18971 Mon Mar 04 01:26:52 -0800 2002 24 1 San Francisco Bay Area 0 61898 I just saw a special on the Food Network about restaurant images and learned that the rumors about the Redwood Room were true. They ruined it? They took the perfect hotel bar and made it boring and modern looking like everything else? Are there any great hotel bars left in the city? It's been a couple of years since I've had a chance to visit SF, but I always went to the Redwood Room. It's like going to the Algonquin in New York for a drink--a reminder that there are still quiet oases that can transport you back to a more elegant age. I'm really surprised that there wasn't a huge fight by preservationists to save the Redwood Room. SF, you've lost your most perfect bar! Mon Mar 04 01:26:52 -0800 2002 0 PJ 1 61941 Get over it. The redo is very different but also beautiful. The old bar was a termite invested dowdy place that got the occasional tourist or longtime resident looking for nostalgia. The reason it was bought and redone was because all of the people who complain about what an abomination it was to change it didn't spend enough money there to make the place profitable. If you want your own private museum with piano bar to visit once a year, buy it, but don't expect a landlord to keep it ready for you on their dime. For all those outraged that they removed the reproduction Klimt prints, they occassionally display them on the video screens in the Redwood Room (and you might not even notice the subtle mockery). Finally, the use of the word "modern" is misleading. The main element of the remodel is traditional Venetian glass in the bar and restaurant. Mon Mar 04 14:44:04 -0800 2002 61898 0 Hunger Strike 2 61952 I suppose it would be misleading to describe the video screens as 'modern', too. :-p The Redwood Room was extraordinary and beautiful, and there was no other place like it in San Francisco. In short, it was a landmark. Now it has been irrevocably altered. Whether the alteration is itself worthy of the space is ultimately beside the point; something beautiful and historic has been lost. What's more, it has been lost to the principle, which you apparently espouse, that neither aesthetic nor historic value is nearly as important as profit. Mon Mar 04 15:34:05 -0800 2002 61941 0 Tom Hilton 3 61958 My comment regarding the use of the word "modern" was intended to correct the impression that the design is stark (as opposed to Starck) or minimalist. I do not espouse the view that profit must trump aesthetics or history. My point is who should bear the economic effect. Let's not forget that this was and always has been a commercial building in the heart of a commercial district. None of the preservationists nor the City offered to buy the building to preserve it. They simply wanted the owner to pay for the upkeep and the operations loss so that people could re-experience the original (even though it wasn't in its original state) Redwood Room. I simply cannont agree with the theory that you seem to espouse that the cost of preservation should be foisted upon private property owners rather than the groups or individuals who are clamoring for the preservation. And for about $15 you can still go to the Redwood Room order a huuuge piece of cake and eat it too. Mon Mar 04 16:03:18 -0800 2002 61952 0 Hunger Strike 4 61963 Regardless of intent, I think they made a great error in judgment. They basically remodeled the place to fit the image of the "new economy," which disappeared about a week after they re-opened. I used to spend lots of money there in the past (especially when they still allowed cigar smoking and brought a humidor to the table). Now I won't go near the place, and I understand from reports of others that it really isn't doing all that well. No small wonder, since the clientelle they had hoped to attract ran out of money and then ran out of town. My preferred venue now is the Compass Rose at the St. Francis hotel, which is nice but not nearly as beautiful as the old Redwood Room. I have noticed, however, that it has become increasingly crowded. Mon Mar 04 16:26:49 -0800 2002 61958 0 Zach Georgopoulos 5 61968 Regarding the economic wisdom of the change, while the hotel may be suffering as most SF hotels are these days, the Redwood Room has been at or near capacity every time I have been there regardless of the night of the week. I'm sure you realize that not letting you smoke a cigar at your table had nothing to do with a change in ownership and everything to do with a change in the law. Mon Mar 04 16:48:39 -0800 2002 61963 0 Hunger Strike 6 62047 Yes, I'm quite well aware that the smoking laws had nothing to do with the change of ownership, thank you. The downturn for the "old" redwood room began when the owners decided that the Four Seasons group was charging them too much to run it as a class A hotel, some years before the most recent changes. I guess what I don't like about it all is that the _only_ reason they preserved _any_ of it was because various groups