To save or not to save?

Upon thinking about what program would be "appropriate" to instill in the Civic Arena as a means to save it, I fall upon conflicting interests.

A practical application such as a grocery store or big-box store like a WalMart that many residents of Downtown are craving for would degrade the architecture. I imagine walking around, pushing a shopping cart, picking up a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs beneath the wonderful dome and I find myself thinking how soul-less the building would be if that were its fate. Would a future of soccer-moms and double coupons really be worthy of a building that once hosted legends of music, sport and politics? Farmers markets are slightly more respectable for its green incentives and services but I am still plagued with images of cheap vegetables and the smell of hay. I am almost ashamed to suggest it, but a flea market, in my mind, would be completely inappropriate.

While perhaps the argument can be made that removing a big box store from the big box into a more substantial building could be a catalyst for the elimination of the ridiculous giants that have made their way into the architectural norm. Then again I am reminded that not all buildings need to be landmarks, for a city full of them makes each less important. I am not suggesting that Pittsburgh currently has too many landmarks and therefore the Arena should be torn down. I'm saying if every Target, Wal-Mart and big department decided to create landmark-worthy buildings it would take away from those structures that are worthy of the title.

Still, should I make the argument that the building needs to be preserved in its entirety no matter what the program for historical preservation purposes then perhaps suggesting a Super Wal-Mart would create an interesting debate about the ideas mentioned above. Does the program need to live up to the respectability standard of previous programs?

Then there is always the idea of chopping the building up; not preserving all of it in its entirety. I am forced to consider the possibility. Are there parts that are more important than others? Can the building still serve as a landmark and as a teaching tool for future generations with physical pieces missing? I think yes, but then the questions still remain: what stays? why? what happens here? I am still at a loss for an appropriate program. I presume that mixed-use is always a possibility, but mix-use only means multiple programs, it does not define specifics. Offices? Retail? Parking? Hotel? The possibilities still remain yet to be determined which is the "right" one.

I come full circle by pondering, can the building be saved? Should it be saved? - That's a no brainer: YES. But what is still alluding is how will the building perform and what services will it provide to allow for its preservation to be acceptable?

I am open to any and all comments and suggestions. I realize that this post is probably not as coherent as it should be since most of this is just stream of consciousness, but hopefully there is enough here to get a conversation starting.

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 Pittsburgh building strategies and speaks to Pittsburgh’s well-known economic history of steel manufacturing.

Affectionately called “The Igloo” by many Pittsburgh natives for its domed roof and cool steel and concrete tones, this building was originally known as the Civic Auditorium. As the name suggests, it was originally intended as the new home for the Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera company after many of their outdoor shows had been rained out. The flexibility of the roof allowed for the option of having shows partially outside, or completely inside when inclement weather was expected. During the Igloo’s lifetime it has become a cultural center in Pittsburgh, not only for the opera but for many performances and events. Over its nearly fifty year history it has hosted concerts featuring Frank Sinatra, the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead and Eric Clapton, boxing matches involving Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, soccer matches, basketball games, Billie Jean King and the World Team Tennis, the 1983 World Figure Skating Championships and, of course, numerous National Hockey League hockey games and Stanley Cup finals. Currently known as the Mellon Arena, the building is home to the well-loved Pittsburgh Penguin hockey team. Many Pittsburghers have had unforgettable memories underneath the dome that graces the city skyline. For its unique shape and cultural importance, the Mellon Arena is an easily recognized Pittsburgh landmark and icon which is etched in the memories of the many people who have visited it. The original building was constructed to seat 12,000, but capacity was eventually increased to almost 17,000 to allow more seats for the Penguins games. Since 1992 over 10 million people have enjoyed hockey games alone underneath the dome. While the Mellon Arena is currently the smallest franchise hockey arena, with its circular shape and amazing roof, it is arguable the most unique architecturally.

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. Pittsburgh was no exception. The Civic Auditorium was the first and only building completed in an urban redevelopment plan known as the Pittsburgh Acropolis that called for the demolition of many buildings in the Lower Hill District of Pittsburgh. Considered a highly respectable middle and upper middle class neighborhood in the late nineteenth century, the Lower Hill District slowly became populated with a large number of lower income working class, predominantly African American residents. After World War II, the Lower Hill District was considered the urban slum of Pittsburgh with many buildings that were close to disrepair and density reaching a peak. For the redevelopment project over 100 acres consisting of 1,300 structures including homes and about 400 businesses in the Lower Hill District were demolished to make way for the construction of the Civic Auditorium. Over 8,000 people were displaced to make way for the revitalization project in the Lower Hill District.

