James Garland on the Importance of the Vaillancourt Fountain at Embarcadero Plaza
I write in support of the rehabilitation of Vaillancourt Fountain at Embarcadero Plaza in San Francisco; it is a major work of art, and a controversial one. Its controversy is an asset, not a demerit. Who needs a boring or predictable work of art? What we need in our public spaces is honesty, challenge, tolerance, dialog and engagement. We need vibrant places that connect us to each other, to our past and to our future. We need parks and plazas—and we need public art. Seen from this perspective, the Vaillancourt Fountain is fulfilling. Of course, we need beautiful things, too...
How can we consider the Vaillancourt Fountain to be beautiful, or worth the steep price of its rehabilitation? Maybe this is an ironic question during this period when Brutalist architecture is enjoying such a popular resurgence. But we can address this question on more fundamental levels.
There are several very good reasons for honoring and rehabilitating the Vaillancourt Fountain.
Legacy — The fountain was built at the opening of the 1970s, a very different time from today and a special, important moment for San Francisco. Is it right or healthy for us to erase a large element in our common heritage, particularly one referencing so key an era for this city and its identity? Is it not better for us embrace, remember and value our history?
Meaning — The fountain was designed with its aggressive, concrete forms to visually survive its threatening placement alongside the looming Embarcadero Freeway, staking out a spirited plaza with a strong sculptural presentation. It worked. A ‘pretty’ alternative would have been naive in that place. It took a work of scale and character to fend back the freeway. And we can appreciate the fountain’s expression as a sharp criticism of the urban planning that built the freeway in the first place.
Talent — The plaza design was the result of a collaboration including Lawrence Halprin, one of the world’s most celebrated landscape architects and urban theorists of the era. Halprin worked with Armand Vaillancourt, the fountain’s artist (one of five competing for the commission) on the integration of the fountain with the plaza. Halprin championed Vaillancourt’s concept, which was roundly debated even before it was built.
Quality — Look closely at the heavy flows of water streaming from the bent box beams. The character is impressive. These are not common flows from spouts; the action is bold. Rich white-water streamers engage the big, square openings convincingly to become waterfalls performing with large-format expertise. The concrete, too, presents an intentional, rustic surface, consistently controlled throughout the composition. Is that surface so very different from the more famous sculptural finishes by Henry Moore or Barbara Hepworth?
Today — The freeway is gone, and the plaza is quieter. The whole tone of the place is different today. Is the Vaillancourt Fountain no longer appropriate? Is it now too large or too loud for Embarcadero Plaza? Perhaps. But is it doing harm? Certainly not. What the plaza lost with the overbearing freeway has been replaced by something verging on the prosaic. The messaging of Vaillancourt Fountain now regards the boldness of human energy, and it is fitting for this plaza.
Economics — Replacing the existing monumental fountain with a new alternative would be cost-effective only if the new design was much smaller—and thereby less effective. Demolition of the fountain and its replacement by an appropriately scaled public fountain would cost much more than the Vaillancourt Fountain’s repair. Especially today, after the spiraling construction costs we have seen of the past few years.
Climate — Our droughts in California are seen by some as a challenge the rightness of operating fountains. Those concerns are well-meaning. But Rome has faced similar water shortages for two thousand years. Are we less capable, today, or less determined? And, if we take the fountains away from our public places, what would serve their place-making role, equal to the task of the fountain’s delivery of superlative beauty and life-giving symbolism? We should face it; there is no equal to the fountain’s graces.
Design — Is the Vaillancourt Fountain perfect, then? No. While the sculptures are, I believe, excellent, the pool is not and the walking path through the fountain no longer meets Code. Some revision is called for. During my last visit to the functioning fountain, the pool was dirty and tinted green with algae, indicating that its mechanical system also needed attention. The fountain also needs to be opened on its west side, which has always been walled away. These are not great challenges. The fountain can be brought back to life with complete success.
We will be most true to ourselves—and to San Francisco—by rehabilitating and maintaining Vaillancourt Fountain, conserving our heritage, looking to the future with well-earned confidence, and to continuously refining the bearing of our public places.
About the author. James Garland is President, Founder, and Design Director at the Los Angeles, CA-based Fluidity Design Consultants. He holds a Masters degree in Architecture from UCLA, with a focus in architectural design and urban design, and in 2020, was awarded an honorary PhD for his career in advancing the profession of water design.
