Critique & Response

CRITIQUE AND RESPONSE


A final studio review was held on November 17, 2004 at 2:00 pm. The critics assigned to review our 3-person group were visiting architects Krysta Sykes and James Reittinger, and UNCC instructor Mark Morris. I was first to present and was allotted a 15 minute presentation and 30 minute discussion.

In general, the premise of an interpretive architecture, theoretical justification of phenomenology, and development of an interpretive center in the Landsford Canal State Park was well received. They jury stated that the research was well focused and documented, and the drawings; photographs and image vignettes were compelling.

I presented phenomenology as a series of personal experiences developed at the site. My own personal discovery of the park, the research, and my observation of others was the basis of the experience. I chose to represent the qualitative nature of those moments by creating composite images of a place, a particular scene or event. I then utilized that image to create an architectural construct capable of sustaining that perception. At the very least, I sought to provide an opportunity for the viewer to experience that place in a similar manner.

Much discussion centered around three main points. Firstly, Mark Morris led a discussion on the use of the Crawford House precedent. In my presentation I acknowledged that the precedent became influential in the design only after the initial conceptual design drawing was made. The landscape arc, found in the precedent, was used as a “gathering” element in the composition of my project. The schematic design was refined using the arc as an organizing and metaphorical element.

Mark compared the initial conceptual design with the refined schematic that used the precedent. The discussion included:

• Formal organization and the notion that fragmentation can still be formal.

• Questions regarding the necessity to link the various parts of the construct and were they all equally important? (i.e. parking)

• Has the design moved too close to the precedent – why is it a circle and not an oval or a square. There is a beginning and an end represented in the movement. The circle implies a center, but there in nothing really there. It’s not a circle, it’s a loop. However, the arc is effective, as it links the many experiences.

The second point of discussion was opined by James Reittinger. He suggested that the construct did not fully engage the canal and extend to incorporate more of the site. One comment was a suggestion to distribute the interpretive center along the canal trail. James asked what one would try to interpret, such that everything was placed on the island? Somehow, by designing on the island, you ignore the rest on the landscape and loose the opportunity to experience as suggested by the images.

The last point was initiated by Krysta Sykes. She asked if the basis of the phenomenology was the personal experiences represented in the images, and if so, how do you create an architecture from personal points of view that speaks to everyone - is this a contradiction?

In response to the first point, I believe strongly in the unifying quality of the arc (circle) element. In its defense, I will claim it is directly linking the island construct and its presence on the river, with the canal and trail in the landscape. The element holds and binds the river to the canal, thus this is the essence of the canal construct and the meaning behind its existence and that of the larger park. Moreover, if we take the precedent of the Crawford House to be an influential work, worthy of understanding, then I will claim that the use of the arc (circle) as a unifying element is more compelling in this project as it genuinely links objects in a field. In my opinion, the Morphosis precedent is weak beyond the form; it does not link anything of significance, but is rather an element in and of itself. In support of Mark’s point about the circle implying a center – I have moved the amphitheater to the west side of the canal and at the center of the arc.

Part of the second point is satisfied by moving the amphitheater. The section of the canal contained by the arc is better incorporated into the new construct, and the canal is activated by that relationship. Early studies and discussions ruled out distributing elements along the canal trail. First, it is too long, (1.25 miles), contains many grade transitions, and poses accessibility hardships. Second, it should be left in as natural a condition as possible – part of its beauty is its authenticity. Third, it is more compelling to relocate and inhabit the site at the ancient river crossing and the major lock ruin. This provides a necessary anchor at the southern end of the canal trail where nothing exists now. The interpretive center will provide additional amenities in the park and be the kind of catalyst to generate activity along the canal trail and across the site.

The third point about providing a universal experience is possible. What was overt to me as I walk around the site is probably perceivable by most. The images that were developed are concepts that are easily readable, but recreating those images or views as part of an architecture may not be perceived exactly the same by everyone. This is good, as this is the unquantifiable nature of perception, meaning, and as such, phenomenology.

I like to think of the work as creating opportunities for the viewer to experience. The architecture seeks to provide the viewer with opportunities to discover things in different ways over the course of one visit or many visits. No two experiences will be the same and no two visits will provide the same perceptions for everyone. Understanding and perceiving the site will continue to change, person to person and day to day.

The latest site drawing, Fig. 23, depicts one other element critical to the project. It depicts how carving the vegetation (trees) can influence the relationships between the various elements of the construct. The trees seem to “fill” the container developed by the arc, and the open fields and paths through the trees provide another layer of connectivity between the elements. Carving the landscape and defining groves of trees also represents the notion of how one might move through the site. Movement is controlled in places and uncontrolled in others. Universal views are offered along the controlled paths, such as what one might observe while walking along the Riverwalk Gallery. In places of uncontrolled movement, such as engaging a grove of trees offers the viewer a multitude of opportunities for individual discovery.

The study of form, parti, landscape movement and interpretation will continue into the second semester of this project. The site and building design will continue to be defined and refined.

Study Models

 

Schematic Design

The schematic design for the interpretive center presented in this thesis is based on four main ideas.

