Please take part in this effort by reviewing and commenting on the three design options:
Option A - Traditional
Option B - Contemporary 
Option C - Hybrid 
An open forum to discuss your input (via this blog and all other options) will be held on Sunday, April 19 after the 10:30 am service. Final design direction will then be presented for congregational approval at the June 2009 voters meeting.
Your feedback is greatly appreciated!
Posts
I just came back from the Historic Brewer's Hill Association. There these plans and possibilities were shared with them. They will be invited to come to this blog as well so they may be able to share their thoughts directly. But to summarize, I heard them say they are excited and will be happy to have extra good traffic and want us to feel free to go with the modern look if we choose it.
ReplyDeleteI am strongly in favor of the more contemporary scheme for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1. The traditional looks simply mimics the construction practices of the existing building, construction practices that are largely obsolete and therefore no longer in use. In that sense it lacks the integrity of the original.
2. It should be asked, “Why are the vocabularies of traditional building practices considered more valid than those of today? Is beauty in built form simply a thing of the past that has to be resurrected from historical canons? Or is there an inherent beauty, albeit different, in the construction practices of today?” On that second point, I would argue that it is the place and obligation of the Architect to understand, synthesize and make clear that inherent sense of beauty that is possible in today’s construction materials and practices.
3. According to the Historic Preservation Policy Standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Treatment of Historic Properties, “New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property or its environment. The new work shall be differentiated from the old to protect the historic integrity of the property and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural details to protect the historic integrity of the building.”
4. The great modern architect, Mies van der Rohe, stated that architecture is “the will of an epoch.” By this he meant that the historical record of the built environment speaks the the truth about the culture that created it. What does it say about our time when all we do is replicate what came before?
Tom Brock, Assistant Professor, IIT Chicago
Option B is the most satisfying solution. It has a more layered effect that gives the building meaning, much more so than simply applying a regurgitation of historical vocabulary like the entry piece in option A. The facade patterns are defined adequately to be able to read the building in a base, middle, top format, yet ambiguous enough to cause the eye to wander and pick up additional meanings and questions of internal space separations.
ReplyDeleteThe new pictures of option A now have a cross up high. I wonder if that could be put into the other building schemes and look appropriate. "Cross" is part of Christian branding and it would be the only thing to tell anyone that this is different from some other top notch school.
ReplyDelete