While considered a slum by some, the Lower Hill District was an important place in the African American community of Pittsburgh. Comparable to what Harlem is to New York City, the Hill District featured jazz music, clubs and speakeasies. For example, acclaimed playwright August Wilson spent most of his childhood growing up within eyesight of where the Civic Auditorium was constructed and some of the settings of his plays were in the neighborhood of his youth with the characters based upon people in his community. Unfortunately, most of Pittsburgh’s African American hotspots in the Lower Hill District were destroyed and the inhabitants were forced to find a new place to call home. This history behind the creation of the Arena is still a looming scar scratched in the building’s foundations. While the social history that surrounds the formation of the Civic Auditorium is less than positive, a city must embrace its past mistakes and allow future generations to learn from them instead of merely covering up faults with destructive means.

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.

Other Stadium Comparisons

Site/Program Comparisons

I realize that I was supposed to focus on either site or program but instead I briefly delved into both. While I was planning on starting to look at the site, it became apparent to me that one way in which to understand the site better was to compare it to other sites and since the time of being a professional sports arena has faded, I started looking into sites that host different programs.

While it may sound absurd for many reasons some of the programs I looked at would almost be an insult to the Mellon Arena but could serve very practical purposes for the area: namely a Walmart, and a grocery store with a third option as a recreational facility.

I chose the comparison sites from examples in my hometown in the suburbs of Buffalo. This may speak less to the urban context of Pittsburgh, but it was helpful to me to compare with sites that I am intimately familiar with and have experienced many times...I know what it's like to go to this Walmart, to shop at this grocery store, and to practice at the sports fields.

These site/program comparisons focused on parking, connections to major roads and building mass/void. All sites are to scale with each other and the numbers refer to the number of parking spaces in each lot, since parking seems to be a major issue for the Downtown users.

This is the Mellon/Civic Arena. Comparatively is has the most parking spaces with approximately 2,225 spaces.

This is an area in Buffalo suburbs that has a Super Walmart (bottom right) as well as a number of other businesses including: gas station, McDonalds, jewelry store, Applebees, bowling alley and strip mall among others. The total parking spaces depicted are approximately 1,389.

This area of Buffalo has one of the area's largest grocery stores (center right) as well as a number of neighboring strip malls and a US Post Office. The visible parking spaces in this instance are approximately 1,388.

This last area is a recreational facility. Within the building are 4 ice skating rinks and the surrounding fields have football, soccer, softball and baseball fields where local leagues can play. The building also hosts an after school daycare for elementary-aged children. The total parking spaces serving this facility are approximately 660.

This final image is a simple building section and surrounding site section to get an idea of the slope leading up to the Hill District. The larger flat area is the larger parking lot. Both will be updated with more context.

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.

Little Red Riding Hood

While my previous methodology focused more on a strict timeline of things to do over the next two semesters, I want to emphasize that there is still flexibility and room for exploration (in moderation) within my thesis. The topic of historic preservation which is the main focus of my thesis has many different avenues and subjects within itself. I could easily become completely overwhelmed with reading, precedent studies, etc. What I need to do is allow myself to travel down some of these paths but always try to find a way to bring myself back to the task at hand. While tangents can be exciting in the journey and possibly helpful in the discovery, too much straying from the path leads only to confusion, loss of precious time and exasperation.

A Tragedy in the Making

The vote came in. Unanimous. Demolition. No explanation.

Read the following article. I know I'm a few days behind getting my thoughts out.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/24727133/detail.html

How can Pittsburgh allow such an iconic building that has been a memorable asset to the community be fated for a wrecking ball without so much as a bat of an eyelash? I know the arguments have been going on for years - ever since the plans for Consol Energy Center was planned and set in motion. Still, it seems the politicians and stakeholders have had their minds set for a while and aren't willing to listen to other opinions. Why? It's just good business.

If everything goes through as currently planned and the building is demolished to make way for a surface parking lot, that is a slap in the face for Pittsburgh. I know you need the parking but there are other ways to manage that other than sacrificing an icon so you can park your SUV.

I'm not saying that architects are always right, or that people should always take our opinions and put them into action all the time, but seriously now this is a time to pay attention and take note. The public may call the building ugly; I argue that it's uniqueness makes it beautiful amongst the many glass skyscrapers.

The public may be split on the issue as well, but I feel that just the fact that there is such a heavily debated argument shows just how important the building is and having a vote last less than a minute is absurd.

The new arena has more seating, which means more people can enjoy the Penguins games (read into this...more money in ticket sales), but what makes this new arena special? Architecturally I could walk by that building a thousand times and never think that something special like a professional hockey game or a concert was going to go on in there. It looks like a home depot with an American Eagle main entrance. I would almost think I could go shopping for shoes and tile backsplash for my kitchen in there and would be sadly disappointed.

When I first came to Pittsburgh I heard people talk about the Igloo, the Mellon Arena. I thought where is this elusive building? One simple bus ride (not intentionally looking for it) and I knew what all the hype was about. That's how unique the building is. How much of a landmark it is. If someone said "Go to the Consol Center" you would be hard pressed to find it with such ease. The new arena is really not an upgrade.

