Thursday Night's Presentation

This is how I plan on ending my presentation thursday night. This seems to be the most unclear part of my argument, so i thought it best to focus on it. Still wrapping up the beginnings. If you have the chance to comment that would be great, but if not i hope it makes sense thursday night!

This may be too long, not sure yet. I'll add the rest as soon i get it.

Is Gettysburg relevant today beyond our desire to remember an important part of our country’s history? Is there tangible relevance to our current national and global concerns?

The answer is yes.

In general we strive to maintain our happiness without getting in the way of others. When this isn’t possible we argue and fight, when this isn’t possible between countries, or even separate parts of a single country, we go to war. This is an unfortunate and inevitable facet of humanity.

Gettysburg seemingly has lost its relevance because we have no notion of or relation to its causes or it’s dead. Its occurrence and outcome shaped the direction of our country’s evolution, but today the Civil War is mainly stuff for middle school textbooks and History Channel specials. Slavery is gone, and so is any personal memory of it and anyone who fought to keep or abolish it.

What is still relevant today is the fallibility of man and his shortsightedness in dealing with his surroundings. Today we are still at war, but for entirely different reasons. Outside of a few thousand families, we have no personal experience with our current war other than the pain at the pump. This is a pain everyone feels. At this point, few would argue against the invasion of Iraq as anything but a failing attempt to gain easier access to oil, a war whose blunders have squandered billions of dollars, ended thousands of lives, propelled gas prices across the globe, and severely damaged America’s image and value of our currency. I apologize for politicizing, but this is something that affects everyone here however slightly or greatly we feel the impact.

The men at the white house start our wars, but our society’s indifference towards unsustainable practices give those in power the incentive to profit off of our desires, be it free labor and cheap cotton in the past, or plenty of gas for our suvs and oil and timber for the vinyl siding and framing of our mcmansions today.

The thousands of lives lost at Gettysburg have their memorials, and someday those that have died in Iraq will have their own; they deserve to be remembered.

I am more interested in the larger picture that needs to be remembered. It is not the lives lost in Iraq, its not just the thousands buried in Gettysburg, its not just sustainability, but it is a reminder that an indifferent and unaware society is the root cause of unnatural disasters such as war, pollution, global warming, terrorist attacks, oil spills, and industrial catastrophes; it’s just easier to point the finger in another direction, especially in a quiet, beautiful rural setting like Gettysburg.

If monument has the power to memorialize our triumphs, tragedies, and deaths in hindsight, then I believe that monument can provide the foresight to prevent future losses through a heightened awareness of our history, relationship to each other, and to our built and natural environment. Experiencing this monument will raise questions about the big issues on a very personal level.

There is a very specific and captivating site on the Gettysburg battlefield that is the only possibility for addressing these issues. Devil’s Den is an outcropping of rocks that is millions of years old whose historical significance lasted all but a day of fierce battle. Today it is one of the most popular destinations of the battlefield tour for its natural magnificence.

It is salvation for children bored by dad dragging them around a hundred monuments, an obstacle course for those unafraid of heights, a romantic spot for teenagers on dates, and a site with hundreds of stony seats for reading, contemplation, or just taking in a beautiful view. For the most part, Gettysburg is a drive through monument extravaganza, but every car stops here. This is a vital organ of the monumental Gettysburg experience. Chances are every one of Gettysburg’s 10,000 residents, and 2,000,000 visitors have walked the paths and climbed the rocks of Devil’s Den.

This site is the greatest evidence of the topography’s power over the course of the battle. The influence nature has over man. It was named for its vicious role in the battle, a den for snipers. This land was a point for one soldier to use nature as an advantage, and the other to be its victim.

This is true for many areas of Gettysburg, but here the casual visitor can actually feel it. They can imagine the danger or safety around every turn, behind every rock.

Then they are transported beyond the battle, to the creation of the land. How the hell did they get here? How are they resting as they are, stacked like granite dominoes, some of which seemingly balance like an egg on its top end? These questions wash passersby with humility.

