A Sketchy Grandstand Proposition
It's personally amusing what you can do with a pen and some markers while eating lunch.
For one, you can finally think of that alternative grandstand scheme you've promised to post since about two weeks ago but never came to doing and finally do it.
Here goes:
I imagine the grandstand to be something that is functional and would add to the value of the Sunken Garden. With that I imagine a sculpture which can act as a roof and blend in with the green as some of Abueva's sculpture do in the campus. I imagine it to be metal (to be lightweight for construction) and be finished with an aged matte stone look (to look stable and seem like it has been there forever).
I do not intend to make a monument so I want it to be low key. That is why I went with a flat horizontal roof. I don't want it too low key though that it just disappears completely and people wouldn't want to use it then.
That is why I also wanted to give it the sense of having a potential to be something more. That is how I got the idea of slightly folding the roof in the middle to make it look like it could fly if it wanted to. The hole I punched in one of the "wings" was to lessen the overall mass of the structure and to give it some character.
An ultra-distorted form study sketch.
The structural supports are organic in form again as an attempt to blend with the organic nature of the Sunken Garden. The inspiration for them is imagining two people holding up the roof on their backs ala-Atlas. I toyed with the idea of making the supports actual statues of two men but went ahead and abstracted them into two amorphous "X" figures to stay with the organic theme and partly because having two men hold up a giant wing looks "gay" =P.
My study of how it looks from the front. Ready to fly!
I imagine steps in front of the structure leading down onto the lower part of the Sunken Garden that can double as seats. These steps are basically just imbedded strips of concrete on the ground so that contouring the slope for them need not be drastic. Also, as strips, they have the ability to sink with the Sunken Garden.
The roofed portion of the structure in between the supports will have a gradually sloping floor with rows of seats. I imagine the seats to maybe be aluminum row seating. I don’t show the seats on the drawings here though in deference to the clarity of communicating the form of the structure.
What I designed is basically a straight up grandstand. I don’t believe in making it a stage as I personally believe that a stage is better situated at the back of the Main Library (designing this stage could be another design exercise). It can still be used as a waiting area of course.
I imagine flowerbeds flanking the structure on both sides to give the site color and to emphasize that the Sunken Garden is of course a "garden". I also thought it would be cool if you can see changes around the structure as the plants go through their cycles.
My study of the grandstand on site.
The hole in the "wing" inspired me to maybe have a tree through it. I thought it would be great if the structure made people think things like "how did they build the structure around the tree?".
Instead of a tree, flagpoles or a tall sculpture can also be put where the hole is at. The flagpoles would be functional and can give added character to the structure as flags or banners hang from them. The sculpture would again just be a cool thing as it would sort of give the sense that it is a sculpture within a sculpture. The sculptures can be changed from time to time too.
The possibilites are of course endless.
posted by ben tumbling @ 11:15 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
In answer to a phone in question:
No disrespect to the new U.P. grandstand designer, this is just more or less a sketching exercise. A "brain fart" if you will.
The sketch I did of the grandstand is as more of a structure that would just be an element in a broader plan for the Sunken Garden.
I am hoping for an overall plan for the Sunken Garden bounded by the Law, Educ, Vinzons and Main Library buildings much like the overall plan my group (in college) did before for the one bounded by the Main Library, Engineering, and A.S. buildings and a road.
The overall plan is basically concerning the "revitalization" of the Sunken Garden. This revitalization is more of my major concern rather than just the grandstand.
In my mind, the grandstand or any other element in that plan can be designed by other more talented designers like K.B. or Design Phenomena (the group that designed the Beta Sigma Tambayan.... which I'm part of.... Jepoy! hehehe), or anyone else.
This is just my suggestion of how it can be in relation to my vision of an overall plan.
It could easily be associated with a bird with its wings spread but if it is, it's not the Ateneo eagle, it's probably the one from our U.P. logo.
