En Memoriam: Memorial Design in the Age of Terror by Adam Schiffmacher

MEMORIAL DESIGN IN THE AGE OF TERROR

EN MEMORIAM: MEMORIAL DESIGN IN THE AGE OF TERROR By

Adam Charles Schiffmacher st February 1 2016

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture Department of Architecture & Planning

MEMORIAL DESIGN IN THE AGE OF TERROR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my advisors, Hadas Steiner and Sean Burkholder, than you for the encouragement, knowledge, criticism, guidance, and thought you have given me throughout this thesis process. To the faculty of the Architecture & Planning Dept. at the University at Buffalo, which always pushed me to do more.

Additionally, to my friends and family, thank you for your endless support and understanding throughout this pursuit of higher education.

Finally, to Erika Villavicencio, thank you for Everything you have done for me. This degree Would not have been possible without your support.

(iii)

iii

FIGURE 0 The emergence of the U.S. Age of Terror

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

ABSTRACT

THESIS STATEMENT

United States Propaganda and Patriotism

Commemoration in the United States

The Memorial as Instigator

HISTORY OF WAR COMMEMORATION IN THE UNITED STATES The War Memorial

19th Century Memorials: Places of Identity

20th Century Memorials: National Park Service & monument expansion

Death of the Monument

SUPPORTING LITERATURE

CONTEMPORARY COMMEMORATION

Memorial as a rhetorical tool

Scale & Time: landscape as memorial

Trends in abstraction & ambiguity

ARCHITECTURE AND THE MEMORIAL

Memorial design Analysis

Vietnam Veterans Memorial

WWII Valor Memorial

Korean War Memorial

WWI Memorial (DC War Memorial)

September 11th 2001 Memorial

Pentagon Memorial

Flight 93 Memorial

Other memorial examples

SITE ANALYSIS: WASHINGTON D.C.

Washington D.C., memorial capital

Site Selection

Site Analysis: Columbia Island, Washington D.C. / Arlington V.A.

WAR ON TERROR MEMORIAL DESIGN

Design process

The Program

MULTIMEDIA

Site Plan

Site Model

Sectional models

Renderings

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

viii

FIGURE 0 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 FIGURE 13 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15 FIGURE 16 FIGURE 17 FIGURE 18 FIGURE 19 FIGURE 20 FIGURE 21 FIGURE 22 FIGURE 23 FIGURE 24 FIGURE 25 FIGURE 26 FIGURE 27 FIGURE 28 FIGURE 29 FIGURE 30 FIGURE 31 FIGURE 32 FIGURE 33 FIGURE 34 FIGURE 35 FIGURE 36 FIGURE 37 FIGURE 38 FIGURE 39 FIGURE 40 FIGURE 41 FIGURE 42 FIGURE 43 FIGURE 44 FIGURE 45 FIGURE 46 FIGURE 47 FIGURE 48 FIGURE 49 FIGURE 50

The emergence of the Age of Terror, Collage 2016 Temporary Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania Statue of Benjamin Franklin, Static Memorial Online Memorial website page Protest on Washington Monument, march for jobs and freedom, 1963 2010 World Cup celebration in Plaza de Armas, Santiago, Chile Defaced Police memorial Defaced Confederate memorial WWII Violence and destruction WWII Violence and destruction WWII Violence and destruction Children play on FDR memorial in Washington, D.C. People pose for photo opportunity at WWII valor memorial in Washington, D.C. People gathered around a memorial in World Columbian Exposition, 1893 Memorial kiosk in New York State highway rest stop, 2014 Memorial dock at Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri 1904 Memorial at Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri 1904 Memorial entrance at Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri 1904 Doughboy Memorial advertisement, early 1900’s Doughboy Memorial statue Doughboy lamp advertisment, early 1900’s Wright Brothers Memorial landscape with granite obelisk in center; Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, 2014 Wright Brothers Memorial granite obelisk; Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, 2014 Mission 66 styled visitor center, Wright Brothers memorial in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, 2014 Ice skating in reflecting pool outside Lincoln Memorial, early 1900’s Memorials and monument used for advertising, 1940’s Memorials and monument used for advertising, 1940’s Conceptual rendering by firm1week1project detailing World Cup Qatar 2022 memorial Conceptual drawing by firm1week1project detailing World Cup Qatar 2022 memorial Conceptual rendering by firm1week1project detailing World Cup Qatar 2022 memorial Perspective, Memorial to drug violence in Mexico City, Mexico by Gaeta Springall Aquitectos / Lighteam Public Interaction, Memorial to drug violence in Mexico City, Mexico by Gaeta Springall Aquitectos / Lighteam Marking on memorial, Memorial to drug violence in Mexico City, Mexico by Gaeta Springall Aquitectos / Lighteam Ruins of Bank of England, Joseph Gandy, 1830 Ground Zero Viewing Platform, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, 2001 Rendering of Flight 93 Memorial by Paul Murdoch architects Aerial image, U.S.S Arizona Memorial, Alfred Preis,1962 Entrance, U.S.S Arizona Memorial, Alfred Preis,1962 Interior, U.S.S Arizona Memorial, Alfred Preis,1962 Aerial Diagram, Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, Louis Kahn, 2012 Entrance perspective, Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, Louis Kahn, 2012 Point perspective, Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, Louis Kahn, 2012 View from platform, 9/11 Memorial Museum, 2014 View from base, 9/11 Memorial Museum, 2014 Entrance projection, 9/11 Memorial Museum, 2014 Explicit Material Advisory, 9/11 Memorial Museum, 2014 Atrium, National Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2015 Atrium roof, National Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2015 Memorial room, National Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2015 Chamber of remembrance, National Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2015 War and Commemoration in the United States timeline