objected, protested, etc... If the new owners had their way, none of the original panelling would be left. Why not just build something new rather than destroy the old? At any rate, it's done, and some years from now when it looks just plain tacky, people will be wondering why it was done. Mon Mar 04 23:55:28 -0800 2002 61968 0 Zach Georgopoulos 7 62115 If the bar's been full, I'm not impressed. It's heavily hyped--especially by our breathless "newspapers." It's got a big name behind it. It's The Bar of the Moment. Of course in six months or a year, someplace else will be declared to be The Bar of the Moment and the trendies will move on. That's hardly the same as a long-term favorite. I'm personally sorry that the hotel--a place that did everything well without fuss or hype--has been replaced by this awful trendy thing. Tue Mar 05 23:23:54 -0800 2002 62047 0 Nathan Landau 5 61982 I think one reason why there wasn't that much of a fight is that Schraeger has a great history of improving spaces. One has only to look to the Delano in Miami to see an example. A couple of myths to debunk; their door policy is not really that stringent, they limit entrance to guests of the hotel on weekends where, contrary to the myth that they don't do well, it is VERY crowded. Not to be age-ist, but you've come off sounding like an old fogey. The Redwood room is really one of the most fun places in SF and the quality of the drinks is not matched at many other bars. Mon Mar 04 17:38:16 -0800 2002 61963 0 andrew 6 61985 I disagree that Zach comes off sounding like an old fogey. I'm 27 and completely agree with him. Someone doesn't have to be an old fogey to ALWAYS want a scene. I like a scene sometimes too, but more of the time, I really want somewhere mellow to relax where everyone isn't obsessed with Prada. The last thing I want in a hotel bar is a scene. I want somewhere serene where I can have a drink, read, and meet a friend. Usually I can find one or two in any major city, though Seattle, my current homebase, requires some stretching. New York has, of course, the Algonquin, which I've always loved, but it lacks the grandeur that the RWR used to have. Mon Mar 04 17:46:55 -0800 2002 61982 0 PJ 6 62008 So anyone whose idea of fun is different from yours is an old fogey? Feh. Anyway, that kind of fun is all the heck over San Francisco. It's a lot harder to find the kind of fun that the Redwood Room used to be. Mon Mar 04 19:02:28 -0800 2002 61982 0 Tom Hilton 7 62012 I can only imagine what the inhabitants of SF said of the new "fun" at the original Redwood Room. I understand it was pretty avant-garde in its day. I'm sure there were plenty complaining about what an architectural abomination it was (though probably not a lot of discussion of "stewardship" for the several hundred year old redwoods that were chopped down to panel it). It's all relative Tom. You had your fun, now let others have theirs. Change is inevitable and good. Mon Mar 04 19:20:41 -0800 2002 62008 0 Hunger Strike 8 62020 It's my understanding that the Redwood Room was built from a single *fallen* redwood. Do you have any information to the effect that the Redwood Room replaced some analogously treasured space? If not, then you have no point. Change is inevitable. Some change is good, and some is not. Change that reduces options is bad. Change that causes the loss of something beautiful and unique is bad. Mon Mar 04 19:50:32 -0800 2002 62012 0 Tom Hilton 8 62021 Change is neither always inevitable nor always good. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. That's the whole point of historic preservation. Many people value preserving our history. Mon Mar 04 20:02:51 -0800 2002 62012 0 PJ 8 62179 It's not "all relative", it's quite absolute. The Redwood Room had withstood the test of time. In design, timelessness is the ultimate measure of taste (no one will decry the upcomming demise of the Cypress Club.) The new redwood room's cheap LCDs on the other hand have as much staying power as Schrager's wardrobe. I would also speculate that at its inception, the Redwood Room did not elicit strong opposition and accusation of bad taste. Art deco was a fairly established and respected esthetic movement by the time the establishment was built. The problem with "letting others have [their fun]" is that the "others" you refer to is a large (but dwidling) group of people best encapsuled as 'new young money', a group mostly composed of transplants with little appreciation for the City's cultural heritage or, if I may be presumptious, with little taste. Wed Mar 06 20:31:19 -0800 2002 62012 0 garçon 9 62184 To quote a most erudite poster: "It's not "all relative", it's quite absolute. [Blah, blah, blah .... old white male saying I'm right, you're wrong] at its inception, the Redwood Room [yada, yada... old white male establishing that he is really really old and informing us that his taste is better than everyone else's] the "others" you refer to is a large (but dwidling)[if you are going to correct