisticated
texture.
in the
and Walker
between
in Fig.
a
struc-
help,
areas,
transition
illustrated
unity.
considerable
and
the aerial
walkway,
by activity
FAIA,
to make
all of this will
F) by Sasaki
varied
generous
than a barrier.
the relatively
L, M) by coffers
under
will offer a large display
Concrete
and
beautification
(Fig.
but
a graceful
Don Emmons,
FAIA,
with
concept
structure,
architectural
Born,
parkway urban
and the neighborhood
themselves
stations
his ride
it passes. Not
and punctuated
rather
system-wide
This
It provides
scale of the aerial some creation
linear
with HUD
of a continuous
features.
sensitively,
which
as the 2.7-mile
completed,
traverse
to enhance
through
and El Cerrito.
provides
and budget,
landscaped
to the community
be elaborate, cities
decently
design
Stranieri
he was active Ridge,
was for eleven
in
in Rome. As
years
in
Tennessee principal
He is a member of the American
of Architects.
Journal of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures for the Bay commodious
surface
and Hunt,
AIA,
development.
entrance
to the station
has been
plaza which
will protect
in a BARTD
Berkeley
At the main
station,
ing closely with the city landscape Abey,
ASLA)
have collaborated
Maher
architects,
established
by Kitchen
the open space in the
and Martens,
(Royston,
in the design
Area
AIA,
Hanamoto,
of a pleasant
work-
Beck
civic
and
and transit
space (Figs. S, T, U). One of the interesting in a number forceful
of aerial
and essentially
same strong
design
of the escalators. required quite
at least to the professionally
For these the controlling
identical.
forces
They
protective
different
results,
stations.
The
all had platforms
canopies
Orinda,
(Figs. W, X) and by Theodore
V, by Joseph
be enough
to illustrate
Esherick,
this framework
de Mars,
FAIA,
at Hayward
without
degenerating
Barnardi,
at El
FAIA,
at San Leandro
FAIA,
the variety
the diagonals
and width and all
Yet within
by Vernon
occurs
were both
there were the
and
of the same length
were achieved
de1 Norte,
may
of the line
of the same length.
appearances Fig.
was comparable,
in the horizontality
Cerrito This
terrain
minded,
conditions
arld
(Fig. Y). into
a
catalogue.
The Design Attitude These To
stations
have
been
a
will
attempted monstrous really
fashioned
kind
beginning
at least,
the
exciting
Bay
Area
the
It
does not belong of Moscow
painting
provided The
even
in a subway will
and sculpture
(All do not.)
can
not
be
anyway
by those architects but plans
argued whether
in Stockholm
to wait
are underway
that
have
Piranesic
it be the oldIn
proliferation
although
the of
space for
in art in the subway.
the benefactions
for trying
Montreal.
would
brutalism.
the attractive
who believe
will have
of
situation
Canadian
have
to be found
installations
or enterprises,
monumentality physical
or the contemporary
the stations
this has been citizens
have
in
extravagance.
grandeur
abstract
not
this
to elicit
of private these when
the time is ripe.
JOHN Dean
E. BURCHARD,
the Massachusetts ceived
HON.
AIA,
is Consultant
Emeritus of the School of Humanities Institute
B.S. and MS.
Michigan
of Technology,
degrees.
have awarded
spectively. He is a member of Tau President
of the American
served
as a trustee
Mount
Holyoke
Environmental Among
his extensive
America,” with Oscar Scientific
Design
Handlin;
and the University
and
of Arts
Boston Museum
and
was Acting
the
University
major
with Albert Progress,”
of
at re-
publications
Bush-Brown; “The
degrees,
of re-
and “Mid-Century:
an honorary member of the American
and Sciences.
He
of
and
of
College
of
Dean of
Fine Arts of the
California
are
“The
Historian The
for which he was editor
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
D.Arch.
Beta Pi, and a Fellow and former
Academy
of the
College,
L.H.D.
and
from which he had
Union College
him Hon.
for SFBARTD
and Social Science
Institute
Social
at
Berkeley,
Architecture and
has
the
Implications
and annotator.
of
City,” He
of is
of Architects.