iv 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23

FIGURE 51 FIGURE 52 FIGURE 53 FIGURE 54 FIGURE 55 FIGURE 56 FIGURE 57 FIGURE 58 FIGURE 59 FIGURE 60 FIGURE 61 FIGURE 62 FIGURE 63 FIGURE 64 FIGURE 65 FIGURE 66 FIGURE 67 FIGURE 68 FIGURE 69 FIGURE 70 FIGURE 71 FIGURE 72 FIGURE 73 FIGURE 74 FIGURE 75 FIGURE 76 FIGURE 77 FIGURE 78 FIGURE 79 FIGURE 80 FIGURE 81 FIGURE 82 FIGURE 83 FIGURE 84 FIGURE 85 FIGURE 86 FIGURE 87 FIGURE 88 FIGURE 89 FIGURE 90 FIGURE 91 FIGURE 92 FIGURE 93 FIGURE 94 FIGURE 95 FIGURE 96 FIGURE 97 FIGURE 98 FIGURE 99 FIGURE 100

Memorial & Monument commemoration Objective memorial analysis form key Vietnam Veterans Memorial analysis from Vietnam Veterans Memorial entrance Vietnam Veterans Memorial ground / wall plane Vietnam Veterans Memorial landscape WWII Valor Memorial analysis form WWII Valor Memorial central plaza WWII Valor Memorial wall of gold stars WWII Valor Memorial statues / monuments WWII Valor Memorial statues / monuments WWII Valor Memorial photo opportunities WWII Valor Memorial photo opportunities Korean War Memorial analysis form Walkway into memorial Reflecting wall Sandblasted images of soldiers in wall Memorial soldier statues Memorial soldier statues in context of memorial DC War Memorial analysis form View from inside memorial outward View of grounds of memorial View of memorial columns September 11th, 2001 Memorial analysis form North Tower Memorial pool South Tower Memorial pool Pentagon Memorial analysis form Pentagon Memorial entry Memorial benches with reflecting pool Memorial benches, trees and replaced area of Pentagon Flight 93 Memorial analysis form Entrance to crash site memorial Landscape and built environment of memorial Crash site divider wall Platform to leave personal effects Memorial Wall U.S.S. Arizona Memorial analysis form & image Jefferson National expansion analysis form & image Washington Monument analysis form & image Oklahoma City bombing Memorial analysis form & image Gratitude & Honor Memorial analysis form & image Wright Brothers memorial analysis form & image Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rights National Park analysis form & image Victims of Drug war violence Memorial analysis form & image Murdered Jews in Europe Memorial analysis form & image Haymarket Memorial analysis form & image Flight 587 Memorial analysis form & image Irish Famine Memorial analysis form & image African Burial Ground Memorial analysis form & image Steilneset Memorial analysis form & image

25 29 30 31 31 31 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 37 37 38 39 39 40 41 41 41 42 43 43 43 43 43 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 ix

FIGURE 101 FIGURE 102 FIGURE 103 FIGURE 104 FIGURE 105 FIGURE 106 FIGURE 107 FIGURE 108 FIGURE 109 FIGURE 110 FIGURE 111 FIGURE 112 FIGURE 113 FIGURE 114 FIGURE 115 FIGURE 116 FIGURE 117 FIGURE 118 FIGURE 119 FIGURE 120 FIGURE 121 FIGURE 122 FIGURE 123 FIGURE 124 FIGURE 125 FIGURE 126 FIGURE 127 FIGURE 128 FIGURE 129 FIGURE 130 FIGURE 131 FIGURE 132 FIGURE 133 FIGURE 134 FIGURE 135 FIGURE 136 FIGURE 137 FIGURE 138 FIGURE 139 FIGURE 140 FIGURE 141 FIGURE 142 FIGURE 143 FIGURE 144 FIGURE 145 FIGURE 146 FIGURE 147 FIGURE 148 FIGURE 149 x FIGURE 150