someone else's typos, make sure you don't make any. By the way, isn't there a law against "dwidling" in public?]if I may be presumptious..." No, you may not (but I guess you will anyway). I don't think any of my posts said that the Redwood Room didn't have any of its own charm, but it was not the Sistine Chapel. Of course I could have made disparaging comments about the room, such as it passing for a dusty funeral home. However, I think my point was that this is a capitalist society and if there is an establishment that has some personal connection to you, then you should economically support it rather than expect others to pay your bills. I also find it interesting that much of the "if you want something new then build something new" contingent was equally opposed the the new Prada store that involved the almost complete teardown of an unremarkable relatively modern building (the loss of which no one has complained). The outcry was, "No, the new building will look too new." San Francisco -- where everything new must look old again. Wed Mar 06 21:13:58 -0800 2002 62179 0 Hunger Strike 10 62189 "I could have made disparaging comments about the room" Actually, I would qualify your "The old bar was a termite invested [sic] dowdy place" as fairly disparaging, so pardon me for replying with the same tone. I'm 35, probably only a few years older than you. I'm not sure if that does qualify as old (perhaps it does in some Schrager milieux in LA or Miami.) I am from Paris, from where perhaps I've developped a particular fondness for art deco style, among many other design movements. And yes, Paris is also the hometown of Philippe Starck. One of my favorite hangouts in Paris was the Cafe Costes, which arguably put Starck on the map as a design maverick. It's too bad his best years are behind him and that he's now reduced to butchering landmarks in foreign countries for a living. The Starck chair (arguably his most famous design) was initially designed for the cafe. Costes defined the postmodern esthetic circa late 80s. Ironically, that place was also demolished to the chagrin of many, myself included. And yes, I'm fairly familiar with capitalism, I actually have an MBA. The argument is not about the commercial grounds of the conversion, since you seem to be supporting this conversion based on its esthetic merits, and those are the grounds on which most of us here have decried it. The old Redwood Room was worthy of landmark status in SF, certainly more so than many other protected buildings. There are no Sistine Chapels-class in SF or anywhere else in North America (I suppose the Missions are the closest things to that status out here), which further underlines the need to protect a place like the Redwood Room, which is half as old as the City itself (1849 being its coming of age as an important city). PS: I also agree with you about the ridiculousness of the brouhaha over the Prada design. Wed Mar 06 22:01:07 -0800 2002 62184 0 garçon 6 62044 "Not to be age-ist, but you've come off sounding like an old fogey. The Redwood room is really one of the most fun places in SF and the quality of the drinks is not matched at many other bars. " Actually, when I spent the most time at the Redwood Room was during my mid-20's. It was a nice respite from "trendy" places. Now it is one. And there are still plenty of others. But there are precious few nice respites from them. I'm not all that old, friend, but I am prretty sick of the banal ethic that masquerades as culture in this town nowadays. In fact, I was pretty sick of it when I was "young." Whatever -- enjoy it while you can, because one day some bouncer will tell you that you're too old to be let in. Mon Mar 04 23:44:47 -0800 2002 61982 0 Zach Georgopoulos 6 62133 Did you say quality of drinks is not matched or their price for drinks is not matched?? A drink is a drink, their Mojitos are good, but not at pretty much double the price around town. I'll take Lapis, Betelnut or Luna Park's versions anyday. I dont think they get special liquor that other places do not (although maybe they should at those prices). And asia de Cuba is passable at best. Let it bring in the tourists and the expense accounters. Hey, Planet Hollywood survived on tourists for years until people finally got sick of it. I'm not trying to knock Schrager in any way. I liked the Mondrian and the Hudson, but as somebody who has thrown a large party in the French Room, I wont be back. This style of hotel is Miami/LA, not San Francisco, and especially not with the loss of a landmark. Wed Mar 06 11:03:43 -0800 2002 61982 0 srf1 6 62182 Perhaps in the eyes of the patrons of the remodeled Redwood Room, the place is far more "fun" and beautiful than their other hangouts (Snowdrift, Colonial, Elmo's, Bubble Lounge,...), because if you leave enough artifacts from the old room, it will always be nice enough, even if its interior were furnished from Levitz. As to the age myth, I also did frequent the RR most when I was in my early 20's. I did sneak in a