425
Tallie B. Maule and John
E. Burchard
The stations will not have the consistency of Harry Weese’s characteristically original designs for Washington, D.C.; nor will they be governed by what we believe to be a foolish purity about advertising. The BARTD position is that advertising is a central element of modern life; that some of the best contemporary art is, in fact, advertising art; that advertising can help to enliven the traveller’s journey. The policy is, therefore, not to suppress but to control its scale, its location, its proliferation, so that it adorns and does not desecrate, that its messages do not drown out the information which the traveller needs from the system itself. All this has been accomplished by policy determination and practical applications worked out by the individual station architects; however, not without some objections by the brokers of advertsing. Hence, the policy in the end is one of maximizing amenity rather than revenue. Finally the architects have had great freedom in the choice of materials and colorings and many of the furnishings. The combinations they have chosen and which have been approved are, in general, more restrained than those in Montreal. The detailing and the quality of finish will be quite comparable with the best work in Stockholm, which is probably the best in the world at the present time.
Landscaping
Program Restored
The landscaping program is no less pleasant. Before his resignation in September 1966, the original landscape consultant, Lawrence Halprin, ASLA, had developed a landscaping budget for the entire system calling for about $11 million. In an economy move, which dominated BARTD’s directorate and management at about that time, this was halved. Today it has all been restored and designing is proceeding on the assumption that the funds will be forthcoming. (This does not mean that the directorate has become less vigilant about “extravagance,” but, rather, that it realizes there are a number of possible economies in passenger and community amenity which are simply false economies.) At the time of Halprin’s resignation he had prepared a rather general manual of landscape criteria for line sections as well as station areas, primarily directed toward plant materials but with some standards for site furniture. In the reconstituted landscape program, after his departure, his manual was issued to the new project landscape architects but it was so incomplete that we freed the designers of any obligation to comply with it. Halprin had also begun the design of the linear park project which he also declined to complete. It was subsequently decided to give Sasaki-Walker the freedom of a completely new start. Halprin had some interesting ideas also about the handling and location of aerial structures on streets in some of the more congested areas, which may or may not have been well worked out but which, in BARTD’s view, were quite impractical in the prevailing economic and political climate and so nothing came of them.
426
Jcmmd of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures
for the Bay Area
The landscape design situation thus became fluid. The first task of those who cared about landscaping was to get the budget restored. Once this had been done and Sasaki and Walker were well on their way with the linear park project (which, by the way, has been such a success locally that the citizens have asked that it be extended), the station architects were asked to name the landscape architects with whom they would like to associate themselves, just as would be the practice in a single private project. We did this instead of selecting a landscaper for the system because we knew that qome of our station designs might be described as “hard-edge” and others as “soft-focus” and we felt it reasonable that the landscapers should be in sympathy with the architect with whom they were to work. The several suggestions wcrc reviewed and. as it developed, the desired landscape architects were appointed. The program, then, had two prongs. One concerned the station areas. the other the line between the stations. We decided to have the station landscape architect continue down the line until he encountered another landscape architect designing from his station base. We would then find and agree upon a reasonable topographical or man-made feature to make the boundary. This might have resulted, but did not result, in confusion of ideas. Omitting subway stations-between which, of course, BARTD has neither landscaping responsibilities or powers-the lines will work out as follows; from Richmond to Oakland all the work, except the linear park, will be done by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, ASLA, who also have the City of Berkeley’s plaza. Anthony Guzzardo, ASLA, has the line from Concord to Orinda and from Fruitvale to Bayfair. South of Bayfair, except for the work of Ralph Jones, ASLA, at Hayward, Robert Kitchen, FATA, is involved. Sometimes we wish we had some responsibility for the streets above the subway. The new plans for Market Street Beautification made by city architects rigorously exclude skylights which we badly need for the amenities of the Market Street Stations. Our view is that we can design skylights which are completely compatible with the street design and, indeed would enhance it. The outcome will surely be no skylights and this will modestly impair the attractiveness of the mezzanines involved. But there is never much cause for optimism when architects fall out over aesthetic bones. The parking lots offered a special problem. When Don Emmons, FATA, then Consulting Architect resigned, (simultaneously with Halprin) one of the explicit charges he made was that station site planning had been proceeding without plan or architectural guidance. This was not ill-founded. What simple engineering considerations had produced was not nearly as good as what was possible. Under the “new look,” the architect, his landscape architect, and the engineer made a team. If there was a captain it was the architect though he had, of course, to meet the engineering requirements. The results, we think, are remarkably better than the earlier lay-outs to which Emmons objected. There is better circulation. There are more comfortable approaches from the parked car to the station. Any significant existing trees have been
Vol. 286. No. 5, November 1968
427
Talk
U. hfaule and John
preserved.