My girlfriend thinks it looks like a butterfly from a certain angle.
my first impression: the roof looks like a boomerang, baka bawal sa feng-shui, heheh.
i like the sculptural form of the supports, but the roof looks very much like the wings of a plane that i can't seem to connect the two elements - sleek roof on organic supports. still, the choice of material and finish might help merge the two elements together. or the roof can be made wider or "rougher/jagged', less streamlined look.
just a thought...isabel granada can pose right below this sculpture/structure and you wouldnt know its in UP, hahah, joke lang!
nice way to approach it in a sculptural manner, but i'd like it about 1.5x bigger in scale. that way the roof would have wider coverage, more seats can be shaded, and you can punch a larger hole on the wing (where you can then put a larger tree/sculpture, a small one might look insignificant under those large acacia trees).
i think it would do well even without the flowerbeds. or maybe scattered boulders would help strengthen the organic character, plus they can be additional seating areas.
last na comment, bumabawi lang ako, heheh. for practicality and to add more possibilities, i still think this area is best for the stage. you have natural shade, it's near the road, it's already elevated, and you'd have the sculpture as your backdrop. a temporary stage behind the main lib would be costly in the long run, while a fixed one would alter the scale of the lib.
It does look like a boomerang at a certain angle. I don't know about its Feng Shui implications but if there was it might not be so bad seeing as how a boomerang is Australian in origin and Feng Shui is Chinese in origin. Just to be sure I'll ask some monks at the temple we go to =)
The wings might definitely be too sleek in form in relation to the supports. I was hoping that their having the same finish and same organic curves will visually tie them together. If the wings are too "perfect" they would definitely look too contrived to be organic. It is this desire for an organic form which is the reason why I rounded the ends of the wings inadvertantly giving them that "boomerang" look.
The finish for the roof and supports are already the same so that's moot. Making the finish of the roof different from the supports might actually be better as it would provide an element of contrast. Good suggestion KB.
To do this, I imagine making grooves on the roof that are parallel to the long side. This might provide the "roughness" that will highlight this contrast.
About the structure not looking like it's in U.P., you're not the first person to say that.
An alumnus told me that it was very universal in form and very timeless. It would look good anywhere at anytime and that is why she likes it.
Another alumnus told me that it was such a typical U.P. structure. It looked like an abstracted Oblation with arms outstretched. One even said that I just copied Abueva's sculptures and joined them together. I think "Abueva's waiting sheds na pinagdikit sa pwet" was the phrase. (Abueva's waiting sheds joined at the butt!) ;P
So in general I'm getting mixed reactions about the structure having (or not having) a distinct "U.P. look" and I'm not certain if either or is a positive or a negative but I'm sure having Isabel Granada pose under it is a possible positive.
Admittedly, I don't have the expertise as to what makes a structure more "U.P.-like". Maybe a designer that is more adept in U.P. structures can give some suggestions on this.
K.B., definitely, it can be a little bigger. More seats would be welcome and a bigger hole for more possibilities might be good.
You're right about the flowerbeds. They can be cut back and other elements like scattered boulders would be nice.
My idea was to make them pocket gardens. It would be even better to make them pocket parks!
Imagine the spaces under the "wings" to have organic park benches, colorful flowers, some other sculptures, a fountain, etc. instead of just plain flowerbeds. That would be so nice!
I still maintain that a dedicated stage at the back of the library is still more natural for what the site dictates.
You mentioned natural shade, adjancency to a road, natural stage elevation and dealing with the scale of the library as points for having a stage. All are definitely good points.
The back of the library also has natural shade with trees and even the library itself.
Having access to a road would be good for a stage in terms of logistics. Being near a road is not necessarily good for a stage in terms of security and acoustics so again the back of the library is ideal since you have access to two roads on each side of the Sunken Garden for logistics and the stage would still be far enough away to deal with security and acoustics.
The elevation of the stage is a relative subject and easily dealt with by designing a stage with a workable elevation regardless of location.
As to a stage having to blend visually and to relative scale with the back of the Main Library, it would be a challenge but it is certainly not impossible. All we need is a little talent and a lot of imagination.
Of course I am not totally adverse to the idea of having the grandstand as a temporary stage should the need arise or should a definite design program call for it wherein my preference for the location of a stage would not matter.
In fact, if we would keep the front seats under the roof up to a certain point as to create a stage in front of the seats, that would serve the purpose for a temporary performance venue. This would not be unlike the big landings on the Engineering & A.S. front staircases.
It is definitely doable.
Someone questioned me about this statement I made previously:
"I still maintain that a dedicated stage at the back of the library is still more natural for what the site dictates."
To clarify, it is actually the general lower part of the Sunken Garden which I consider as the natural location for performances instead of its high parts. And to be specific, I had identified the relative center of the back of the library as a space for a stage.