Here you watch your step, brace yourself on natural railings, and enjoy the view. This is a site for the unexpecting tourist to contemplate his relationship to nature, if only for a brief moment. Now that the beauty of nature has brought you here, let me show you something.

This will become a site for the unexpecting tourist to contemplate his relationship to nature, his society, his history, and the built form after I’m through. Gettysburg lacks a definitive encompassing monument; this will be collaboration between natural monumentality and that of the monumental built form. The monument and visitors center built here will utilize the land and be subject to it. Here a visitor will explore the causes of unnatural disaster, the course of our actions, and its impact through architectural installation built above, below, around, inside, in spite of, or in addition to the natural topography. In terms of technical sustainability and regeneration everything built will be LEED certified and powered with alternative energy, but it will go beyond superficial implementation. It will be a testament to the architectural hubris of man involved with manipulating nature for his vision, and his humility in adapting to nature when he cannot overcome it.

Here the civil war is still relevant, and so are today’s crises. Interest in this specific part of history will bring visitors; the topic of today’s concerns will be integrated to understand the gravity of our actions, words, and choices in our past and present day.

Like the title of Al Gore’s film, our global situation is truly “An Inconvenient Truth.” Those with influence must make it relative and experiential for the public to face these challenges and seriously contemplate change.

for monday

working on a comparison of types of monuments, their program/intent/origin, life span, user group, and benefactors

how monument goes from event - conception - completion - use - disrepair/lack of relevancy

what is the life cycle of monument

More Definition

Monument -

1. a structure erected to commemorate persons or events, erected as memorial
2. an area or a site of interest to the public for its historical significance, great natural beauty, etc., preserved and maintained by a government
3. any enduring evidence or notable example of something
4. something venerated for its enduring historic significance or association with a notable past person or thing

Monumental -

1. symbolic status and physical presence of a monument
2. exceptionally great
3. having the quality of being larger than life, of a heroic scale

www.dictionary.com

The Case for Experience

The trouble with disaster scenarios is that they are evocative. Geoff Manaugh's BLDG BLOG discusses the disaster photography of Armestre and Gomez for Greenpeace. Their images envision coastlines across the world under meters of water, the effect of global warming. The problem is, "do i care about a coastline in spain?" It feels like a photographic work of fiction, a fiction that on some levels might be cool to see someday. As long as i'm not affected where I'm at, its pretty damn interesting, right? The pictures don't describe any tangible evidence of human suffering. All Gore's imagery in An Inconvenient Truth showing Florida and Manhattan being submerged are equally scary and evocative, but have less impact than they deserve. Perhaps detractors of America would rejoice at seeing Manhattan submerged. He also describes differing opinions on New Orleans. The images of the submerged city, depending on which side of the fence you're on, show either a tragic amount of lives lost due to nature and political apathy, or a tragic amount of lives lost when they made themselves so poor that they couldn't escape and our government had to bail them out.

Manaugh also talks about "liberation hydrology" in Miami:

"The implicit, if inadvertant, message here seems to be: hey, south Floridians, and all you who are bored of the world today, sick of all the parking lots and the 7-11s, tired of watching Cops, tired of applying to colleges you don't really want to go to, tired of credit card debt and bad marriages, don't worry. This will all be underwater soon. "

A flooded Miami (ficitonal) and flooded New Orleans (actual) are a lot less exciting knee deep than from a birds eye view.

Imagery and experience in this case are wholly different things.

The point is:

My monument must be evocative through experience. The most successful monuments are experiencial, even if on different levels. I will continue to point to Eisenman's and Foster's monumental buildings in Berlin. Users define their meaning through experience. My project will be successful if I can convey the weight of our actions to the users through experiencing what, where, how, and why i build my monument.

