U.P. Grandstand Alternate Scheme
KB submitted this scheme for the grandstand.
Comments? Here's the accompanying text:
the structure is about 18-20meters high. my initial idea for the roof was unpainted, thin lightweight concrete, but then a new material was presented to us recently that i thought might be better. this roofing material is almost like 'nipa' thatch roof but is really made out of plastic 'noodles'. the roof terminates with a skylight that can be illuminated at night & would look beautiful as it rises above the trees. a trellis underneath with clear polycarbonate panels would take care of the rain. the whole structure is carried by slender multi-pronged columns that imitate the form of the trees nearby.
it's very tall compared to the grandstand that we're used to, but i wanted to define the UP axis by having a monumental structure opposite the Oblation. and with all the activities happening in the sunken garden, it nice to have a really great backdrop for your picture taking.
***
What about *your* ideas? This is a creative exercise. We're not going to replace the grandstand, because it's already done. Post or send them to asrodil@up.edu.ph. Disregard niyo na lang yung deadline diyan sa may sidebar. I'm also putting up some sketches soon. - pon
posted by Pon @ 6:39 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
comment lang sa picture taking: the one holding the camera would have to stand in the middle of the sunken garden or near the main library para makuha yung height ng grandstand, and the person posing would have to be in the sunken garden itself, near the cameraman, para makita siya clearly sa pic.
curious ako sa plastic noodles na yan..sino yung supplier?
whatthe?!?! naka-3d computer model pa! over. sorry, no time to think of alternative design for grandstand. no time to even sketch. kb's design is better than what's being put up, though. waaaaaaaaaaay better. tsaka naiintriga rin ako sa plastic noodles na yan. what's the chemical composition and the physical characteristics?
I like the form as well.... simple and strong and it would indeed make for a landmark that was on the other side of the oblation... albeit architectural... as opposed to sculptural
I'm also superbly intrigued by this noodles material but somehow I find myself rasing an eyebrow to the idea of it being or mimicking this indigenous look...
I like the idea that it terminates in a skylight - a closer look at the drawing however shows that the members of the trellis jut out beyond the "noodle panels" with the polycarb underneath as opposed to being on top of the member... ganun ba talaga yun? it looks kinda weird. Di pa puwede glass instead of polycarb? The polycarb accumulates dirt kasi dba... the skylight tip when lit at night would look fabulous though!
This is EASILY WAY WAY BETTER than that.... that.... thing that you guys posted before... if you painted that thing's roof green, it would look really good with a machine gun and rocket launcher mounted on it... they should put it in a military base though....haha!
the 'plastic noodles' roofing is called 'dura-thatch'. we don't have much info about it because there are no brochures available (patent pending), we were only presented with a sample. i forgot the name of the plastic but it does not burn very easily - might be ABS or polypropylene.
thatched roofs are not allowed in most parts of the city so this can be a good alternative material if you prefer the thatched roof look. i think there are no local distributors, so the material is a bit expensive.
Here's my comments on K.B.'s design, it has a good clean form to it. It obviously does not share a lot in common with existing structures within the campus with regards to form, color scheme or choice of materials but I think it is one of those things that one would intuitively gravitate towards.
This is because the shape and form is very universal.
The use of the trees as a point of reference for the scale and form of the structures is good because it gives a sense that the structure "belongs" with the trees. So at pedestrian level, I don't think that a lot of us can argue that it doesn't belong on the site on a visual level.
Using the height of the trees as a reference for the height of the structure I think is faulty though. This makes the scale of the structure suspect with regards to wanting to complement the oblation on the other side of the main axis. It does not visually "frame" the oblation in any way because the main library is in the way. It's triangular shape also leads one to focus upwards.... to where? Is this a subtle reference to a higher power? Why?
I guess the question would be: how does having a monumental structure opposite the Oblation help define the axis? I just can't help but think of the axis as this see-saw with the man-sized Oblation on one end and this giant on the other.
I think the scale of the structure should be reworked.
