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.