There
including
E. Uurchard
has been judicious
a few “spectaculars.”
loss of parking
and generous
addition
of other
planting
In only one case has there been any substantial
spaces and these are acceptable.
The Design Program Emmon’s design
contributions
and
consonance principal
construction
had
been
with standard
joint
professional
responsibility
the work, PBTB American The
After
were major.
Institute AIA
be given
was selected
assigned
of his firm, project. Emmons
would
then consulted
a consulting
architect rather
be involved
then
Consulting
program.
appointed
who
than as a member
in final
consulted
designs
public
officials
to draw up a list of candidates.
Consulting
was appointed
be
of the
one who would have done outstanding
not
PBTB
schools
do most
on how to set up the architectural
that
in
that the
PBTB
firm would
was appointed
Halprin
engineers
which
this guidance,
heads of architectural
to
recommendations
who would act as an individual
and whose
Given
BARTD
society
of directing
to the profession
would have the respect of the profession, design work himself,
by
task
over other competitors.
of Architects
recommended
the primary
Architect
in Sept.
Landscape
Architect,
1963.
for
the
and
the
From
this list,
Early
in
1964,
on the recommenda-
tion of Emmons. ’ Much
has been made (and probably
the fact that Emmons BARTD
and Halprin
organization,
being,
in effect,
not to the actual
client
General
or its Board
made
Manager against
in the Joint nate
Venture,
the work
fragile.
He
Assistant
reported
according
to
and he, finally, to an organization
as Consultant
whether
process),
to make
Coordinator,
Tallie
influential
a more
Coordinator
428
who
of and
by its
case could Staff
be
Architect to coordithe
to the Manager
of
Director,
reported
was to
of Emmons E. Burchard,
William
Bugge-
and
other
of Directors
and
matters not
recommendations
and Halprin Hon.
AIA,
(or anyone for changes
B. Maule,
AIA, a designer
slot in the Joint
of Engineering
and
in Septem-
was appointed
of amenity.
to the Joint
He
in policy
the Coordinator
and
he became
and so on, was moved
a peer
of Construction
Journal
he
in the
heatl, now called
of large experience,
Venture;
reported,
Venture
else involved
or not asked to do so. In turn the new architectural
into
either
of communication
reported
Project
was free at any time to talk to any architect design
Venture
He was expected
his line
made)
part of the
chart of 1965.
of the resignation
Board
by the
Coordinator,
to the overall
on architectural
to the
AIA.
but
who in turn
ber 1966, and after some delay, John however,
to the Joint as represented
occupied
Thresher,
a Sub-Project
have been the right
An even stronger
spot
architects
of Engineering,
As a consequence
consultants
of Directors.
then Sprague
should
be BARTD,
organizational
of the project
Manager
Engineering
who would
the weak
something
were not keyed into
of the
and,
of the Franklin
like
Institute
Design Procedures
them, reported recognition, on and other visual path of designers
for the Bay Area
directly to the overall Project Director, Mr. Bugge. This the organizational charts, of the importance of architectural elements certainly has had something to do with the easier in the last year and a half.