Regenerative Monument

Lisa provided me with articles about truly green design, regenerative design. This goes beyond the idea of sustaining our environment to actively working to improve it. Ben Haggard describes it as "...conceptualizes projects as engines of positive or evolutionary change for the systems into which they are build. Rather than looking at how to minimize the impact on wildlife habitat and corridors, for example, regenerative designs look at how to increase habitat quality." It is a more holistic design in terms of integrating the process of building with the economic health and stability of the local community.

He describes 4 concepts behind regenerative development

1. Flip your paradigm - view slopes, drainages, roads, buildings, etc not as things, but as energy systems.

2. Go to the Core - understanding the dynamics that create the character of place

3. Learn from the Master - learn from nature. it naturally develops the most efficient systems.
4. Build to Place, Not Formula - utilize the particulars of a place to determine appropriate engineering and design.

In his examples he describes site specific buildings which take advantage of their surroundings in places the at have been misused previously. Communities are active in the process from conception to completion, and learn how to apply these tactics in other areas of thier life and building. All exaples given are very rural, and i'm unsure of how this works in a more developed or urban context, if it works at all there. I'll see what i can find.

Anyway, the greatest and purest monuments are built to last, so they are within the realm of sustainability. Perhaps they all require a considerable amount of resources for their completion, but ask for little more once built. The building as monument requires a considerable amount of resources for completion, use, and maintenance with a much shorter life expectancy than grand monuments.

I'm start to think that what i'm going after is not sustainable monument, but regenerative monument. Sustainable in its methods of construction and materials, regenerative in its ability to add to the physical environment in terms of energy development, water usage, and add to the cultural environment in terms of education and expressing the impact of that which is memorialized and the effects of actions on the environment.

Monday Meeting Recap

Site selection is beginning to stagnate, so I need to focus on theory to move forward

Site – New Orleans, Gettysburg, DC

New Orleans – abandoned city, walls not levies around worst hit places to prevent rebuilding, new FEMA headquarters, monument to the dead and failings of government, emergency shelter

DC – not discussed much, but maybe the Reichstag is so clear an example of my intentions that it could harm my thesis were it to be placed here.

Gettysburg – John finally convinced (collective sigh of relief), experiential “monument” relating built form to nature

Theory – continue to work on my definitions, especially at the elemental level of “what is monument?”

What is the life span of my monument? What is the short view and the long view? Is anything permanent, or is it our perception of permanence? What is permanent today, does anything need to be permanent?

Can this monument “pulsate” with the needs of the times? Serve its purpose, disappear, or be recycled?

Who will sponsor this? Is government pure enough to make this statement? Who can be a “neutral party?” Investigate the origins of the most high profile monuments to understand how they came to be.

Also, no one builds a monument like a dictator, but not a single dictator ever thought what he was doing was wrong. Is something I want to do on this scale right? Am I going to be the Temple U thesis student version of a dictator?

More case studies, temple of Solomon, Michael heizer, Goldsworthy, Watts Towers in LA

Anything i missed? Throw any case studies my way if you think of them.

Un Monumental Gettysburg

Gettysburg is a rambling countryside marked with hundreds (thousands?) of small monuments and occasionally large monuments. It is unique in that it marks very specific instances in the battle where things worth marking happened. Not every soldier is mentioned, but every battalion, regiment, etc have their place. Every state that fought there has its monument, Pennsylvania's being the grandest. One needs more than a day to walk/drive across the Battlefield and see everything, but it often leads to numbness and disinterest in the monument. The monuments become diluted by their numbers. It is monumental in its scope, less so in experience. There is no one singular, all encompassing monument on the site. The question is, does Gettysburg need one? Can what I want to express fit into Gettysburg? I am interested in marking a turning point, a point where we say "we made a mistake, it will never happen again." Gettysburg doesn't say this, it marks where tragic events happen, but pays no homage to what brought these tragedies to Gettysburg. My "sustainable monument" for lack of a better term, will attempt to address the core of our problems, not its consequences. It will be a monument before the fact, not after. If death is so important that it is worth memorializing, wouldn't resources best be suited to preventing death rather than remembering it? No one will be there to memorialize the death of industrial society if and when our natural resources run out and we enter a new ice age or whatever is the projection of our unsustainable society. Gettysburg is a significant place in our history, in a very insignificant setting. Depletion of our resources is a significant problem with its roots in poor practices at the suburban level, practices which multiply. If anything in such a setting can have an impact in changing the way we think, it is a positive gesture. We don't see the impact of our unsustainable practices in Gettysburg, therefore we are not inclined do anything about them. There are major issues that have hit Gettysburg in the past, and they are still there only in a different form. People need to be enlightened on this level. Can the built form have anything to do with this? That's what I'm working on.