One other thing I noticed is that the structure's picture doesn't have any integrated seating. That doesn't make it a true grandstand then. Is that intentional? Was the intention to make it a stage/waiting shed/grandstand? It's only a grandstand when it has seats then and it would be mostly a stage/waiting shed.
Technically a grandstand may or may not have fixed seats for the spectators. And if we take into account the available area, it is too small to have integrated seating. I prefer it open & flexible like it was before.
The form is indeed very different when compared to the old buildings around the Oval. But, if we temporarily set aside the strict UP guidelines, I think the present location of the grandstand is a great place to try & break away from the older designs for the following reasons:
1. a different design would not clash with the others, but rather becomes the visual center of the 3 dominant buildings around the sunken garden (the twins Educ & Law, & the Main lib). This is possible because of the wide open space in between them. It would not be as successful if the buildings were too close together and with different massing.
2. when viewed from the Main lib side, the closest bldgs behind (Econ, BA, Vinzons) are almost hidden by the trees so again there is no visual conflict. This is also true when the viewer is standing on the road between the grandstand and BA. Those trees are great screens!
3. the new and monumental structure is not entirely out of place as it is clustered along with the ‘new’ bldgs behind
4. when you’re studying inside the Main lib, it’s nice to look out and see an interesting structure that gives variety to the repetitive design. Although at direct center, the grandstand is just a one-point perspective of a large letter ‘A’ – as in Ateneo? Then it tells you that Ateneo is not too far away.
btw, how high is the Carillon? This rule I think should govern because the bell tower has greater historical significance compared to the grandstand.
As for the design,
1. the 3 A-frames on the skylight were meant to be on the outside to emphasize the apex especially in the daylight. If they were inside you wouldn’t see them at certain angles due to the glare or reflections. And they look much better on the outside. And yes, glass might work better instead of polycarbonate.
2. actually, the structure’s elements are intended for both close & distant viewing. The massive roof is best seen from a distance, while the repeating prongs are structurally intriguing at close range.
3. the grandstand only defines the termination of the axis and is not intended to frame the Oblation, the Admin bldg already serves that purpose, and even if we remove the Main lib they’re just too far apart.
4. the definition of the axis is achieved here not by visual mass/weight alone but also by significance and prominence. The axis starts from the university avenue, past the triangular sheds (uy! Parang may kahawig ang mga triangular sheds na to ah…), thru the Oblation/Admin, the Lagoon, Main lib, sunken garden, and finally ends with this imposing structure. The Oblation defines one end by its significance, the grandstand on the other end by its prominence...asymmetrical balance. If we take the axis as a see-saw between the statue and the structure, we would still achieve balance because the fulcrum, which I assign here as the Main lib since it’s the only structure in between, is nearer to the larger object. “Give me a fulcrum and I will lift the world.” - Archimedes
now, if this was a thesis defense, a good answer would be one of the following:
1. the triangular sheds are really the start of the axis. Their form is mirrored on the other end by the triangular grandstand, which I then purposely “removed” the top so they become two slanting elements like the sheds; or
2. the Oblation is the Omega and this A-structure is the Alpha. The start is the end, and the end is the start…there is no spoon!
You’re absolutely correct; a grandstand does not have to have seating if we are to be technical about it. It is basically an area for spectators.
When I asked about integrated seating for a grandstand, it was more from the point of view of design sense and not technicality.
I know that most of us would agree that people would rather be able to sit down than stand for the duration of an event. That is why grandstands without conventional seats (chairs, benches, etc.) are usually tiered instead (at least the good ones in my opinion are).
With that in mind, are you providing storage for seats for example? Are you respecting sight lines for seats? Are people expected to bring their own seats? You don’t really care if the structure has seating or not?
I was looking more for answers along that line. Integrating seating into your design does not mean literally having fixed seating of course it just means you have to think about it at least but hey, it’s your design, if you say it’s because technically you shouldn’t have to think about seating for a grandstand and you are focused more on its flexibility, so be it. I respect that.
