Arch Thesis 2011 I Schrantz
Thursday, October 28, 2010
To save or not to save?
Monday, October 18, 2010
History of an Igloo
The site of the Civic Arena is an extremely politically and culturally charged area that has been stirring a lot of debate recently amongst Pittsburghers and Preservationists. It has occurred to me that some of my blog followers may not be completely aware of the history that is fueling much of the argument.
At the time of its dedication on September 17, 1961 the Mellon Arena was the largest dome in the world and the world’s first non-internally supported roof that could be opened and closed at will. It was cheered as a “momentous triumph of progressive technology”. The building’s most recognized feature – the domed roof – is comprised of eight stainless steel leaves soaring 136 feet high and spanning 415 feet in diameter. Six of these leaves are moveable and, when activated, can open in approximately two and a half minutes. The roof is supported from above with a large steel arm that poetically cantilevers and curves along the roof’s profile until it sturdily meets the ground. Because the roof is externally supported, it allows for fewer obstructed views for the audience inside. Concrete girders surround the base and provide structure for the ring on which over 3,000 feet of track guide the steel leaves as they open and close. The combination of steel and concrete materials reflects a tradition of
Affectionately called “The Igloo” by many
However, not all of the memories of the Mellon Arena are positive. In many American cities unsightly slum neighborhoods became targeted for redevelopment projects, oftentimes without thought given to where the dislocated people would go. These redevelopment projects were rarely coupled with government funded housing projects which would have given the displaced residents a place to live once their homes were reclaimed. With automobiles gaining in popularity and the creation of suburban sprawl, cities needed to adjust to accommodate the new traffic patterns as well as try to maintain life in the city by enticing populations with cultural outlets and entertainment.
While considered a slum by some, the Lower Hill District was an important place in the African American community of
From this history there is no doubt why the Civic Arena is causing a stir. While the Pittsburgh Penguins have been charged with the development of the site, there are questions as to what belongs there. Some would like to see the grid from the Hill District move back in and reclaim the lost residential neighborhood. In my humble opinion, that’s romantic, but stupid. Pittsburgh is facing a population crisis with more people leaving than coming in and the residential sector is suffering. Why add onto the problem by creating more housing? Others are purely looking at financials and want to turn the land into the high-demand surface parking that Downtown “desperately needs.” This would be an insult to the Civic Arena by completely erasing its memory for something as mundane (and more ugly than the buildings) as an asphalt jungle that does nothing for the citizens other than have another place to park. A more expensive option financially but saving on land would be a parking garage…you’ll get the same amount of parking spaces with a fraction of the amount of land. I am admittedly not big in economics or business so I’m sure there are other factors that can be added in all these scenarios that I have overlooked or am not familiar with and I am open to any rational reasoning. I will need to take a more serious look at program soon.
Site/Program Comparisons
Thursday, September 23, 2010
2(1+3+9=13) = 26
Buildings that have impacted the communities which they serve can be programmatically rejuvenated for continued use.
A community that is made entirely of new built buildings lacks identity and physical evidence of heritage that can bring a community together. Architecture is a cultural and social glue that links the past memories and values with present engagement and future potential activity. Therefore , it is imperative to reconsider older buildings when they have fallen into disuse as an opportunity for education and rehabilitation through new programs rather than always erasing and starting anew.
The reasons to preserve any building can fall under multiple categories including (but not limited to) architectural/technological significance, historical significance, symbolic iconography, communal sentiment, age, cultural evidence, etc. The questions then becomes, what buildings should be saved? The answer to that is not black and white and is therefore never easy, but a community that’s only process is to demolish and rebuild does not consider economic opportunities of old structures or the impact of the inevitable loss of connections with past generations. Architecture is a mirror within which we can see our ancestors and their values and from which each generation can define its own chapter. Relating to older buildings and the memories associated with them helps people in a community create social identity without which the community lacks cohesion and unity. There are many forms of saving buildings, and they all have their pros and cons. There is restoration to a certain era in the building’s history which some people argue can be a false representation of times gone by, but these buildings continue to serve the community strictly within the world of academia as a tool to teach, but not touch. Adaptive reuse, while also arguably negative if it requires major changes to the built form, allows for the building to have a more active role in the community and vice versa. Still the fact remains that not all buildings need be discarded when there is an opportunity to be a physical or psychological reminder of history and communal identity.