Roosevelt Memorial analysis form & image Canadian National Vimy Memorial analysis form & image U-Boat Men Lost Memorial analysis form & image Jewish Martyrs analysis form & diagram FDR Memorial analysis form & image MLK Jr. Memorial analysis form & image Ohio Statehouse Holocaust Memorial analysis form & images Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial analysis form & image Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial analysis form & image International Peace / Perry’s victory Memorial analysis form & image L’Enfant Plan for Washington D.C. McMillan Plan for Washington D.C. Civil unrest in Washington D.C. Civil unrest in Washington D.C. Civil unrest in Washington D.C. Prospective Sites for memorial proposalin Washington, D.C. Site one, East of National Mall with extension to Anacosta river Site two, Columbia Island, Southwest of National Mall Columbia Island ecological / soil diagram Columbia Island circulation diagrams Columbia Island boundary diagrams Conceptual sketches of war-torn landscape areas Conceptual sketches of war-torn landscape areas Sand deposit over time change on Columbia Island, growth of sand and re-growth of foliage Conceptual landscape forming exercise Conceptual surface program sketches Conceptual surface program sketches Conceptual surface program sketches Conceptual surface program sketches Conceptual surface program sketches Conceptual surface program sketches Conceptual subterranean program sketches Conceptual subterranean program sketches Conceptual subterranean program sketches Conceptual subterranean program sketches Conceptual subterranean program sketches Conceptual subterranean program sketches Conceptual program space sketches Conceptual program space sketches Conceptual program space sketches Site Plan Conceptual Rendering, Central gathering space Conceptual Rendering, Program space type A Site Model, Birch plywood, plexiglass, and finishing nails Central gathering space, site model Detail, site model Detail, staining drainage system diagram Plaster corridor sections, A-A Aerial view of corridor section A-A, plaster View down corridor with differing widths, plaster

51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 57 57 58 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 63 64 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 69 70 70 71 72 72 72 73 74 74

FIGURE 151 FIGURE 152 FIGURE 153 FIGURE 154 FIGURE 155 FIGURE 156 FIGURE 157 FIGURE 158 FIGURE 159

View down corridor with differing widths, plaster View down corridor with differing widths, plaster Rendering after initial sand deposit, landscape Rendering after growth, landscape Rendering after continued growth, landscape Rendering after staining, corridor Rendering after continued staining, corridor Rendering after continued staining, corridor Result of the Age of Terror, more death and less security

74 74 75 76 76 77 78 79 82

ABSTRACT Lowell, Massachusetts has erected 252 memorials to various subjects since the mid 19th century. 65 of those 252, more than one quarter of them, were built in the last twenty years of the 20th century1. Similarly, a wave of Holocaust memorials around the same time began the establishment of the United States of America as the “preeminent nation of official Holocaust remembrance.” This was primarily realized after the 1985 political controversy where President Reagan chose to commemorate German soldiers as Holocaust victims on the 40th anniversary of WWII in a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany2 The examples above represent a larger narrative over the cultural importance of the memorial as a physical architecture of public collective memory. The representation of the commemoration of an idea, event, or person with a style that reflects the zeitgeist are the purpose of monuments and memorials in their differing incarnations, architectural design provides spaces to reflect, remember and honor the subject of commemoration. Memorials in present day are manifested in everything from online social media pages to museums built on the hallowed ground of a terrorist attack, they can range from temporary and transient to the large scale memorializing of buildings, highways and other infrastructural elements within the public or private sector. The scope of this thesis views the definition of memorials and monuments as equal, interchangeable spaces of commemoration. These spaces include architectural constructs that further a narrative of the subject of commemoration within its representation. The purpose of the design of a monument or memorial, then, is to eternalize the subject of commemoration for future generations.

FIGURE 1 Temporary memorial in Shanksville, P.A.

FIGURE 2 Static memorial

FIGURE 3 Online memorial

Anson Rabinbach states that the real problem in over commemoration of Holocaust memorials is not forgetting about the Holocaust, but the excess of Holocaust imagery present in the U.S. culture, questions the necessity and effectiveness of monuments and memorials over traditional historical text and media.3 The population of a city gathers to celebrate victories of local and national sports teams, to learn, to remember, to console in the face of grief, and to protest against policies and events with which they disagree. These architectural spaces are defined at different moments by the temporal programs that inhabit them, providing experiences that effect and shape local public memory. They are designed centers for civic engagement, symbolically representing the values of the community that built them. While the purpose of memorials is to eternalize the values, sentiments, and culture of a particular time, their meaning in the community can be reinforced or degraded as time progresses and perspectives on the subject commemorated evolve.

1 2 3

Erika Doss, Memorial Mania (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago, 2010). Anson Rabinbach, “From Explosion to Erosion: Holocaust Memorialization in America since Bitburg,” History and Memory 9, no. 1 (Fall 1997). Ibid.