I just don't get it Pittsburgh. I really think this will be something that the city will regret, and honestly I had considered staying in Pittsburgh after graduation but if the city can't recognize and appreciate something so utterly Pittsburgh-ish then I don't think I want to stay in a place that is having such an identity crisis that it would sacrifice something so important for something so mundane.

More thoughts to come when I'm not sleep deprived and word vomiting.

Plan of Attack

1+3+9=Unlucky #13

Architecture that has social, cultural and/or historic significance has the potential to continue to contribute to its context for generations after its initial “lifetime” has ended.

A wonderful characteristic about architecture is its ability to survive when given new life structurally and programmatically. Unlike humans, a building can continue to function with proper maintenance and contribution to human use long after the initial lifespan. It is therefore my firm belief that not all buildings that have been rendered useless, especially those that have significance to architectural history, social history or communal memory, should be destined for a wrecking ball when the potential is there for betterment through adaptive reuse or other preservation methods.

I’ve heard many times the idea that architects design a building to last for the next, on average, thirty years, but I don’t see why any building should be given a time stamp when there are so many examples of buildings (considered both significant and not) that have withstood this timetable. There are also examples of buildings that were never given such a short life prediction that are still standing and others who never made it close to their anticipated expiration, which leads me to question the validity of building life spans. When a building has reached “the end” I beg to differ. There is always the potential of saving, but then the question becomes when is a building worth saving and when would it be best to let it be destroyed to make way for something new, (possibly) better, and (possibly) different? An obvious choice in my mind of buildings that are worth saving would include those that are historically significant to either the profession of architecture due to its unique and innovative design/construction/etc or significant to the collective memory of the community (either positively or negatively or both). When there is a negative impact on the community the argument to save becomes even harder, but I also feel that it can potentially be more important to save a negative example as a way to teach future generations not just about how that specific building failed, but also to showcase how much of a social impact architecture can have and how a building that was once a scar on communal memory can strive to remedy past afflictions rather than just admitting defeat. In this consideration buildings are more than just places to inhabit and use, but they are stories and insights to our past with potential to teach the future. Every building has a story to tell about the people who designed it, built it, used it, abhorred it, loved it, etc. and it is necessary to preserve these stories while also creating new ones. Therefore I am determined in my thesis to be a doctor of architecture and remedy, revive, and restore a building that has potential for rejuvenation and rehabilitation to continue to serve its community for many more years to come.

Visual #1_Redux #1

The life cycle of humans and architecture is strikingly similar even if on different time frames. The life of a human is inevitably linked to the built environment and similarly the built environment wouldn't exist without humans. Humans depend on architecture and architecture depends on humans. Their lives are intertwined.

Visual 01_My Life in Architecture

All the memories I have in my life can be related to the built environment whether it is the setting, plot or character of the story. Here are a sampling of images of architecture that has in some way been involved in my life.

Architecture is...

Oftentimes when I begin a new project I will look up key words in a dictionary and reflect on what I find as a starting point. Why should this project begin any differently?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary "architecture" is...

"noun
1) the art or practice of designing and constructing buildings.
2) the style in which a building is designed or constructed, especially with regard to a specific period, place, or culture."

Is architecture "the art or practice of designing and constructing building"? Yes. Is architecture "the style in which a building is designed or constructed, especially with regard to a specific period, place or culture"? Absolutely. I will not argue against those points, rather hope to expand upon them without turning this into a manifesto.

While straightforward, I find the OED definition to be very limiting in breadth and depth of what I would consider to be architecture. To open up a can of worms, architecture is many things to many people, but let's not go there just yet. What is architecture to me?

Architecture is not only the design and creation of buildings (both new and old), but rather the affect of the spaces created upon the people who experience them. These affects can be positive or negative, but it should be the responsibility of the architect to create them nonetheless. While not always possible to completely control a person's reaction because of culture, personal history and memories, the architect has the potential and I would argue duty to strive to make their building memorable for architecture is a daily presence in people's lives.

In brief architecture is potential. It has the potential to affect people's lives or not. It can be a work of art. It can be a science. It can be garbage.

Something that I find particularly interesting and motivating about architecture besides it's ability to affect people in the present is that I believe architecture is a story that stretches back to our very beginnings and is left open for future installments. Since arguably architecture has been around since the dawn of man, it has grown and changed throughout history and the bits and pieces that remain from ages passed can give people today an idea of how our ancestors lived. In the same sense architecture can tell stories not just about individuals but about society as a whole and how it has changed over time. Architecture is a mirror within which we can see the past and oppositely architecture has the potential to mold and direct the future.

These few measly paragraphs only touch the tip of the iceberg but I will end with one semi-nutshell thought. Architecture is more than just a building, it is also people and the lives they live.