My assumption of the naturalness of this (Sunken Garden's high part for spectators and Sunken Garden's low part for performers) is based on the overall form of the Sunken Garden.
The Sunken Garden is basically a gently sloping area surrounded by abrupt slopes which makes it a natural amphitheater.
of course you have to consider the overall size of the sunken garden. it does have sloping sides like a natural amphitheater, but the central flat area is very wide (wide enough to accommodate a soccer game), that people seated on the sloping perimeter would be too far away from a performance area located behind the main lib or even on the center of the field.
to appreciate the performance, you need to move the people closer to it, but then you won't achieve the proper sight lines since you'd all be on a flat field. that is when you need to provide the elevated platform.
Looks like I was unclear about my explanations about the amphitheater effect in relation to the grandstand.
As according to what an amphitheater or arean is, the big space in the middle is indeed the area for performances and the grandstand is mainly for viewing this area.
One of the most well-known examples of an amphitheater? The Roman Coliseum.
Seats can definitely be strewn around the perimeter of the Sunken Garden to create this amphitheater effect.
This would be perfect for parades and other large spectacles best viewed at a distance.... like a soccer game.
If a soccer game or other performances are too far for viewers then maybe they can move closer to the viewers.
A stage behind the Main Library is definitely not meant to be viewed by people from the grandstand without telescopic vision. The grandstand is definitely not for viewing this stage.
That is whay people who want to watch performances from the stage will definitely be closer to it. Seating for this stage is an entirely different matter altogether dependent on the stage's design.
Anyway, if a stage is found to be unecessary, then we can do away with the stage altogether.
I just noticed this one: when I wrote "arean" on the entry before this, I meant "arena".
oops, i was also unclear about the performances i was referring to. soccer games & cmt parades (meron pa ba nito??) can be viewed perfectly from the perimeter. i was thinking of the concerts that are usually held there.
Let's try to get this straight.
You are concerned about concerts and how to provide these concerts with a permanent stage.
You say that having a stage at the location where the grandstand is right now is good because it is in already at an elevated height.
You say that the seating for this will be temporary and placed on the lower part of the Sunken Garden.
I say that the stage can be placed somewhere else and the stage can still be elevated by design.
You somehow find this faulty because the seating (however way it would be designed) would probably be on the lower part of the Sunken Garden and the sight lines won't be optimal.
Frankly, I'm confused. The seating for both schemes would be on the lower part of the Sunken Garden.
What's your point?
After thinking about it for a while, I don't think that a permanent full blown stage is really necessary for the Sunken Garden.
My recommendation for such a structure to be situated behind the Main Library is purely based on site dynamics if a time dictates a need for or an opportunity provides for one.
I think that a temporary full blown stage would be more appropriate.
The argument that having a temporary stage there would be costly is absolutely vague.
It would be costly to whom?
Surely not to U.P. because the cost for setting up a temporary stage would be shouldered by the event organizers.
This is basically the same logic someone would use behind the economics of designing a grandstand without seats. One would say that providing chairs for it is on the event organizer's hands.
Another argument for just having a temporary stage at the Sunken Garden is to create an incentive to use U.P.'s already existing performance venues.
U.P. already has a variety of performance venues with permanent stages both indoor and outdoors. What's the economic sense of building another one?
Having a permanent stage at the Sunken Garden is really more of a luxury than a necessity when we really think about it.
About the economic sense of providing another one. First, we are not providing another one, we are developing the only one. UP has a variety of performance venues, I agree but only for the indoor activities. We have an amphitheater behind the Admin, but the area is not very flexible due to its size & location. We have open areas along the Univ. Avenue but these are not secure and developed. We have open parking areas and lawns but these are just pocket spaces. No other area in UP is as secure, highly accessible, and large enough to accommodate so many people in one place as the Sunken Garden.
Sure, the logic between the seats and temporary stage would be the same, but certainly not the logistics. If I were given a choice between bringing 2 dozens of chairs versus bringing a whole stage, I’d go for my mono-blocs anytime.
Not only that, you should see the damage and inconvenience brought by setting up & dismantling the temporary stages in the middle of the Garden. A good portion becomes unusable for a period of time because they have to secure all the equipment, add to this the considerable land damage caused by large trucks going inside to dump their cargo. Instead of disturbing the land only once with a full-blown permanent stage, you’d be disturbing it and the users with several full-blown temporary constructions the whole year round.