First, the design provides for the re-occupation of the canal site at the ancient river crossing at Land’s Ford. The nexus between the canal, the major lifting lock ruin, the ford and the river, provides a compelling intersection of physical landform, natural landscape, flora and fauna, historic artifacts and metaphysical being promoting the opportunity for an interpretive center that evokes vivid perceptions of place.

Second, the axial armature of the main island structure extends a line of influence along the Catawba River. The viewer is focused upriver towards the main Spider Lily pods and downriver looking south over the Catawba. In addition, open cross-axial vistas provide a dialogue between the structure, the river and the land.

Third, the site and building encourage the viewer to move through it. On site, a discovery path is maintained open, unobstructed and free to the public – same as the canal trail is open to the public today. The entrance element is an extension of the ancient crossing. A ramped bridge will take the viewer from the lifting lock, across the inner waterway and onto a plaza which sits up on a plinth above the ground surface. The bridge engages the main axis of the island structure and continues across the plaza to cross the outer waterway onto an adjoining island. The bridge is terminated high above the Catawba as an open observation platform – it evokes the perception of “crossing” and terminates in the sky. The continuum of this openness, like the prow of a ship, is a metaphor for “timeless passage.” The platform is served by an open lattice monumental stair and elevator. Once back on the ground, the viewer can follow a path back across the outer waterway that leads onto the Riverwalk Gallery. This arching gallery contains exhibits and artifacts, and is an open platform which offers proximity and interaction with the islands edge and the river that meets it. The gallery terminates in a wooded landscape and provides uncontrolled movement through the grove of trees and onto a return path to the lifting lock and interpretive center entrance. Placed along the return path is a natural amphitheater cut into the topography of the landform and three outdoor pavilions for lecture and presentation. These too are open for public use and are functional separate from the interpretive center main structure. Within the building, controlled movement along a path establishes the axial parti of the plan. The entrance procession is through an open structure that begins the dialogue between indoor and outdoor space. Once through reception the viewer emerges within the main two-story gallery space, and is focused on a ramp ahead which ascends to the upper gallery at the other end of the building. The ramp and upper gallery are open to the exterior and are essentially unenclosed spaces. The path continues from the upper gallery, across an open walkway, back to the upper main gallery where a stair or elevator will take the viewer back to the first floor and main gallery. Adjacent the main gallery is an open courtyard that engages the site, provides access to the Riverwalk Gallery and allows access to the rest of the island beyond the interpretive center.

Lastly, landscape walls are employed as an element to knit the whole composition together and bind the canal and river with the island. The circular form of the walls and their massive presence engage the landscape and hold together the composition; the walls celebrate their intersection with the canal and bind it to the river.

Simple abstract forms, like canvas backdrops to a living painting, are used to set the architecture against the natural world. Like many things in the park, the building is a object which must be discovered by the viewer. Material is selected for its massiveness, permanence, and in its ability to show its age. Curved pre-cast concrete panels are erected to form the mass walls and provide texture against the earth. The panels are clad in copper sheeting and allowed to patina to the natural conditions. The patina copper affords the viewer a sign of age and signifies time in vivid color and pattern. Smooth cast-in-place floor, wall and roof panels make up the gallery volumes, ramps and bridges. Glass and metal is used in various locations to accent the mass concrete and enclose spaces behind a delicate screen.

Initial Studies

Conceptualization

Landsford Canal State Park, Chester Cty., SC - Aerial

Landsford Canal - Map

Site Study and Analysis

SITE STUDY AND ANALYSIS

Landsford Canal is the best preserved example of numerous 19th-century South Carolina river canals built in the state. Today, remnants of all its major structural features exist. The canal is the uppermost of four canals constructed along the fall-line on the Catawba-Wateree river system during the period 1820 to 1835. The fall-line is the geological feature that separates the piedmont from the coastal plain and gives the Catawba River its elevation change, producing the shoals (rapids) in the river. At one time, the canal was the most important trade route between the foothills and the coastal plain. River boats and commercial shippers used the canals to bypass the rocky rapids while carrying goods to and from ports. The 460-acre Landsford Canal State Park includes the ruins and scars of canal-culverts, stone bridges, locks, historic mill site, and a lockkeeper’s house which contains interpretive exhibits about the canal system in South Carolina.

In addition to its rich cultural history, the canal site is abundant with natural beauty. The rocky shoals on the Catawba River are home to one of the world’s largest populations of Rocky Shoals Spider Lilies. The spider lily is best seen in full bloom from mid-May to mid-June. There is also a 1.25-mile trail that extends the length of the Canal, a nature walk and an American eagle viewing trail. The shoals provide good fishing for striped bass and bream; and there is river access for canoeing and kayaking. The park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

A historic marker at the lifting lock reads as follows, “Crossing the river at Land’s Ford was the Great Philadelphia Wagon Road (Great Indian Warrior Trading Path). It was the most heavily traveled road in colonial America. The road linked areas from the Great Lakes to Augusta, Georgia. The road was laid on ancient animal and Native American trading/warrior paths. Treaties among Governors of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the 19 Chiefs of the Iroquois League of Five Nations in 1685 & 1722 opened the colonial backcountry for peaceful settlement and colonization. In South Carolina, the path forked – going west through Rock Hill, Chester and Newberry and east through Camden on old animal salt trails.”