But there were certainly other equally important factors. Anyone who has observed management closely knows that positions on an organizational chart cannot predict how much influence a given individual may have. One of the other factors was the internal catharsis caused by the resignations of Emmons and Halprin; another was a change in thinking in the Board, which had become overly nervous about mounting costs and had been on an econom) course which forced them to make decisions contrary to what Emmons and Halprin wished. Finally, there may have been the way the work was done. The Consultant’s job with the Board is one of exposition and persuasion. But this is not enough. Not only must he have much knowledge of what is going on even in the smallest corners but he must have a chance to influence this work before it is too late. Consequently, he cannot simply leave large advice, however good, and go away. How effective he can be is completely related to the strength and influence of the Coordinating Architect in the Joint Venture who has to be still more closely connected to the details. Unless the Consultant can work harmoniously with the Coordinating Architect and unless the latter is able to wield power when he has to (although the wielding of power is of course a last resort and not something to use often), good results cannot be produced. This is, then, the relation that we have tried to establish; to see that the decisions made early do not have damaging potentials; to insist that the work in the trenches shall be in keeping with decisions which have been made and not contrived, instead, to defeat it; to argue with architects and designers vigorously and critically before the project has jelled, but to be in agreement with the architects and engineers by the time the project comes before the Board for approval so that the Consultant can honestly advocate its adoption. He had said more than once that if there has to bc professional bickering at the Board level he will have failed in his mission. Architects
Standards
Manual
Distributed
Working somewhat differently before his resignation, partly because the stage of the work required different treatment, the contributions of Emmons were, nevertheless, major. So are their residues. He brought about the design of the prize-winning aerial bent. He prepared elaborate and generally excellent system-wide standards and criteria including provisions for fare collection, vehicle clearance, ventilation, structural requirements, escalator arrangements and many others. Together with comparable data supplied by special consultants in sanitation, electricity, acoustics and so on, this information was officially adopted and published as SFBARTD Manual 01 ArLlLitectlrl-al Standards and distributed as a guide to project architects and engineers. It is
Vol. 286, No. 5. November 1968
429
Talkie B. Maule and John
E. Burchard
still a good “bible” although standards often change with time and greater knowledge, even though we have been libel-al about sensible exception. Moreover, given the decision that there would be many architects, we tried to reduce the standards to which each was to conform, to the absolute minimum consistent with safety, public identification, mechanized operations and unambiguous communications. Emmons also prepared “definitive” designs for about half of the 33 original stations. These definitives were given to the project architects as a sort of graphic program for further development of the individual designs. It was also his role to advise the Joint Venture on the final selection of individual station architects, all of whom had been designated before his resignation.
The Design Process Was it wise to have many architects, or would it not have been better to use a single architect for the whole system? The question is moot. Strong theoretical arguments can be made for either position. The majority of the great systems have had a multiplicity of architects. We are happy with the results obtained. To have a variety was the recommendation of the AIA, but we think that neither BARTD’s nor any other system’s experience would permit anyone to say categorically that better results could be obtained with one or many. It depends upon what you are looking for. A great many of the specifics cited by Emmons on his resignation dealing with details of design decisions were well founded; and in the vast majority of cases what he then proposed is essentially what now is. In a few cases we think he was wrong and so did the station architects involved. Nobody bats 1.000 in this game, and we know we will not. The present design procedures which work with very little friction and, we think, with generally good results are merely those of any smooth-running team-organization. The architects, like architects anywhere, are supplied with some boundary conditions by the client. The client has tried to make these as few as possible, but in a public transportation system there are, perforce, still a good many. The architect presents his proposals at various established stages for a sequence of reviews and approvals. The first of these are technical to make sure that all the legitimate engineering and economic criteria have been met. They occur first in-house in the Joint Venture. Then there is a further review by the District Design Review Group made up of staff both from the District and the Joint Venture and crossing all the lines of design. Through all these stages, Maule has been principal coordinator. He works closely with Burchard who occasionally intervenes but more often does not. Burchard then reviews the project with Maule and the architect. After all these critics have been answered or after the design has been altered to take account of their criticism the architect then makes a full-dress public presentation to a special committee of the Board of Directors, the Visual Design Committee.