New Orleans?

I've been thinking about New Orleans. I had brushed it off out of lack of interest, but I think I simply hadn't thought enough about it. Catching up with readings and comments provided by Lisa, my interests in political influence on the build environment and environmental disaster meet in New Orleans. Should we rebuild? Probably not, but people want to. They want to keep their idea of home. But should home be such a dangerous environment? These storms are only going to become more frequent. Speaking of sustainability, what if all the progress made since the storm gets wiped away? All of the rebuilding efforts put a considerable strain on the price and availability of materials throughout the entire country, and could all be for naught. Could the rebuilding effort be a planning initiative to restrict parts of the city? Instead of levies, what about walls? Housing towers way above the high water mark? I don't know, just a few thoughts, but I might be bringing New Orleans back to the table.

Thesis Prep

Sustainability has been the focus of the most current research. Assumptions and understanding of sustainability have shifted. Derrick Jensen’s book, the large and pessimistic environmental warning, Endgame, studies societies that live unsustainable lifestyles and why they do so. He attempts to identify the root problems and not the simply focus on temporary or superficial solutions. He states that “For an act to be sustainable, it must benefit the landbase.” A sustainable act must be beneficial in numerous ways, and not simply just do less harm. Green roofs and windmills are not the solution, but they are a step towards it. We need a society which fosters sustainable solutions, not one which may or may not choose to apply them. Sustainability, however noble and however slight its impact may be, only prolongs the inevitable. There is a new movement in green design which goes beyond sustaining, regenerative design, design which increases growth rather than sustains it. The root of the problem needs to be addressed before any massive change could be instituted, and these changes need to be greater than slightly damaging. This is where monument is beginning to make more sense. The ultimate intent of this project is to discuss whether a political statement in architecture can be the impetus for change. This may be through education, proclamation, or marking a significant event towards sustainability on the end of our culture or government. Norman Foster’s Reichstag dome remains a very strong case study in the realm of politics and marking a new direction. It represents the impact of government in projecting to its people that it intends to turn a new page, and it does so sustainably, as with all of Foster’s projects. Although technical considerations in terms of its design haven’t been investigated, its appeal is more in a gestural sense. This project may be served as a large political gesture towards sustainability (although designed green) rather than simply a sustainable monument. According to Jensen, it must impact a broader spectrum of factors sustainability and our society rather than simply earning a few LEED credits.

I. Unnatural Disasters

a. Definition: Massive environmental harm done by acts of man

b. Type. Coal mines, dam failures, government, industrial catastrophes, nuclear, oil spills, terrorism, toxicity, engineering mistakes, man-induced superstorms

Research is directing me more towards political disasters, as government has incredible power in terms of persuading/enforcing sustainable tactics, and holds a lot of blame in letting them go unnoticed/unrestricted in the case of the mentioned unnatural disasters

II. Site Selection – Parameters

a. Cultural – traction in the community, importance on a large scale to people relative to the social context

b. Political – strength as political statement

c. Monument – strength as monument or monumental building

d. Financial – expense of the project, potential for it to generate revenue through tourism or energy production

e. Audience – access to tourism and curiosity. How many visitors the surrounding area will bring.

f. Sustainability – potential for sustainable initiatives, environmental impact

Political and monumental considerations are being taken more seriously, as they lead to satisfying the other parameters. Sustainability is taking the direction of influence rather than simple implementation. A case study is farming in Germany. The government is providing great financial incentives for producing more solar and wind energy. My interest is more in the initiative to bring this change (government) rather than the base level tactics (wind and solar farms). The Reichstag is making great influence as a case study, as it is a sustainably built testament to a sea change in German politics. A culturally relevant political statement in the proper setting can generate monumentality, money, audience, and work towards sustainability.