And yes, UP would not be paying for the cost of the temporary stage, certainly the event organizers wouldn’t want to pay for it too. They will either look for some other place outside UP that already has a stage, or they will pass the cost to the paying public, mostly students. Either way UP or a part of it loses in the end.
Although I had to use concerts as a previous example (which by the way is one of the most regular activities I have observed in the area in my several years of living inside UP and near the Garden), we have to understand that not all events in the Garden have big-time sponsors who can provide the money to set up a temporary stage. If we do then we would be discriminating against the general UP community (students& residents), majority of which cannot afford the cost of a temporary stage. The grandstand/stage/waiting shed, as I see it, is a necessity. It is a necessary infrastructure for the Sunken Garden that UP has to provide to its community. Any profit that UP gets from those who rent it is a “bonus” that would understandably go into its maintenance and further development.
Actually, when I think about it, the luxury I see here is not the development of the performance area but rather the idea of revitalizing the Sunken Garden. The Garden is already a highly dynamic area in its present state, you should pass by it everyday to see that it doesn’t need further revitalizing. The only place with more activity at any one time is the Lagoon (and this one time is mostly at night, heheh, but this is not totally true, haha!).
The more appropriate question then should be: what’s the social & economic sense of removing the “existing” one or even reducing some of its established functions?
Ultimately the bottomline is that the University is not in the business of providing entertainment venues. It has them but it is only because those are all incidental to academics.
It is a learning institution first and foremost.
If people decide not to have their event at the Sunken Garden so be it.
You talk about the damage a stage will do to the turf of the Sunken Garden, well, chairs and people cause damage to it too. That is exactly why I we should re-think about zoning useage within the University.
Maybe an event like a soccer match is best played at an established soccer field and not the Sunken Garden.
Maybe the U.P. fair needs to be set up at another part of U.P. which is unused and away from people having their classes.
Sure it's very convenient to have everything right where we are always accustomed to having them but maybe it is time for a change.
All the arguments for having a permanent stage for events at the Sunken Garden can all basically be boiled down to the reasoning that "because events are held there frequently".
That really doesn't make much sense to me.
That's like the MMDA just putting up urinals at areas where people usually pee because people pee there most of the time instead of making people pee at the appropriate places. If you can't hold it, go in a Jollibee or something, they're all over the place.
And really, why the argument against the economics of removing something.... that isn't there yet?
At this very moment, at this very time, there is no permanent full blown stage at the Sunken Garden.
That is why the proper question really is about the economics of putting something there or not.
You’re focusing too much on the commercial aspect of entertainment. As you say, these are all incidental to academics, but then UP is not a monastery where all you do is pray most of the time. UP is more than that, it is a community in itself. It tries to provide not just for a student’s academic development but also for the social, religious, physical needs.
You’re idea about how events are set-up in the Garden are in total conflict with how I have observed them being done. Hundreds of chairs are not put up in the field, that has never happened, there are no reports with the UPD police about damage done by chairs. People either sit themselves on the sloping perimeter, or they converge around the performance area just standing up, that’s the essence of an open-air event. That’s why I kept on insisting for an elevated stage in case you want one to be set-up in the middle of the field, people watching at the back just won’t be able to see the performance if they (the performers) are also on the same level area.
I don’t think classes are ever disturbed by events in the Sunken Garden. I had experienced a few disruptions but these were never caused by Garden events. First of all, not all buildings are near the Garden. Second, the Admin (or whoever handles the schedule of events) make sure that activities are allotted the proper time. Fairs and concerts have never been held in the morning or early afternoon. Even the soccer games are done mostly on Wednesdays when classes are very few. And if disturbance is a primary concern, then we would have to ban the student rallies, the street events, the Oblation run, and all other daytime events that orgs, frats & sororities hold almost every other week. That way you create a new activity flow for the students: enter UP, study, pack up & go home.
The Sunken Garden is almost like the heart of UP. Not a day passes without any activity happening there, they even made the area vehicle-free on weekends to allow people to walk freely even on the roads. You just don’t go on changing something just for the sake of change, you have to justify it to your users. People have gravitated naturally to the Garden because of the reasons I have stated previously. Now you’re saying that you want all this to be relocated to some other place, it doesn’t make sense at all. You’d be “killing” the sense & character of the place… of course then you’d have the perfect reason to revitalize it.