430
Journal
of the
Franklin
Institute
Design
This
is essentially
deciding First,
similar
body of a private
the hearing
to the presentation corporation
in Burchard has either -or
who (having
succeeded
has been
expositor
convinced
and advocate
times exhaustive
one, open
Secondly,
been
in having
made-in
questions
put by the Committee.
of some detail may be requested;
are sent back for revision
result. In the last of these included.
reviews
curiously
perhaps
only
drawings,
a third
may examine
Board
they represented
viously approved. recommendation The
a review
in this whole
process
program.
total
arc
design,
has
work,
although which
now
time to time, Maule
from
what
had
re-reported
is central.
been
pre-
and the new
of appeal,
provides
authority
a simliar
channel
but the existence
utility.
even
of this ultimate
the sequence
as required,
worry
of architectural
about
reviews,
of the work
of
architects. Hc provides a purposes seem in conllict. from
channel
It never had to be used.) Maule
criteria
He is the day-by-day
He is the monitor
(Burchard
arrange
materials
but these would not go back to the deviation
landscape and other
important
oftcu
explained.
of the architectural
architectural
finish
landmark,
and the like. From
a major
more
of pl-eliminn,y
of the architect’s
the project architects and the project channel of appeal when architectural highest
and
It is a principal
revised details
in consequence
approval;
but most of the time approvals
In such cases they are meticulously
role of Maule
coordinator
with his proposals
Sometimes, before
programs
aspects.
supervision
and Burchard unless
color
called
fixed the design in all of its major it represents
up to this point,
accordince
can now assist the architect as and somearises, from the penetrating
the elaboration
goes to working
with all
that he was wrong), if the occasion
approval,
tliffercnccs.
has a sort of advocate
a suggestor-moderator-critic changes
designs
last
might make to the
to full press coverage
the architect
of this review,
The
an architect
the Bay Area
with two not unimportant
is by law a public
that that does to limit discussion.
for
Procedures
Maule,
is probably
has to establish time
and
and
and enforce
money
coordinate
to the its most
schedules,
in all matters
with Burchard. Burchard things
plays a more general
he believes
government.
He is, in a sense,
his cognizance
confidence respect
sometimes
the Board
and a kind of aesthetic
as a way of encouraging its aspirations
role. He watches work in progress
will be harmful;
ought
the Board’s to be.
of the Board.
each other
He
of Directors’
conscience
on matters
and
He would cease to be effective
useless
of
too, but more
than in lecturing
be helpless
or if they were not completely
referee
for the Board
own aspirations
would
to prevent
he acts as advoca tc with a tit>
it what
without
if he and Maule
his
did not
open with one another
or if
they were to come to work at cross purposes. That would
is why a more not
detailed
be enlightening.
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
description
Different
of design
situations
and
methods different
at KAR’I‘D personalities
431
l‘allie
B.
Ma&e
and
/ohn
E. Burchard
will surely call for different structures. You try to get the best people you can find to consummate a program. Every day you remember that each of these best people has a different set of priorities and that singly each would not be very good in his own field if he did not hold the priorities of his area to be of the highest importance. Waverers are not helpful here. You then try to reconcile, to heckle, to cajole and, mildly, threaten this team into the right amount of give and take. But you do not try to design for the designers; only to press them at all times really to do the best they know how; you try to be their sympathetic and comprehending friend, their critic but not their boss; you seek freedoms for them, not constraints; and then you pray a little. Lessons
for the
Future
Prayers may not be enough for any American community. We have shown the optimistic side of the picture and we believe this much optimism to be warranted. But there have been larger failures in BARTD which others planning metropolitan systems ought to ponder. None of these, it seems to us, are the fault of BARTD’s Board of Directors, its managerial staff, or the Joint Venture of PBTB. It is therefore somewhat easier to talk about them. What are some of the principal defects that may thus be engendered? ONE: When it is done the system will probably have cost the greater part of $1 billion. This cannot be looked upon as an outlay of irrecoverable cash to be compared directly with a relief program, for example. Rather it is expected in the end to be a self-liquidating investment. This may or may not turn out to be so. It has not been the history of much, if any, public transportation, ever. If the region were to underwrite a billion dollars worth of something, was public transport, in general, or public transport of the BARTD type, in particular, the best thing to bet on? We do not imply that it was not; but we are sure that nobody knows whether it was. The weapons of operations-analysis and cost benefit analysis are now sharp enough and the potentials of assisting computer technology are now sufficiently advanced so that a forward-looking metropolis could undertake such analyses and obtain at least some guidance as to where the largest probable benefits were. Whether (if the people knew) they would then decide rationally may be quite a different matter. TWO: BARTD is not an integrated metropolitan transport system. It is more nearly a high-speed, luxurious interurban and commuter service extending well into the country. It is capable of some local use in the downtown areas but it does not provide really convenient access to most of the important points in San Francisco whether Union Square, North Beach, The Japanese Trade Center, the parks, the Opera House, Candlestick Park, The Cow Palace or the Airport; over in the East Bay its relations to the main things in Oakland is but a little better while the walk to any central point on the Berkeley campus of the University of California will be long and tiring and all uphill.