few times before turning 21 as well; they tended not to card as thoroughly if you wore nice evening attires. I remember catching last call there once after a Dead Kennedys concert (no, I wasn't wearing a tux that night). I believe that Schrager should be hung for this sacrilege (with a velvet rope...) ;) Wed Mar 06 20:56:49 -0800 2002 61982 0 garçon 4 61995 >I simply cannont agree with the theory that you seem to espouse that the cost of preservation should be foisted upon private property owners rather than the groups or individuals who are clamoring for the preservation. At this point we have arrived at an essentially political disagreement, which I don't think it's appropriate to argue in detail here. I'll just say that I don't believe in the primacy of property rights, and do believe that anyone who owns property of significant value to the community at large has a duty of stewardship. As to the economic justification, my impression was that the remodeling was less to do with economics (after all, it wasn't cheap) than with Schraeger wanting to make the Clift more like his other hotels, which all appeal to more or less the same trendy/trashy crowd. Mon Mar 04 18:32:22 -0800 2002 61958 0 Tom Hilton 2 61965 I'm tired of people saying get over it when someone destroys something old and beautiful. If you want new and modern, build something new and modern, don't ruin something that was great to begin with. But the reviews I looked up last night sound like they really destroyed the character of the place, with Studio 54 bouncers who only let the most stylish and beautiful people it, so it's elitist and snobby, which is about as obnoxious as you can get. Besides, a great hotel bar is all about having a relaxing place where you can unwind in the afternoon and quietly read for an hour or while sipping some cocktails and perhaps waiting for a friend. Doesn't sound like the Redwood Room is suited to reading at all. Sounds a lot more like a nightclub than a hotel bar. Mon Mar 04 16:31:08 -0800 2002 61941 0 PJ 3 64726 Yes, I couldn't agree with you more. Why desecrate a unique treasure when it cannot be improved upon? You know the answer to this-- new money and poor taste. I have been following the reviews of the "new Redwood Room" and now know that I will not go there again. There must be so many people who have spent their adolescent and adult years in the room's former glory, who will sorely miss the romance and elegance, good service, good music and memories which will never be recreated. Have you heard of any plans to replicate the former redwood room so that former clientele can have a place of their own to relax in and admire the aesthetics (with the Klimts)-- without having to act like "The Weakest Link" participants standing in line to be chosen to enter a "club" they would never want to join that happens to be made of redwood and contains the sconces and deco chandeliers they used to love? Sat Apr 13 15:57:00 -0700 2002 61965 0 deborah Bindler 2 62181 To say that the new redo is beautiful is akin to praising a sangria made with a vintage Petrus. In other words, a tragic and misguided waste. PS: termite "invested"? Are you refering to some old guard SF tycoons from the pest control industry? Wed Mar 06 20:33:19 -0800 2002 61941 0 garçon 1 62129 I'm from New York, and am just visiting this board, you guys in California sure aren't as "laid-back" as we are in the east! One of the things that make tourists come back again and again to SF is that Things Never Change. Of course they do, but it is a timeless city in many ways. The last time I was there I enjoyed the Redwood Room and the adjacent French Room restaurant. Not for its' cutting-edge clientele or cuisine but because of its' charm and graciousnes. In the dining room there were guests of the hotel, ancient couples, daters, and high-school prom couples; all ordering menu items from thiry-years ago and all served with the same elegance and professionalism that is such a rare occurance now that this too may become a new marketing concept. And yes the food was very good. The bar was a nice place to relax after dinner with a brandy, dessert, and coffee. Ian Schraigers concept isn't exactly new anymore, who knows that after Sheraton's W hotels invade the nation that the Delano in Miami might not be redecorated in Hollywood Regency again? We do have to be aware of the charm and importance of our historical past, the Europeans certainly are. Virtually every hotel in the US was bastardized in the 1960's and 70's, and those that weren't couldn't afford to and were truly ratholes. True traditional elegance always indures, in New York the St. Regis never really lost it's luster and is one of the most magnificent hotels in America. In San Francisco The Palace still holds its' heritage proudly. Remember that it is your individual uniqueness that preserves your past and that landmarks of any kind are unique treasures that create a sense of community. Wed Mar 06 01:33:13 -0800 2002 61898 0 sylvesterrussell