Woodman Field House Sparks Design Debate

You have got to be kidding me. "taking architectural exception" because the place isn't balanced with 4 gables? Too late now isn't it? The plans were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard."

I heard that there is going to be a neon sign where the 4th gable should be.

I take exception to the use of false gables in all their uses.

I'm just happy that the architect had the good sense to stop at three.

Now if only he hadn't lost his eraser and could have removed the other three.

They should leave it that color. They can call it, "Little Xanadu".

The best way to solve this would be to put the neighbors directly in charge of the contractors, so they could have the perfect building built just for their eyes.

Is this not just a glorified locker room? WTF?

It's lookin' so much better than the last one. I love the crooked roof.

From Wikipedea:
"MHS is currently expanding upon, and refurnishing their "field house" which is located at Woodman Field. It was used for restrooms, locker rooms and a meeting spot for many of the Montclair sports teams, in particular, football. Planning on being finished for the 2008/2009 school year, the field house will accommodate a new, state-of-the-art weight lifting gym with glass walls looking over Woodman Field, a screening room for the Montclair Mounties football team, observation rooms also looking over Woodman Field, and much more. This is estimated to cost about $5 million."

man, if this doesn't keep the good jocks from the preps, nothing will.

There is this:
Furlong Family Donates $3 Million for New Fieldhouse

"This is estimated to cost about $5 million."

In Bloomfield $5 million only repairs cement steps at Foley Field. No state-of-the-art weight lifting gym with glass walls looking over the Field, no screening room, no observation rooms. I can?t imagine why people in Bloomfield are up in arms over the school budget.

Walleroo is onto something. (Or is he/she simply on something?)

I've driven by this site. This new building is hideous and out of scale with other buildings in the neighborhood. That doesn't mean they all have to be designed by a cookie cutter. But this new field house is simply bad design. We can certainly do better. The next mayor and council should establish an architectural review board to make sure public and commercial buildings in Montclair are in keeping with their immediate environment. The Siena is another example of why there needs to be more oversight.

To make sure those who don't click on links understand that this is supposed to be fully funded outside of BOE budgets:
"As planned, the fieldhouse is projected to cost a total of $4.7 million. Montclair residents Josh and Judy Weston, John Whitehead and the late John McMullen have pledged to cover the remainder of the construction cost."
My congratulations to those generous people one and all.

It doesnt cost $5 mil for this. The BOE is already more than $2 mil over budget, as they didnt budget for the soil remediation. They knew that it needed to be done in advance too, they just ignored it. $7 million and counting.
But hey, lets just float a few more bonds...

I am on, onto, into, around and stuck to the side of something or other.

Of course the building is out of scale with others in the neighborhood. For chrissake, it's a field house. The other buildings are single family homes. I suppose to make it "in scale" the architects should have designed a series of 1000-square-foot mini-gyms connected by sidewalks.

Neighbors in this town are never happy with anything built in their neighborhoods, unless it's their own family room/master bedroom/ kitchen addition (preferably paid for in tax abatements).

From the original press release:
http://www.montclair.k12.nj.us/news/releases/050831.cfm

"The facade, to face Essex Avenue, will reflect the original architecture of the Woodman Field House."

(Is the roof on the current field house collapsing?)

"Construction of the new facility is anticipated to be completed in the spring of 2007."

(yup!)

Jerzee:

OK, I'm going to out myself with this comment, but I am an architect, and my blood runs cold whenever I hear someone say, or read the words "architectural review board" and "in keeping with their immediate environment".

It's hard to put all of this in a post, but I'll try to make my case a succinctly as possible.

Architecture is a cultural practice that results in the construction of a building. The building is the result of a complicated process that is a mix of social, political, economic, legal and technological concerns. In short, architecture carries the weight of the culture that makes it.

Notions of architectural "style" only began to evolve during the Renaissance when the cultures of Greece and Rome were rediscovered and human society had developed the financial and technological means to begin to import building models and techniques from other places and times. Consider the Gothic Czthedrals. They weren't bulit in a Gothic "style". That was simply how they built churches in northern France in the 11th and 12 centuries.

It really wasn't until the 18th century that architectural styles became codified and accepted as an approporite way to approach what had usually been legitimate cultural expression.

When I hear someone talking about "compatibility with surroundings", I have to point out that this dictum rips the guts out of architecture. We expect the latest and greatest from all of our gadgets and creations, why is this not the case with our buildings? Why do we feel the need to continue to make bad copies of bad copies of buildings that were first built in other times and places by other cultures? Are we out of ideas?

I am not arguing that this building is attractive. I haven't seen enough of it to say. But there is SO MUCH MORE to architecture than visual mimicry.

There is also an argument to be made for the idea that when a building represents an investment of private capital, it should be able to look like whatever its owners want. There are building codes that protect the public health, welfare and safety. There are zoning ordinances that ensure that the development of aproperty is consistent (in terms of use) with its surroundings and that its bulk characteristics to not infringe on adjacent parcels.