432
Journal of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures
for the Bay Areu
If BARTD does become a big transportation success it will be because somebody else has provided all the feederlines, separately owned, separately managed, and jealously so; it will be because private motor cars have played a major role in delivering commuters to outlying stations as a sort of revival 01 the old song about the 5:15. The people of the Bay Area never really discussed whether what they actually wanted was an integrated transportation system, and they went out of their way in the BARTD charter to be sure that the BARTD directors and management did not indulge any illegitimate aspirations of that sort. This decision, or non.decision, has of course been a major conditioner of design. It was not a decision made by the management or the Board of BARTD. It is hard to believe that they might have stretched the powers of their charter far enough to have made any difference. We do not know how hard they tried to get a broader charter; perhaps not very hard. But even if they had, one could not be sanguine of their success, given the abrasive and divisive nature of the local rivalries. The fact is that American metropolises need integrated systems right now; that systems engineers are almost certainly able to design them now. We know of no system yet in advanced planning in the United States that promises this or which goes much further than to think in interurban, suburban, or simply downtown terms. This is, of course, more complicated than the need for single ownership and management. It is an indispensable condition but it is not sufficient. It will then require imagination and money and an ability to deal with the many who regard the American automobile as their only true castle, superior to those of the Middle Ages in that it is their privilege to move it anywhere, any time and be guaranteed a place to put it upon arrival. BARTD will be something which many people of the Bay Area can use and enjoy and something of which they can be proud, but it will not serve the metropolitan area in the way the networks of the Paris Metro or the London Underground do. THREE: One of the conditions implied in the premises of BARTD and the one almost always implied in American systems is that it should hopefull) become self-supporting at a very early date. This imposes conditions which may or may not be favorable to the rational development of an area. It almost guarantees that the route shall be designed to tap the largest concentrations of potential customers and this must, perforce, ignore more delayed developmental potential such as might occur when a line moves into an undeveloped area; it may even tend to put the line through centers of relative affluence rather than through the pockets of poverty which have more need for it. This, too, is not a local criticism but a general one which has been wcllsummarized several times by Robert Alexander, FAIA, in Los Angeles. It is a criticism of the ongoing philosophy of rapid transit location. In addition, BARTD made an early and characteristically American decision that somchow fares should be more or less related to the distance traveled. (It is not the
Vol.
286,
No.
