Comments on: Beth Sholom / Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects

By: David Basulto [tricky]

David Basulto [tricky] — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:31:24 +0000

rdy4trvl,

The San Francisco architecture scene always goes back and forth on the debate of pushing new architectural concepts on the city. I have talked to a lot of people in San Francisco, and the general consensus is that this buildings do a favor to the city in that sense, becoming singular among the homogeneous (and finally boring) SF urban tissue. I think that if SFers have the final word on this aspect.

By: rdy4trvl

rdy4trvl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:13:16 +0000

Why in the world someone build this type of building in this type of neighborhood? I’m not a builder, architect, nor live in San Francisco – wouldn’t you want to build/design to fit in the environment….or maybe that’s the point. Any press is good press.

By: WA

WA — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:32:25 +0000

I sometimes wonder about the function of “literal” elements in work. It’s not in your face like sculptural columns, it is incorporated into the architecture itself; the reference to a menorah is hardly more than a passing reminder; after a first notice I imagine this element would be easily forgot, caught up with the atmosphere of the hall. But their is nothing wrong with literal, esp. if it doesn’t take away from the architecture, so to speak. It seems most religious buildings smack of these straightforward references. Albeit this one is somewhat overpowered by the one reference. When I first saw it I thought Kahn, too. I like the monumentality of the form, the “awkward” spaces (light) it creates between the buildings – though this might not be intentional – and as a pedestrian under the jutting parts of the hall; and I think about how it might feel in the upper levels of the hall, knowing it was design to put air between you and the ground.

By: David Basulto [tricky]

David Basulto [tricky] — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:21:33 +0000

I think it shows the “image” of the institution it holds, without being figurative. In that way, reminds me of Kahn’s thoughts on institutions.

Great work Stanley!

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:26:34 +0000

agree with Lucas, too heavy top, too small base, the proportion for me it’s just not right.

By: Meet Beth Sholom in San Francisco — Ben Atlas

Meet Beth Sholom in San Francisco — Ben Atlas — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:44:49 +0000

[...] pictures were taken by Rien van Rijthoven & Bruce Damonte and there is a story about me at ArchDaily. Let me tell you about [...]

By: Lucas Gray

Lucas Gray — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:15:26 +0000

I’m not a big fan of this design. I designed a synagogue as my thesis project at school so feel I have some insight into the symbolism of the religion and its architectural requirements. I think this is just not a good piece of architecture. I mean the giant half circle is so heavy and dominating that the whole facade composition becomes off balance. It also leaves some awkward spaces between the curve and adjacent building.

The interior of the prayer room looks like a bad lecture hall at a university with the plush folding seats and tan walls. It doesn’t make a place that I would want to spend a my Friday evenings and Saturday mornings nor a place that evokes a feeling of being close to god.

I know many of you hate comments like this but…this is just a terribly ugly design. I can’t imagine sitting down and drawing this and thinking it is a good idea. I also can’t imagine why the congregation would approve this design.

By: joninberlin

joninberlin — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:55:10 +0000

I question the overall composition of the building but admit that I don’t have enough insight to fairly judge the project.

However, the “shadow menorah” effect (center image 5th row down) – a little too literal don’t you think?

By: bruce

bruce — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:33:42 +0000

Ship design

By: sz

sz — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:58:42 +0000

klawe