There are some libertarians who argue that even these basic codes and ordinances interfere with a free society. I don't happen to agree with that, but there are reasonable limits to any regulation.

A design review borad the subjectively determines what is and is not visually appropriate, or an ordinance that establishes a narrow range of architectural styles as "acceptable" are indicative of only one thing: a society that is in decline; one that has nothing new to contribute to its development; and one that fears the future.

WOW, guido santa, the residents of GR must be just this side of dust, they won't even let the insignificant houses update or change their look.

Make no mistake, that sarcasm was aimed at the GR hysterical (NOOOOOO, you can't do that) members and ordinances. There is no way 95% of this town can't arrive into THIS century. Get over it.

ideas: get that Giants receiver, the one from Montclair, to pay for most of it. Then name a wing after him. Wait until this project gets downsized in favor of replacing items in the school budget (belatedly) being cut. Let residents use the facilities, for a nominal fee. That way we can all benefit from the "state of the art" facilities.

Thank you, guido santa.

Guido Santa...thank you for a reasoned and thoughtful explanation.

I, too, appreciate Guido Santa's post. But I would urge anyone to drive by the site and have a look. Perhaps the BOE would have done better to hire Guido Santa instead of the outfit responsible for the unfortunate edifice that now looms over Essex Avenue.

"... in keeping with their immediate environment" is more of a size and proportion argument rather than an aesthetic one.

But still, I don't think a comparison of "gadgets and creations" to homes is a good one. My iphone is not built to last for more than 4 years. (Anyone have one of those slick, "small" 1st gen ipods?)

So while I appreciate your thesis Guido, I don't think it is out of bounds for a community to have say over the "style" of buildings it wants.

If you want further evidence, look at the MSU campus. The first buildings had a wonderful Spanish mission style architecture, but then the 70's hit and new buildings went up that did not keep "with their immediate environment".

And it showed-- (Blanton and Bohn Hall??? Ugh!!!)

Fortunately now, the new buildings have moved back to the Spanish mission style. And the campus has a wonderful cohesion to it.

Furthermore, I should not be surprised that an architect has such fear of a design review board "(a society that is in decline; one that has nothing new to contribute.")

Most folks do not want oversight into what they produce.

However, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as it relates a community, it's the community's eye that must be pleased.

I'm going to out myself here, but I can't resist. I AM THE ARCHTECT WHO DESIGNED THE FIELD HOUSE. Not only that, I am secretly building a whorehouse and opium den in the basement. Can't wait for those football games now!

Y.A.:

Yeah, Glen Ridge is pretty much fucked...

Prof,

Beauty is such an enormously subjective term, I think you put yourself on a steep and slippery slope when you say that the "community" can tell a property owner how their home or building should look. But there are "master planned" communities all over the country where property owners agree to be bound by highly restrictive covanents that dictate everythig from house color to landscaping. Places like that trouble me a great deal, which is why I don't live in one of them, but I don't think we should extend that mentality all over.

Example: Belleville used to have an ordinance (I don't know if it is still in effect) that required all commercial development on Washington Ave. to be done in a "Georgian" style. Never mind that this style has about as much to do with Bellevile as Japanese architecture, but OK. The problem with Georgian architecture is that, while not the most ornamental style, it does require a fair amount of detail. Moreover, it comes out of more agrarian environments, not post-indistrial urban ones. No offense to Belleville, but it is not the most high-end locale. So you had property owners being forced to spend money they didn't necessarily have on a "look" they couldn't afford to build. The results were awful. Rather than giving a meaningful identity to a commercial strip, the projects that were completed looked horribly cheap and amatuerish--even by Georgian standards. Now Belleville has an elaborate "compatibility" ordinance, which is fine for them, but what there is to be compatible with doesn't have very much value to begin with.

Ultimately, all of the decisions regarding compatibiliy are subjective and susceptible to political manipulation. We ought to encourge and support responsbile creative thinking that enhances our built environments rather than imposing counter-productive and poorly construed limitations.

Guido Santa, thanks for the enlightening diatribe. You are just about completely correct. But I must take exception to one of your premises: "There are zoning ordinances that ensure that the development of a property is consistent (in terms of use) with its surroundings and that its bulk characteristics to not infringe on adjacent parcels." While what you wrote is ideally correct, in Baristaville, unfortunately, it rarely applies. The Developer Sanity Clause to the Golden Rule, however, does seem to hold: "Him what has the gold, gets the rules bent."

(This isn't a Guido Sanity Claus, however...)

I think we all need to spend less time commenting on bad design, which is very much subjective, and start focusing on creating and enforcing objective zoning regulations to avoid some of the monstrosities that are going up around here. I can see one of them on Broad Street, next to the Brookdale School, out my back window as I type.