5, November
1968
433
Tallie B. Made
and John E. Burchard
theory of the United States Post Ofice, but no matter.) The consequences of this natural decision has been a system of graduated fares. It has resulted in the design of an ingenious, attractive, and perhaps nearly fool-proof system of ticket sale and collection including a way to make it easy for an erring customer to make up his deficit. Perhaps a single fare system, though much simpler, would have raised other difficulties. But the philosophical question remains whether metropolitan public transit is not of such fundamental necessity to the lower income groups who need it most and who cannot possibly pay the fares required by a deficit-free system, that fareless or almost fareless public transport would not be the logical thing for a modern city; it does seem easier to gain public support for Astrodomes. FOUR: A system like BARTD will inevitably bring enormous economic advantages to many and perhaps diseconomies to a few. But neither is planned. The narrowness of BAKTD’s powers coupled with the lack of real in any of the communities in which BARTD is being planning preparedness built to serve, guarantees this. Given their charter, BARTD people may even have exceeded their authority in trying for SO many neighborhood conversations as they did. But the major ingredient was missing, the power of the transport district to make its own investments which might have then helped to subsidize the transportation itself; or at least to be able to take enough land in the neighborhood of all stations, except the most central ones, to ensure the kind of orderly development whereby the public interest as well as the private might have been fostered. Such powers could have been adequately guarded against abuse, as they presumably have been in Montreal. They would have materially increased the flexibility and amenity of station design and promoted a much better total system. Their absence and the narrowness with which the available powers have been construed have not only forfeited some nonrecurrent communal opportunities but in a few cases have actually produced minor disasters on sites where recalcitrant adjacent property owners have there are not many of proved impossible to negotiate with. Fortunately, these. But it is a pity that wider powers were not given which could have led to major local improvements so that the major fruits would not fall, often by sheer accident, to small and frequently not very civic-minded entrepreneurs from morticians to minor-league supermarket owners. FIVE: The above are perhaps the main metropolitan lessons for which BARTD dramatic example of opportunities foresimply provides another gone. The final point we would make is that the early history points up an example of another important, common problem in the design of complex systems where many &ills are needed and where no one should be dictatorially dominant even if his field accounts for a large percentage of the work. This issue should not be reduced to the simple worn-out question as to who ought to be on top, with the corollary that architects are improvident and unrealistic (as many, alas, are) and that engineers are insensitive (as many, alas,
434
Journal of the Franklin Institute
Design
FIG. A. The San Francisco
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
Bay Area Rapid
Procedures
Transit
for
the Bay Area
System.
435
Tallie
B. Maule
and John
E. Burchard
are). No Utopian, new education will, we think, correct this among the various specialists. The real problem in any very large venture is not the profession of the skipper but his quality. Big-name architects simply create other difficulties if they are dominant. Most of the time engineers will probably have the leadership. It is not the fault of most of them that they feel architecture and landscaping are a sort of nice cosmetic which can be applied if there is enough time and money in the end. Little of their education or even their subsequent experience causes them to realize that the landscaping and the architecture will be better if all the principals participate in the very first decisions when conditions are being set. Not all early engineering decisions have the stamp of inevitability. Debate usually exists even within the limits of engineering criteria, and very often in the end no measurable set of facts can point to one decision as being uniquely rational. In such a situation, (for all but the most primitive systems) it is possible that an architectural consideration, if heard, might point to a different engineering conclusion. We mean here more, of course, than this because, though a few present architects talk a fast sociological or anthropological game, they are, in fact, no better informed about these, also important factors, than the engineers. So the team needs to be a little larger than the one we have been discussing, especially in the early decision making. BARTD has suffered some from too many preconditions set by engineering a priori which considered from the point of view of engineering alone may have been perfectly sound. At the top in engineering organizations, theoretical and philosophical talk can sometimes be engaged. On the front lines, decisions
FIG. B. Site plan of the Fruitvale Station. Project Architects: Reynolds and Chamberlain; Neil1 Smith and Associates, AIA, Oakland, Calif. Project Engineer: Bechtel Cor$oration, San Francisco, Calif. Project Landscape Architects: Anthony Guxrardo Associates, San Francisco, Calif.
436
Journal of the Franklin Institute
FIG. C. Full size mock-up showing typical fare collection
equipment
and an example
of a custom public telephone installation.
08
;
on
@El
FIG. D. Preliminary design for the illuminated signs at the 19th Street Oakland Station. Signing and Graphics Consultant: Emesst Born, FAZA.
Vol. 286. No. 5. November1968
437
FIG. E. BARTD
transit
vehicle.
(SFBARTD
photograph.)
FIG. F. Linear Parkway demonstration development on the 30 to 45 foot wide right-of-way under the aerial structure. Project Landscape Architect: Sasaki, Walker Associates, Inc., Sausalito, Calif. (SFBARDT photograph.)
FIG. G. Aerial transit structure.
(Cronk & Associates photograph.)
FIG. H. Mission Street Station. Project Architect: Francisco,
Hertzka and Knowles, AZA, San
Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
__.-...____._..._-._______-.___._ FIG. I. The Glen Park Station is unique due to the site configuration which allows a 30 foot high space at the platform level. The walls for this space are of rough quarried slate in light variegated colors of yellow and green. Advertising panels are recessed. Project Architect: Ernest Born, FAZA, San Francisco, Calif.