III. Possible sites – Selected for unnatural disaster and site parameters

a. Gettysburg, PA – war, govt, currently sprawl

b. Centralia, PA – 40 year underground mine fire, engineering and environmental mistakes, ghost town.

c. Monument Valley – no unnatural disaster but fits site parameters

d. Washington DC – political apathy towards environment. Seat of indifference and power

e. New York City – terrorist attacks, linked to hatred of our unsustainable society and need for foreign oil, massive political and financial waste over rebuilding

f. New Orleans – environmental and political catastrophe. Superstorms linked to carbon emissions.

Gettysburg, Washington DC, and New Orleans are taking greater traction in possible design. Gettysburg is a monumental area in an unmonumental setting, the typical American suburb. It is typical in that it is becoming over developed, is an unconscious generator of massive amounts of waste and pollution (thousands of small cities polluting together probably do more harm than a few large cities, but the cities get the blame). The problems that brought about the Civil War are still relevant. In their case unsustainable practices (slavery, war, political separation) led to destruction. In our case, unsustainable practices (sprawl, energy consumption, pollution) are leading to destruction.

Washington DC is the seat of government, therefore the seat of visible power in bringing change. It is the second most visited place in the world, therefore very accessible for informing the masses.

New Orleans brings a lot of emotions. It is powerful on an individual level, and a large political level, it is the site of the most public display of govt apathy in our history. Should we rebuild? It is also the site of massive rebuilding under the ethos of build cheap and quick to make money.

IV. Program

a. Gettysburg, PA

i. visitors center

ii. experiential monument to sustainability (in terms of war, slavery, today energy and material waste)

b. Centralia, PA

i. power generator utilizing underground energy,

ii. monumental gesture towards taking advantage of past mistakes

c. Monument Valley

i. wind farm, solar farm,

ii. information center for tourism

d. Washington DC –

i. large scale monument

ii. monumental new headquarters for EPA or theoretical “Department of Sustainability”

e. New York City –

i. monumental new office center

ii. public memorial

f. New Orleans –

i. visitors center,

ii. solar farm

iii. massive fence/levy restricting rebuilding inside city limits. Argument: the city shouldn’t be rebuilt considering these disasters are becoming more common.

Program is still elusive. Any program must inform the public visually or experientially, and all of these have the potential to do so, though the most effective one can only be determined once more specific things are learned about potential site. Site is very important in determining program specifics, but each will be monumental, informational, and experiential pertaining to addressing an unnatural disaster, sustainability, learning from mistakes, and proclaiming they will not be made again. This is a testament to a social commitment to change.

What Conversation Do I Want To Have In April?

During our last meeting, Andrew posed the question "what conversation do you want to have with the jurors in April?"

Since my travels in Europe this past spring and summer, I've become fascinated with "permanent" architecture. This encompasses monumental buildings that continue to move people generations and centuries after their construction. In most cases their initial use has shifted and the buildings take on new meaning over time, this meaning may or may not be relevant. In most cases it is simply for historic curiosity and generating money through tourism.

Today, little built implies permanence. The only permanence we have today is rapid change, change which many can argue is unsustainable. We build under the idea that what we do today won't matter down the road, make your money now and enjoy it while it lasts. This sets a rotten precedent and if this continues we will reach a turning point where our quality of life will not be sustainable. We will soon be entering "a period of consequences" as Churchill put it decades ago.

If monumental building had great meaning for the time it was constructed, meaning that continues today (if in different respects), meaning that continues to benefit society, can monumental building be part of the solution to today's problems?