Sounds like the Prof. likes those Spanish Colonial parking decks at MSU. What's next, the Spanish Colonial sewer treatment plant?

"Not only that, I am secretly building a whorehouse and opium den in the basement."

What, you are designing a Governor's Mansion? I thought it was a Field House.

Where were the rest of the detractors 2 years ago? Has the design changed significantly since the meeting listed below? (That would make a difference.) There were also a lot of comments from jimmy229oz on the soil be tested in advance who is now saying "The BOE is already more than $2 mil over budget, as they didnt budget for the soil remediation.", what happened there?

What I'm asking is: if these concerns were voiced years ago, and now there are design concerns and a major (2M) expenditure point that seems to have been ignored, where's the failure?

From Baristanet:
There is a meeting of the planning board tonight at 7:30 PM in 205 Claremont, first floor, where representatives of the BOE, and the architects for the project, will be there to present the project and answer questions. I suggest that rather than debate what "may" be the situation, those interested should attend and find out what the factual situation is.

Posted by: carya | Apr 17, 2006 4:29:46 PM

The meeting was, in my opinion, productive and open. The architects who presented the plans were responsive and, quite frankly, I liked the design.
The major issue is the parking situation. Cars park on both sides of Essex, making it virtually impossible to enter Essex from Columbus. Most every public speakier spoke of horror stories. It is a nightmare situation.
The concern is that the circular drive to the field house, for bus and car drop off and pick up, won't help things. Speakers felt that with the illegal parking already occuring, buses will not be able to enter or exit.
But as the architects said, "that primarily is a municipal and police issue."
The other concern was with lighting, and it appears that the only lighting is ground and internal lighting. The architects and board appeared to be very responsive to the concerns, and indicated a willingness to address both parking and lighting concerns.
There may be other valid concerns, such as functionality and, especially, budget. These will need to be addressed, but this wasn't the meeting to do this.

Posted by: carya | Apr 19, 2006 8:30:15 AM

If you're truly the architect, walleroo (or did you mean the "Great Architect" a la Freemasonry?), I trust you allowed for some slither space for yourself below the floor of the Field House.

But all this dispute over a mere fieldhouse? At places like Ohio State and Clemson they have fieldhouses which rival St. Peter's Basilica in both size and ornamentation.

Guido's views on architecture were well reasoned and well written. I only wish his extreme left political and economic posts were also.

Perlstein did you design Blanton Hall?

And why the attitude? I guess you like this or
this, rather than a "Spanish Colonial" covered treatment plant....

Oh, wait. Another architect.

Sorry. Let everyone build whatever they like.............

(Sounds silly, huh?)

Architects & big egos seem to be the rule here, good & bad. I'll still stick with the little town time "didn't" forget ( with a Historic Preservation Commission)....PAZ in GR

Huh? It's a field house. On a FIELD.

I can see one of them on Broad Street, next to the Brookdale School, out my back window as I type.

Oh, stop exaggerating Conan! It's not a monstrosity yet. It's still just a big hole in the ground!

Perhaps he's remembering the rendering that we all saw.

There is a house on Lincoln Street just over the border in Montclair. It was built several years ago on what was the side yard to the house next to it. It has a circular driveway in the front with fountain in the inside the circle. The house is stucco and in what I guess is could be called ?neo-Mediterranean? style and is surrounded by a wrought iron fence.

Whether you like the house or not, it really does not agree with the nationhood and is an argument for ?contextual design?.

And a pretty ugly hole at that, Pork, what with all the rats running around it. (In fairness, the developer has contracted for extermination services.) Foundation is in for the most part, cement has been seasoning for the past two weeks, and I suspect the framing will be up in a few more weeks. And, I have copies of the blueprints and rendering so I know exactly what this piece of crap will look like: Bloomfield's only high-rise frikkin' nail salon.

"Neo-Mediterranean" = early chadrool or over-bonused stockbroker who wouldn't know Palladian from Pelle. Bailiff! Whack their pee-pees!

"A doctor is lucky, he can bury his mistakes...an architect can only advise his client to plant vines."
-Frank Lloyd Wright

"A design review borad the subjectively determines what is and is not visually appropriate, or an ordinance that establishes a narrow range of architectural styles as "acceptable" are indicative of only one thing: a society that is in decline; one that has nothing new to contribute to its development; and one that fears the future."

While you ponificate as to the decay of our society, I think its more important to stay focused on less esoteric pursuits. An architectural review board is needed as it raises the lowest common denominator. IE, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if that person is insane. As a town we need to make sure to have a collective vision to a certain extent or we will end up looking like Staten Island. Then we lose whatever charm and identity still remains, along with our property values.

By the way, good luck in waiting for an answer from the BOE.

Jimmy, Well said.

Annette....What happened to the hotlink to the Furlong story?