Dear Scott Walker

Dear Scott Walker,

Thank you for not only giving Aaron Ward a black eye on May 10th 2009 but also the entire Boston Bruins team in overtime of game 7 in Beantown May 14th 2009. If I was half the man you were, I'd be God. Please continue to hand out black eyes.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Leonard

Project Reflectance: Part 2: Boxitexture

The next part is a problem I have with the broader picture of things regarding....

"boxitecture."

This portion has to do with design communication. Thomas, the architecture professor from UNCC, made a comment that I would like to address. Our group made an attempt at arguing the architecture of the building, for it to be something other than a box. His response was something along the lines of:

"Its not about whether or not I like the building, and I don't, its about you convincing me, making an argument for your ideas and decisions."

I agree with him (I don't like our building either). What I have a problem with is that a box doesn't have to explain its form because it exists as 99% of the buildings we come into contact with. You throw a column grid in there and the envelope is automatically assumed as resolved. It is an architectural standard for the human race. I know there are reasons for standards, but a standard is not perfect, nor is it the best possible response to anything. Modernism, to me, is about "simplified and efficient" boxes (a striking similarity to McMansion developments, no?).

This next part gets a little bit more personal but it still has relevance.

There was a comment that a peer made about our building design. She said it appeared as if we designed from the outside, in (this comment was particular to our group). It was puzzling to me that she said this to us and not anyone else. After some thought, her comment actually proves the point I'm making about people's perception about building forms and boxes. If you look at the other projects in the class, they are more or less boxes (one taller, wider, and fatter & one shorter, longer, and skinner). There is nothing wrong with that. It is what they chose to do for reasons unbeknownst to me. They didn't have to explain their choice of form, nor was there any question that they designed from the outside in, because it was assumed they designed from the inside out (which they didn't, as much as they might try to say they did if I were to have this conversation with them).

It bothers the hell out of me that my peer, bright and intelligent as she is, automatically assumed that since the building wasn't a box that it meant we created a shell without the interior spaces in mind. Unfortunately, she is then making the horrible and horrendous assumption that all interior space should also exist in some form of a box. One could take this even further and say that all products and furnishings are meant for box like rooms, in box like buildings. I felt insulted (after the fact). If anything, I must say that we are the only group that developed and designed the inside space and exterior envelope cohesively which is part of the reason why our project was as unresolved as it was. It was a challenge we wanted to take on because that is what you are supposed to do in an academic environment, regardless of whether or not it is successfully met. We didn't a create box and arrange program inside of it (like so many architecture firms and students have done before us). I'd also like to point out that our building was the only building that successfully engaged the automobile, train, and pedestrian. They were a success because of the investigation and response via the synergy of our program, form, and site. Did I mention I'm proud of a lot of things we did do as a group? If creating a box and arranging program inside of it is designing from the inside-out, then I must be psychotic in the way that I think about things.

On to another tangent!

Perhaps a lesson learned would be that we should have placed the emphasis on our individual projects in the presentation as opposed to generally talking about the process of the group project, which, honestly now that I think about it, served no real purpose of conveying an argument for the design or form, which is apparently what people wanted the most. I also feel we missed the opportunity for genuine feedback on our individual projects which fell to the way side and got lost in the walkaround aftermath.

The experience as a whole begs the question, how much of this has to do with boxitecture's influence over the minds of students, professionals, and the general public?

Lessons learned indeed.

Project Reflectance: Part1: 6th Body

The latter half of studio in March and the month of April were rough, not so much with work load but with group dynamic. There are probably a lot of reasons why the decline happened the way it did but I suppose I just need to take what I can from the experience and move forward. Needless to say, I'm relieved the presentation is over but now that it is, I've been having obsessive thoughts about the experience since then. Before I start, I'd like to say I'm proud of the work we did accomplish as a group. Everyone worked hard to get to the point we were at, there is no denying that. On to my thoughts....

Its a weird feeling, a bittersweet one, not resolving a project to a level of satisfaction one might be comfortable with but meeting a deadline nonetheless. I find this has happened to me to some extent in every studio project. Those unresolved parts always made me uneasy in presentations and crits because I knew they were easy targets for people to bring up. Knowing where I have fallen short has always helped because I've known what to expect, up until this experience. I feel like for the first time since my Flying Anvil project as a 1st semester 2nd year, my mind drew blanks on questions. Its not that I didn't have answers for the questions asked, I just didn't want to sound like I was making excuses, which in my mind, was all I could come up with standing there at the time of the presentation (at least they sounded like excuses in my head).