If architectural landmarks benefit society today through education and revenue from tourism, can today's architectural landmark benefit society through educating the public and regenerating the local or national environment. Instead of simply revenue from tourism, can it send energy back to the grid? Can it encourage others to do so?

Can architecture be a political statement which states that we have learned from our past mistakes (in this case, environmental disasters), and that we will no longer foster a society whose practices encourage these mistakes to happen again?

more to come

Some Working Definitions

Definitions I'm working with, although somewhat rough. They'll be better articulated as I move along.

Sustainability – encouraging a lifestyle whose practices benefit the “landbase” and maintain and or/improve our quality of life without harming the social and physical environment of those today and those in the future.

Unnatural Disaster – large scale tragedy that is a direct result of man’s apathy, power, and ignorance, or ambition

Anti-monument – unintentional monumentality or powerful monument/monumentality which is in opposition to local physical or social context

Un-monumental – that which attempts to monumentally articulate/memorialize a unique event with pedestrian means, articulation which is not equivalent in scale to that which it is attempting to articulate

Some Notes

This post addresses some comments Andrew left a few days ago, his actual comments are a few posts down if you want to see them.

Site - out

Centralia - One trick pony, potential is far more technical rather than political. Not enough visitors to work towards goal of educating the public. Monument Valley – too far away. too technical. gut feeling - not interested enough. New Orleans – too far away. Lots of potential for all my criteria, but just not interested. New York – could be a great project, but not entirely my own. It would be a compromise. I don’t want to enter a new WTC competition 6 years after the fact.

Site - in

Washington – monumental city, seat of political power, perfect site for political statement, tourists from all over the world continually visit. Gettysburg – monumental town. Tourists from all over the country visit, very common for locals to enjoy the site. Not currently political, historically political. The surrounding context is typical of any small American town, a population which is losing sight/unaware of sustainable practices

Monument/Sustaining

Case studies –

Eisenman in Berlin – highly experiential memorial. Speaks volumes through simplicity rather than grandiosity. Political statement.
Vietnam Memorial – antimonument. Highly experiential.
Reichstag – monumental intervention on a sullied political mass. Signifies new direction architecturally and experientially (users stand above/monitor parliament).
Astronaut’s Memorial – memorializes astronauts lost in duty. Expensive technical aspects that have failed and are too costly to maintain.
Pearl River Tower – wind powered high rise.
CCTV – most iconic of many iconic Chinese buildings symbolizing their growing power and industry.
Eiffel Tower, Space Needle, etc. – monumental structures which declare/project progress.
Pennsylvania Monument, Gettysburg – classical monument with little emotion.
Monolith, 2001: Space Odyssey – fictionally greatest monument of all time, marked the beginning of human evolution.
Despotic Monuments – Stalin, Hussein, etc. oppressive and extremely powerful only as long as the leader is still in power.

My interest lies in monuments that speak volumes with simplicity. This is the new direction of monument. Classical monument such as the PA monument is so ornamental as to dilute its focus and power.

Un-monumental is memorializing a unique event with a common artifact or strategy.

Theory & Politics

Andrew pointed out Lebbeus Woods’ quote “architecture is a political act… an act of war.” If our government went with the trend (war on… drugs, terrorism) and turned going green into the “war on waste,” maybe my structure would be an act of war. I think of it more as an act of action signifying the governments devotion and involvement in sustainability. Political statement? We’re going to do whatever we can to sustain our quality of life and the lives of those to come.

Cultural Traction

It should hold up as long as the political statement is a positive one for the public. A monument that can cut costs through sustainable tactics and supplement its own energy should be viewed positively. Tourism always generates revenue. The scale of the monument will be appropriate to setting and useful to any that want to experience it. The finished structure will warrant curiosity and encourage users to visit.

Definition

My working definition for sustainability – practices which allow us to maintain or improve our quality of life with minimal negative impact on our cultural and physical environment.