I don’t think it’s a good design for something that’s supposed to be a grandstand though. Just like I don’t think the old grandstand (the one that was replaced) was a good design too as it could be better.
I like your idea about how your design can be the visual focus of the major buildings in the periphery. I.M. Pei did the same thing with his glass pyramids at the Louvre.
However, what made Pei successful was that he made the pyramids there as unobtrusive as he could in terms of scale and choice of materials.
Yours is the opposite.
I was hoping you’d be more open to the idea of reworking the scale of your structure at least but you defend it to be as it is so I guess it stays as it is.
I like the form, I love the choice of materials, I think the relationship with Abueva’s sheds is weak, I don’t like it not having seating integral to the design and I definitely don’t like its scale in relation to other structures within the oval.
For me, your structure is a great idea which can be made even better with a few tweaks. I’m sorry that you don’t see those tweaks as necessary. I’m disappointed but I’ll live. =P
I haven’t really said that tweaks are unnecessary. As designers, I think you’ll agree with me that we defend our designs first, and then consider the recommendations of others afterwards. For example, I did consider that glass might be better than polycarb for the skylight. And I did consider reworking the scale or height, that’s why I inquired on the height of the Carillon since I also agree that no other structure should be higher than the Carillon.
My choice not to provide seats or even tiers was not actually based on the technical definition of a grandstand, but on practicality and observation. My dorm in UP was very near the grandstand so I’m familiar with the area and the events being held there. The old grandstand has split levels, but its open planning allowed students and children to use it for dance rehearsals, games, etc. and for the UP fair & concerts it is used as a stage. If we consider the small area allotted for the grandstand, providing fixed seats and additional tiers would greatly limit the activities being held there as the open/flat area would be reduced considerably.
Also, if we consider the finish floor level of the old grandstand with respect to the existing street level and the sunken level of the field below we would have 2 extreme scenarios if we provided tiered seats:
1. We retain the existing floor level of the grandstand. Result: the additional tiers & seats behind would rise above the street level and block the view. Except if we just provide about 2 tiered seating, which would be impractical, not only for the limited seating capacity but because proper sight lines would be useless with several rows of single level seats in front of the tiers.
2. We lower the floor level of the grandstand to retain the unobstructed view from the street towards the field. Result: we have multi-tiered seating with proper sightlines, but then the stage area would be very low that during concerts people at the back would not see what’s happening on the stage. Additional costs for wide screen projectors, and an unimpressive view of the audience from the performers’ side.
I see 3 solutions that lead to new problems:
1. We wait for the sunken garden to sink some more. It’s cheap but it would take a looooong time.
2. We excavate the area fronting the grandstand and design it to slope outwards like an amphitheater. Excellent viewing for everyone during concerts, but goodbye to Latagaw cup. And it would be very expensive too.
3. We increase the height of the grandstand floor (about 5 meters) and use slender columns so we have an unobstructed view from the street. Additional cost for hoisting machines to carry stage props above, additional floor area taken by the stairs, no more senior citizens as guests above, …and during the battle of the bands, one or more drunken performer would be killed or injured while attempting to jump from the stage towards the mass of hysterical fans below.
If we listed down all the events that are allowed to be held in the sunken garden, very few require seats to be placed inside the grandstand. Chairs are either provided by the event organizers, or borrowed from nearby colleges. It would be impractical again to provide storage for seats (mono-bloc chairs most of the time) because you would be taking up precious space to store items that are rarely used here, and UP would have to hire a guard to secure the area most of the time.
The old grandstand could be better (that’s why it’s being re-designed), but it did satisfy most of the needs of the users before. When it did not, they just put up a larger stage on the opposite end behind the Main lib.
I do care if a structure requires seats or not, I just don’t see it being needed on this one. I agree that we’d rather sit down during an event, but we usually do that under the trees around the sunken garden, sometimes with umbrellas if needed. The grandstand in UP’s case is unique because it is very rarely an area for spectators. It is a stage for performers most of the time, and just an ordinary waiting shed during hot or rainy days.