The urinal analogy doesn’t make sense either. The MMDAs urinal "solution" was done to stop the socially unacceptable practice of peeing in public view. Are you in fact saying that the social gatherings in the Garden also need to be controlled? and this can be done by removing the stage & just providing it temporarily when needed and when the people who want to use it have enough funding to put one up?
The development of a place because people tend to gather in it due to their common experiences in that place is the reason why civilizations have developed. People have gathered near rivers & hunting grounds because their food gathering events are held there frequently. So it made sense that they will set-up houses, roads, and other structures that will further enhance the place or address their old & new needs. It's the same situation in the Sunken Garden.
And though it might not be your idea of a full blown one, but at this very moment & time the stage is there, or what is left of it depending on the progress of the new construction. It might be called a grandstand right now, but people who have seen & used it knows it is a stage. And that is exactly my argument: why remove something that people already use? And by use I don’t mean the kind associated with peeing in public.
The community won’t need a full blown stage there. The least they will need is something that serves almost the same function as the existing one.
So, my question remains.
Bakit kaya walang ibang nagtatanong? we're same ones arguing with each other. where are the other "boks"???
You keep bringing up the faults of not elevating the stage. We're basically running around in circles on that one.
I never said remove the grandstand and I never said remove its function as a stage.
Remember, from the very first answer to your first comment talking about my design that the grandstand can accomodate certain events by having the front portion of the grandstand as a small stage. The portion before the stair starts to go down. That's how it is like the staircase in front of Engineering and A.S.
The seats in the grandstand act like the upper stair.
The stage is the landing.
The stairs leading towards the lower part of the Sunken Garden is the lower part of the stairs.
So..... the stage is elevated.
My proposition of a stage behind the library is for a full blown stage. That is where I feel a full blown stage should be if there would be a need for one since my concept of the stage area at the grandstand is that it is only an auxiliary stage. And, again, depending on the design, people can stand or sit around it and it will be elevated to the proper height.
Again you question this citing the elevation of the stage and proximity of seating. Didn't I just address those? Why does the question of the stage not being elevated coming back? Why would someone even put up a stage in the middle of the Sunken Garden that would just be on ground level?
I never said ban events at the Sunken Garden or U.P. in general. I just said that we should look at zoning activities and that having a temporary stage when a full blown stage is needed at the Sunken Garden would probably suffice.
Still you argue against the full blown stage being temporary when I already said that a smaller stage is available at the grandstand.
I am opening up the possibility for other venues to be used when a full blown stage is necessary. You still argue against this.
So you see, we actually both agree that a full blown stage is not necessary. So why the argument?
The zoning of activities is really a response from you about the destructiveness of some events to the Sunken Garden. That is why I offered that if that was the case then maybe some of the more destructive activities like the U.P. fair can be held somewhere else and it won't be bad considering all the noise it creates and the damage it does to the Sunken Garden.
I also think that the Sunken Garden is the heart of the campus. We both agree on that. That is why my bottomline is to keep this heart healthy and maybe zoning of activities will do that.
However, the soul of the campus is still academics. It is the soul that animates the body. That is why academics should always be the measure of how we use the body. That is my point.
Now if you interpret the campus being academic centered as being monastic, that is your interpretation and I think that is a faulty interpretation.
The social and spiritual aspects of academic life are not "either or" propositions. They are as I said incidental to academics. That is why centering on academics does not automatically preclude them.
An academic life can be a full life definitely but we should also keep in mind that everything has its place and time.
I have nothing more to say. I'm satisfied at this point. You know, I think there should be a moderator for all discussions we have here. What do you think?
A moderator would be good for a formal discussion. The thing is, the "comments" section here is very informal.
Maybe we can set up a discussion board that would be linked to "Arkiboks". That way, people can open up subjects for discussion and it will be more organized.
I'm not sure that is a very good assumption of what nature is capable of doing. You have to take into consideration its rate of recovery versus the rate of destruction done to it.
If the rate of destruction exceeds the rate of recovery then the damage done becomes more pronounced to the point of being permanent. Recovery can only truly happen when it is the other way around. That is why it is prudent if we gravitate towards a more concerned state of mind with regard to what we do to our environment.
That being said I do believe that we do have to worry about these things because ultimately it is we who shall either benefit or suffer from our treatment of our environment.
Post a Comment
<< Home