Monumental Sustainability II

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address spoke of cultural and political sustainability. America saddled with war, slavery, political division, etc could only last so long before it destroyed itself. Today, America saddled with war, exhaustion of natural resources, and political indifference can only last so long before it destroys itself.

Exhaustion of our natural resources is a relatively new problem, and currently the most pressing issue of sustainability. History shows us here that sustainability is not a new issue, it has evolved over time.

A monument to sustainability with the longevity to address sustainability as it evolves over time?

Monumental Sustainability

Pearl River Tower

"In 2005, SOM presented plans for a new headquarters tower in Guangzhou that would incorporate the latest sustainable technology and engineering know-how in an attempt to create the world’s most energy efficient high-rise structure—a tower that could significantly reduce its dependency on the city’s infrastructure. Scheduled for completion in 2009, the 71-story, 2.3-million square-foot tower will be the most energy efficient supertall tower ever built, and a milestone along the way to energy independence."


Skyscraper = industrial monument ?
Skyscraper + wind turbines = sustainable industrial monument ?



http://www.som.com/content.cfm/pearl_river_tower

Gettysburg Photos

http://picasaweb.google.com/PaulMSheaffer/Gettysburg


Photos of Devil's Den. Very popular. Potential site in rural Gettysburg. Also, the Pennsylvania monument, to my knowledge the most recent and expensive monument at the battlefield, a grand gesture with little emotion.


This site relates to the case study of Eisenman's Memorial in Berlin. This is an untouched site which encourages experience and informs and raises questions as you traverse through it. There are a few small information markers that detail events, but an understanding of romantic warfare is felt as you imagine what it was like hiding from and picking off soldiers between, behind, above, or below the rocks. A visitor's imagination and curiosity runs wild here, evidence to the power of experiencing space.


The second image is the Pennsylvania Monument. Apparently a big undertaking at the turn of the century, and a nice, solid monument, the most grand in Gettyburg. I don't know what it stands for. I wasn't compelled to take the time to understand all of its facets or explore and wait in line to read its info marker. A beautiful gesture but just a landmark, its effectiveness has wained over time and it feels irrevelant. There is tremendous embodied energy in this architecture of permanence, energy that has diminished quickly and no longer generates experiential/historical curiosity.

Substantive posts will be ready for your viewing first thing in the morning. I've been away since Andrew's accusatory post at 2 pm on friday and only have time to make considerable progress when i return to the city tonight. I've been working when i can at home, but have nothing that is ready to post yet, it will be ready by the morning.

Gettysburg and DC are my only sites for consideration now. Gettysburg will be an experiential antimonument, DC will be a political antimonument on a very large scale. It may be a monumental building, not sure. When i say antimonument, i mean something significantly different in terms of experience and aesthetics amidst a context of classical monument which DC and Gettysburg have in spades.

My definition of sustainability is a way of living that allows us to benefit the landbase while maintaining or improving our current standard of living and facilitating this for future generations. My monument is most likely going to be tackling this by being a political impetus or statement in this direction, not simply a LEED building.


My case studies haven't changed. Boullee, Foster and Eisenman in Berlin, I've looked at Loos, among others. Much can be learned from traditional monument as well, i visited the Pennsylvania monument at Gettysburg this weekend. Its typical classical monument that I will be avoiding but need to understand. Please direct me if you can think of any new leads.


That is all for now, there will be plenty more in the morning, and i apologize if that is too late for your convenience, tonight is the only convenient time i have to do a considerable amount of work worth discussing. As for Andrew, don't imply that we don't care about our thesis', we were all offended by this. If you think we're lazy, take a look at our studio projects. Thesis advising is a very important thing for all of us, but when there are pressing deadlines for classes worth far more credits looming, excuse us for losing site of our blog postings for a few days. Studio has been extended another week, and although it is ultimately less important than thesis, it is there nonetheless. We all will obviously have an intensified focus when this is over.