By the way, although I like some of his works including this one, I beg to disagree on the “success” of I.M. Pei with the Louvre pyramids with regards to being “unobtrusive”. He did try to make it transparent and the intent was good but only in the presentation drawings. I have yet to see a panoramic picture of the old Louvre appearing clear & complete behind the very visible steel lattice supporting the glass panels. But, I think he was successful in integrating the new with the old.
Actually my roof is better, hehe, you can see right thru it from the 2 open sides.
Recap.
I had initially said this in my first comment:
“One other thing I noticed is that the structure's picture doesn't have any integrated seating. That doesn't make it a true grandstand then. Is that intentional? Was the intention to make it a stage/waiting shed/grandstand? It's only a grandstand when it has seats then and it would be mostly a stage/waiting shed.”
And now KB said this:
“I do care if a structure requires seats or not, I just don’t see it being needed on this one. I agree that we’d rather sit down during an event, but we usually do that under the trees around the sunken garden, sometimes with umbrellas if needed. The grandstand in UP’s case is unique because it is very rarely an area for spectators. It is a stage for performers most of the time, and just an ordinary waiting shed during hot or rainy days.
I guess we can officially lay the issue about seating to rest as I think we had just come full circle about it. I can sleep now. =)
KB is right; I agree that designers do tend to defend their work first before considering other people’s recommendations. It’s our baby, it’s our right.
On that line, I wonder what the designer of the new grandstand would think if he (if “he” is a guy) would ever see his work posted here with our unflattering comments. It would even be more interesting to know what he thinks about us thinking that we can do better. I hope he doesn’t read Arkiboks =P
KB, your roof is better than I.M. Pei’s? His pyramid’s trusses are more obtrusive than your a-frame and thatching? Wala akong masabi... I salute you! hehehe
The tweaks I was talking about that you don’t seem to find necessary had more to do with you hopefully not making the structure as prominent as you have it. You seem to feel strongly about the structure having to be prominent so I just called it a draw. Obviously I wasn’t so clear in communicating that. My fault. Of course I never meant that you think improvements are not necessary.
I guess I’m just a purist in the regard that I think that the focus of the Sunken Garden should be the Sunken Garden and not the grandstand.
I just want a grandstand and not something that grandstands.
If “he” does get a chance to read all our bad reviews, i think it would be better (and fair to “him”) if he sees what we have to offer as alternative designs. Huwag na kayo mahiya… rough sketches, simple elevations, sketchup drawings, etc (even those drawings you sometimes do on your hands when you’re too lazy to get a piece of paper, peel off the skin or just scan it and send it here!). as ben t. said previously, let’s put our money where our mouth is.
We all have different approaches to design. If we think that a structure would be a welcome addition to the site, by all means let’s design it to stand out. If we feel that the site is good enough as it is, then design a structure that either blends with it or totally disappears. The bottomline is that we should draw & show what we think is better. Don’t leave your design ideas to rot in your brain, medical studies show that unexpressed ideas can lead to malnutrition & impotence, heheh.
Designs are never perfect. And ben tumbling will always see something to criticize on whatever design we post here, hahah, peace!!! But seriously, we should appreciate all the comments, especially the unflattering ones. Praise will sometimes leave you feeling too good about yourself that you just continue with the same approach always. Criticism, on the other hand, lets you see what needs to be improved and might even lead you to a much better solution.
KB's right again! Submit all your design ideas about the grandstand if you have any or care to give one.
I promise to be nice. If I'm not, I have a secret that you can use against me: takot ako sa girlfriend ko. =)
I’m not joking, I’m from ateneo, bwahahaha!
You’re right about the scale/proportion derived from (and dependent on) the roof angle. If the design is re-worked to become lower than the carillon, it would have to be by “scaling down” the whole structure.
Also, the more I look at it, the more I think that the original concrete shell might be better…brutalist approach.
U-design???…. ikaw na lang gumawa, heheh. Parang malaking gutter yun. I have another design, much lower than this one, but I’ll wait for the others to submit.
Post a Comment
<< Home