FIG. J. Plan of the area surrounding the Civic Center Station showing its location at the eastern end of the design axis. Project San Francisco,
440
on the Market Street Line, Architect: Reid and Turks,
Calif.
Journal of the Franklin Institute
FIG. K. Plan of concourse mezzanine of the Montgomery Street Station, accompanied by a section through the station profiling the planned escalator/stairway arrangements. Project Architect: Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, San Francisco, Calif. (Dwain Faubion photograph.)
Vol. 286, No. 5, November1968
441
Tallie B. Maule and John
E. Burchard
are likely to be taken as immutable and the project sped on its way in the spirit of Admiral Farragut. Thus when it appears that a better architectural solution might have been possible we were, for a time, told that it was too late, that it would cost too much in time and money to change. This is an annoying argument but by the time it is made it may, in fact, be true. The point is, of course, that it should never have been possible to make it. The establishment of genuine dialogue between all the designing and planning teams at the very beginning of decision making and the consistent follow-up to be sure that the dialogue continues and that no eager beaver is to be allowed to swim against its tide, this is the only way around a great difficulty which is not caused because any participant is intentionally evil or stupid. And if this can become a way of life then it will not matter so much whether King Log or King Stork seems to wear the crown.
FIG. L. Civic Center Station concourse level model, and transverse section indicating concourse level, then the platform level for the municipal system, and at the bottom BARTD platform.
442
Journal
of the Franklin
the the
Institute
Design
FIG. M. Civic Center
Vol.
286,
No.
5, November
Station
1968
plan
of typical entrance wall treatment.
Procedures
and multi-level
for
section
the Bay Area
showing
443
FIG. N. Montgomery
Street
Station
mezzanine
level.
FIG. 0. Oakland 12th and 19th Street Stations, showing view from upper level. Above is the main concourse, and below is the second train platform Architect: Gerald McCue, AZA, and Associates, Berkeley, Calif.
444
Journal
of
train platform level. Projrct
the Franklin
In.;titutr
Design
Procedures
for
the Bay
Area
FIG. P. Central Administration Building and Lake Merritt Station. Aerial view showing the sunken public plaza which allows a view of the automatic train control console. Project Warner Q Levikow, AIA; Gardner Dailey Associates; San Francisco, Architects: Yuill-Thornton, Calif. (SFBARTD
photograph).
FIG. Q. North Berkeley Station. View of the entire station site showing plaza, landscaped parking, and, in the upper right, the electric substation. Project Architect: Ki/cl/rn clnd Hunt, AIA, San Francisco, Calif.
Tallie B. Maule and John
FIG. R. North
446
Berkeley
E. Burchard
Station views of the glass-peaked concourse platform. (SFBARTD photograph.)
Journal
and the loading
of the Franklin Institute
Design Procedures
for the Bay Area
FIG. S. Berkeley Station plaza development plan, a cooperative effort between City and BARTD design teams. Project Architect: Ma&r and Martens, AIA, San Francisco, Calif. Project Landscape Architect: Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, ASLA, San Francisco Calif.
FIG. T. Berkeley Station cross section through main entrance showing the surface plaza and clear spans over the mezzanine and train platform levels.
Vol. 286, No. 5, November 1968
447
Tallie
B. Maule
und
John
E. Burchard
FIG. U. Berkeley Station mezzanine level perspective.
FIG. V. El Cerrito de1 Norte Station. Project Architect: Calif. (SFBARTD
DeMars and Wells, AIA, Berkeley,
photograph.)
Design
Procedures
for
FIG. W. San Leandro Station. Project Architect: Joseph Esherick/Musten San Francisco, Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
FIG. X.
Orinda
Station.
Project
San Francisco,
Architect:
]oseph
Esherick/Masten
Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
the Bay Area
Q Hurd,
r3 Hurd,
Tallie
B. Maule
and
FIG. Y. Hayward
450
John
E. Burchard
Station. Project Architect: Wurster, Bernardi Q Emmons, San Francisco, Calif. (Gerald Ratto photograph.)
AIA,
Journal of the Franklin Institute