|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A revised plan to expand the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital ran into a skeptical group of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board members Thursday, who criticized the proposed addition as boxy, intimidating and far too massive.
It was a far cry from the board’s last review of the hospital’s expansion plan. A year ago, members praised the building’s then-curvilinear facade and “healing gardens.”
During Thursday’s study session, the board found itself scrutinizing a radically different design — one with rectangular wings, a larger garden on the corner of Welch and Quarry roads and underground parking. The new facility — previously presented as a separate structure — would now be connected to the existing facility.
“It’s not just a horse of a different color; it’s a zebra,” board member Judith Wasserman said.
Palo Alto officials are still working on an environmental review of the hospital expansion, a document that is expected to be released in October.
Children’s Hospital officials branded the new plans as the “evolution” of the hospital’s $1 billion expansion — part of Stanford University’s $3 billion effort to renovate and expand its medical facilities, including Stanford Hospital and Clinics. The new design would protect trees, give patients scenic views and make hospital operations more efficient, said Robin Guenther, principal with the San Francisco-based firm Perkins+Will.
Guenther, who led the redesign, said patients would get scenic views of Arboretum Road and the new Emerald Garden, which would be located near Quarry and Welch roads and would provide space for public gathering. A smaller, more private garden would be located on the rooftop, between the new building and the existing one.
A proposed parking lot has also been moved from the street level to underground, a move hospital officials said would create a greener atmosphere around the hospital.
“We wanted to bring a nature experience closer to the kids,” Guenther said.
Board members enthusiastically embraced the proposed landscaping and expressed no objections to the location of the new added facility. But they had major reservations about the proposed building’s new look, which Wasserman described as a “big, scary box.”
“If I were a little kid — if I was a grownup coming to this building — it would scare the daylights out of me,” Wasserman said. “It just feels immense and boxy.”
Board member David Solnick agreed the proposed building is too intimidating. He also questioned Stanford’s contention that the new design is an “evolution” and asked hospital officials if there is a “back story.”
The original renovation design was created by architect William Pedersen of the firm Kohn Pedersen Fox, based in London and New York.
Mark Tortorich, vice president for planning design and construction at the Stanford University Medical Center, said Guenther has been involved in the project from the beginning but became more prominent in the process in recent months.
The decision to give her a greater say was reached in collaboration with both architectural firms, he said.
The Children’s Hospital plans to add 104 beds to its facility — raising the total bed count to 361 — and to create more treatment rooms and more space for families of patients. The expansion would add about 441,500 square feet to the hospital. Hospital officials have told the Weekly the revised design would save about $15 million in construction costs.
“criticized the proposed addition as boxy, intimidating and far too massive.” Where have I heard that before?
“If I were a little kid — if I was a grownup coming to this building — it would scare the daylights out of me,” Wasserman said. “It just feels immense and boxy.”
Are you kidding? Most kids are in bad shape when they go to a hospital. Forget the outside. It’s a shell that houses the very caring medical staff who are experts in the care of kids.
I definitely agree with Hulkamania here. Given that children may spend long periods here, the most important architectural issue is probably how the building feels from the inside, not how it looks from the outside. For example, having a scenic view from the rooms seems much more important than presenting a pretty external appearance.
I hope the architectural review board members can keep in mind the building’s role as a hospital, and not get too distracted on external appearance.
would this be the same ARB that approved the “boxy, intimidating and far too massive” Jewish center?
To the Architectural Review Board
PLEASE don’t this screw up too.. You are the same bunch that approved the Cheesecake Factory, the Jewish Center for Community LIfe, The Arbor Building, the monstrous condos at the old Rickey’s site, 800 High, and the Opportunity Center. You were not elected, you are volunteers. Back off and back out.
ARB members “criticized the proposed addition as boxy, intimidating and far too massive.”
And how would they describe the JCC?
Is this ARB to be taken seriously with comments like:
“”It’s not just a horse of a different color; it’s a zebra,””
and
“If I were a little kid — if I was a grownup coming to this building — it would scare the daylights out of me,” Wasserman said. “It just feels immense and boxy.”
Hulkamania addressed the last comment above.
I sometimes this ARB is made up of failed architects, who are so embittered with their stalled careers that they choose to tear down anything and everything competent architects present to them.
Is there anything that the ARB ever liked? I remember them nitpicking the Google day care and a proposed gym on the 101 frontage road.
I guess they have to play their power games in order to be part of the Palo Alto Process
Maybe the ARB learned something from the reaction to the monstrosity on the corner of Charleston and San Antonio.
It’s pretty clear the writers above have not looked at the plans and they criticize the people who have. Jokers.
See the plans–what monstrosity on the corner of Charleston and San Antonio? You are basing your opinion on one small part of the project. A project that was built in an industrial area of the city–on the other corners are two gas stations and a barracks like structure.
I have seen the plans–they look good. Did you read the reasons for the changes?
the ARB is out of control–they have no clue about what a hospital’s purpose is–they are just trying to satisfy their own thwarted ideas.
It looks boxey to me.
Come on guys – now you’ve really hurt my feelings. I knew I should stop reading these diatribes from people who obviously have never been to or even seen an ARB meeting or know how to read plans.