I knew where we fell short as a group and there was nothing we could do about it. I can't help but think that a 6th body would have filled in the areas that needed help. That is an excuse but it is a luxury our group did not have and there is no denying an extra 36 hours (9 class hours, 27 expected work hours outside of studio, at least) a week of work would have made a tremendous impact on the group portion of the project. See, this is an excuse. You just don't talk about stuff like this during a presentation nor do you use a group's declining dynamic as an excuse either. The internet is the perfect place to reflectively rant though, so I'll continue with that...on to my next point.

Again, before I start this, let me make it clear my opinion is not directly aimed at anyone in particular because that would be unprofessional (I learned something!). Professors always say that we need to work in groups so that we get that valuable experience before we enter the real world. Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between academia and the real world as far as group work is concerned. The difference lies in the model of how everything works in the two, very different environments. The projects we work on as students are not real and the boss, *cough* professor, is there to teach us, help us, hold our hands, and evaluate our performances through the producibles (presentations, drawings, models, etc). Whether or not someone shows up for meetings, holds their weight, or acts professionally in group situations usually doesn't have any bearing on the measure of the final product, their grade. To be short, students don't have any power over other students when it comes to group situations. How does a student handle a problem situation with another student when you've exhausted all professional avenues? It is unprofessional to call them out on the areas they are lacking in a public forum, a blog for example, but what if they aren't listening in the private 1 on 1 forum?

Ok, I'm done with the studio part.

Material, Acoustical, Structural Discussion

Materials...I suppose the seat is important since there are so many of them....
Seat Frame: Steel

Chair Arms: Wood/Upholstered
Chair Backs: Wood/Upholstered
Chair Seats: Wood/Upholstered

(Apparently upholstered seats go a long way acoustically)

Typical Flooring (Audience): Carpet, joy.
Typical Flooring (Stage): This one is tricky, the stage is both inside and out. Perhaps it could be changed based on the type of performance. Durable wood surfaces, potentially weather proof.

Walls, Ceiling, and other Acoustical surfaces: Combination of fixed acoustical panels and the hyposurface for adjustability during performances. I don't know how it would work but if the hyposurfaces could respond to sound in an appropriate way to improve the acoustics of the "auditorium" it would be pretty amazing (see the video).

The books I've read have recommended that the auditorium's structural envelope be of concrete masonry construction due to the fact that it performs much better with vibration and sound (as opposed to open web steel joists). I think I need to use both since the span and height of the auditorium are fairly ridiculous (75' total height, 200' at its longest span) the upper portion of 15'-20' being devoted to structure, catwalks, mechanical, electrical, lighting, etc).
Its still not as crazy as the first one I designed as a 2nd year, I like to think I've come a long way since then.

Unfortunately I'm not quite sure what to say here. I'm no architect or engineer. I'd like to be both some day. I find that someone always asks the question or says something along the lines of "I'm not sure if you can do that." Really? I didn't know you were a professional engineer [insert name of guilty party, usually a student or professor trying to give you a hard time]. I'm tired of people telling me the buildings I design are impossible to build. Some day...some day....

A nod to Eric Owen Moss and Bryan Healy

After comparing seating arrangement types, the type of stage I have and running square footage calculations, the potential capacity stands between 2200-2500 people max, on the inside (15,000 square feet @ 41 seats per 256 square feet, comfortably). The outside is much smaller and similar to the traditional amphitheater used by the Greeks. It still runs about 6,500 square feet but for the sake of calculations, if it were to use the same seating style as inside, the capacity would be around 1040. Clearly there aren't seats, only terraced concrete seats/steps. The ends of the amphitheater meet with the grass and the grade falls down towards the edges of the site. Every part of the auditorium, both inside and out, is completely handicap accessible.

Did I mention it opens up?

Holla Auditorium.

As you can see, I still have to model the inside if I want to use this perspective. I suppose I could photomontage everything...so many decisions to make, so little time....

****UPDATE****2009.05.03*****

I wasn't sure if the calculations I used above included circulation. After actually adding egress and aisle circulation I took another look at the available space for seating. The capacity came out to 1,582 people. If the calculations take into an average amount of space for circulation then the capacity of 2200-2500 is correct. If they don't, then 1,582 is the magic number (780 on the main floor, 468 on the 2nd level, 334 on the 3rd level). 

Review Flyer Suggestion

This is for Doug.