Curbed SF commenters have called it a "casino," "the largest eyesore to hit the San Francisco skyline in 20 years," one of the ugliest buildings in SF," and "a cheap art-deco imitation with ... ill proportioned flying fins." Finally, our all-time favorite: "someone f'ed up big time." We're talking about the new InterContinental Hotel, of course. Just when it seemed like the city could agree on something, Chron architecture critic John King comes along and calls it a "streamlined tower that radiates assurance." Hmm. Maybe its just us, but that sounds akin to insisting that someone has a great personality as a thinly-veiled cover for the truth— that they're ass ugly. We're all for buildings that don't "fit in" with SF's blasé architectural climate, but even when there are no contextual standards, there has to be some basic aesthetic standards, right? King even admits as much, but defends The InterContinental with a weak "it could be a lot worse." Actually...could it really be that much worse than a bad Postmodern Faux-deco highrise on the fringes of a low-rise, semi-shady part of town? Readers, anyone want to come to the defense of this execrated edifice or shall we all just carry on with the flogging?
· New, blue kid on block: the Intercontinental [SF Gate]
· Curbed Inside: The InterContinental [Curbed SF]
· Rendering/Reality: The InterContinental Opens, Grandly [Curbed SF]