Speaking as someone who went to a few hospitals for tests and surgery when I was a kid, the entrance and appearance of a hospital does make a difference for the patient. I remember walking up to a anonymous, corporate-looking UCLA clinic and thinking “I’m not getting out of here alive.” The attitude of the patient about where they’re going has to do with their ability to recover and deal with pain.
A boxy zebra? Yet another excuse to extort from Stanford…or am I too cynical. No, I don’t think so, given PA’s track record. Watch for the City Council to hire a consultant.
Does anyone know what the occupancy rate is at the El Camino/Charleston
development? Not much in/out activity visible.
And I thought you go to a hospital to get care, not see views. Meanwhile children who can use this care will not get it because you are bothered with the view they will see. Lengthy processes and forcing expensive building codes result in: less healthcare for children, much more expensive care once done (will the public option cover those rates?), and less jobs available locally. Is that worth anything compared to a view of a tree, or (subjective) “boxy” appearance???
It’s hard to take PA seriously when the citizens rant against absolutely EVERY new building, and go ballistic if it’s at Stanford.
Packard submitted a reasonable plan to remodel, in order to have updated facilities and to treat more very very sick children. (There are no simple tonsils patients there).
The kids and their parents do not have architecture on their minds AT ALL.
Do not stall this project with the toxic “Palo Alto Process” — it could be a kid in your family whose medical care is on hold.
According to The Phantom column in today’s Daily News one of the ARB members was quoted as saying that “ there were many ways to do right angles” while whining about the “ boxiness” of the design!!! Yeah. They sure are funny
Its not a hospital for the sake of children, Its a cover for even more research buildings, which is all Stanford is interested in. And the cost to the community in terms of space, traffic congestion, noise, and aesthetics hardly makes it worthwhile.
If your really sick go to UCSF it beats Stanford on every metric.
“If your really sick go to UCSF it beats Stanford on every metric.”
Really? My son was scheduled for complex surgery at UCSF. A week before the operation we get a call from the doc’s receptionist. She says he’s decided to go on vacation so we’ll have reschedule in three months.
As it turned out it was the best thing that ever happened to my kid. My wife talked to a friend who set her up with Dr. Bill Kennedy at Packard. He took a different direction and the results were astounding.
Although he still has some limitations, my son is now able to live independently and is a productive member of society. UCSF indeed!
The City and their ARB need to get out of the way of the fine people at Packard Children’s Hospital. Look at what their needs are and add twenty percent. Don’t wait, do it today.
It is pretty clear that no one here has looked at the plans which doesn’t stop them from having opinions. From the architect’s rendering in the paper it is simply two adjoining big boxes.
Lots of people wonder why Palo Alto has so many unimaginative and downright ugly buildings. It really is hard to understand.
Who is “lots of people?”
I know “lots of people” who think both Palo Alto and Stanford are extremely attractive.
This knee-jerk anti-Stanford reaction is predictable and generally uninformed and shallow.
The original VW bug was one of the ugliest cars ever built but its functionality was off the charts.
The exterior design may not be up to Perfect Palo Alto standards but who cares. It’s what happens inside those walls that is the most important point. Give Packard their building so they can continue to expand and improve their mission.
Stanford and LPCH make all these fancy plans for plasma TV’s and private rooms but cut the staff taking care of the sick. They just want to present a good image to the public for their own edification. I agree with the previous writer. What goes on inside the walls is the important issue. Having enough staff to do their jobs from housekeeping up to the RN’s is what is needed.
I sincerely hope the highly vaunted “Palo Alto” process doesn’t result in the loss of the Children’s hospital, or the main hospital for that matter, to another city, for example, Redwood City. Compared to what I see being developed throughout Palo Alto, I think nearly everything done on the Stanford campus should be highly rated. Another writer here listed the new JCC “fortress”, the “tentament” project at the south east corner of El Camino Real and Charleston, and the 800 High project. I’ll add the developing slum at Alma Plaza, the nearly up to the curb buildings being erected along El Camino, esp the one underway at the corner of El Camino Real and Oregon Expressway where the previously recommended and much needed right turn lane has been abandoned. Compare these developments with the beautifully redesigned Sand Hill road from the Foothill Expressway to El Camino through the Stanford Shopping Center, the shopping center itself, the generally handsome Stanford Medical Center,and the lovely Stanford campus. Frankly, I’d turn operation of Palo Alto, lock, stock and barrel over to Stanford to be managed by the university’s planners, personnel department and general administration in a heartbeat. Virtually everything the university does benefits its students, its staff, the residents of this city who make use of its services and cultural offerings, and the world in general, through its contributions to our culture, academia and research. No, it is not perfect, what organization is? But, they know how to deal with SEIU, their salary and benefit offerings are fair and generous but not ruinous, and their planning and staff ratios speak for themselves. Face it, without Stanford, Palo Alto would be just another ho-hum town. I agree with the others here who say to the ARB should back off. So far they have not proven their worth.
Richard Placone
Barron Park
Anyone familiar with any renowned Judith wasserman-designed buildings? What do you call an architect who is an architect in name only? MAybe a zebra.