FIGURE 4 Protest on Washington Monument, 1963 (March for jobs and freedom) FIGURE 5 2010 World Cup celebration in Santiago, Chile

The prominent issue with erecting a monument or memorial with the intention of eternalizing its position in the cultural zeitgeist is that they are too reliant on the physical materiality of the memorial to eternalize the subject . Materially, memorials outlast centuries of abuse and weathering, but culturally they are temporal. Our descendants, generations from now, will know of the events that took place to merit such commemoration, but it will hold less value because they did not experience the society that commemorated & valued the subject. The public praises memorials without completely understanding the context of the subject being commemorated. The meaning that defines the rhetoric of an object fades with generations; therefore the memorial must find additional ways of adding meaning to it in order to sustain cultural relevance. The rhetoric of the memorial as well weakens when its reputation is exposed to controversy when a differing perspective or opinion arises. Erika Doss states the dilemma in her historiography Memorial Mania: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Its (the modern memorial) meaning is neither inherent nor eternal but processual---dependent on a variety of social relations and subject to the volatile intangibles of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s multiple publics and their fluctuating interests and feelings4.â&#x20AC;? From political statues to the representation of marginalized groups, memorials have long served as a means to further a political, psychological or social need of society. In serving such psychological purpose, their appearance has become more frequently debated, the public having more access and voice in saying what should be memorialized than ever before. The National Park Service has acknowledged this by adding supplemental exhibits to established monuments & memorials to better include minority voices through the showcase of media such as videos, facsimile recreation of artifacts and exhibits that offer a more inclusive perspective of the subject commemorated. The most controversial and polarizing in the United States are memorials that commemorate war, violence and military action.

FIGURE 6 Defaced police memorial 4

FIGURE 7 Defaced Confederate memorial

Doss, Memorial Mania.

War Memorials provide controversy because of the content they do not memorialize, the United States building a reputation for its military and defense spending and portraying the country as an impenetrable fortress to terrorism. The attacks on the World Trade Center towers on September 11th 2001 launched the United States into an unofficial “Age of Terror” which is classified thus far by a global war on terrorism, two major wars, extensive domestic surveillance programs and a relative forfeiture of civil liberties amongst U.S. citizens. The War on Terror, the military campaign that includes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has impacted U.S. culture and irreparably changed the nature of war memorial design. The resulting domestic policies that allowed information to flow more freely (such as the Freedom of Information Act-which was a response to the Patriot Act) have also encouraged society to seek out information regarding the inner workings of our government, especially relating to war. This encouragement, and the rise of the Internet and social media as a tool in war reporting, ultimately circumvents the intended narrative of a U.S. commissioned physical war memorial. Thus, war commemoration must employ a different series of design decisions to adapt to shifting perspectives and new information regarding the subject of its representation. The literal forms of past memorials are not effective for contemporary war memorials; the subjective interpretation of the visitor completes the memorial experience. The military endeavors of the United States have numerous shifting perspectives on moral grounds, establishing the United States as a world power, invigorating its economy and strengthening the sense of national pride of American citizens. A country that has collectively spent over 7.9 Trillion dollars on war since it’s inception, the United States has a never-ending amount of source material to commemorate.5 The emergence of real-time media and a socially aware public with modern technology has exposed the residual effects of war, offering perspectives from civilians affected directly in the warring countries. With the populace of the U.S. in possession of unfiltered access to this information, the public realm passes judgment about the actions of the government before it can produce propaganda to justify its actions. The typical cultural response to war in the United States is to praise the servicemen and women that sacrificed their lives through the establishment of a monument or memorial. These physical representations of a war, as currently designed, tend to distill the complexity into digestible national icons intent on eternalizing a patriotic and pro-nationalistic rhetoric. This thesis will argue that this process actually does the subjects of commemoration more harm that good, and that in this complexity lies an opportunity to re-conceptualize war memorial design.

FIGURE 8 WWII Violence and destruction

FIGURE 9 WWII Violence and destruction

Stephen Daggett, “Costs of Major U.S. Wars,” (Congressional Research Service, 2010).

FIGURE 10 WWII Violence and destruction

THESIS STATEMENT â&#x20AC;&#x153;Architecture was an art of memorial, living art memorializing living values, in forms & techniques appropriate to and expressive of their age & cultureâ&#x20AC;? (of light and structure, space & silence) -Louis Kahn, 1944, New Monumentality .

Public memory of a war is commemorated through memorials or monuments. Architecture provides these spaces that allow

the public to interpret, remember and heal. It is the experiences and interpretations provided by the design of the memorial that shape itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meaning and position in society. It is not enough for the design of a war memorial to simply represent military conflicts; it must create experiences that emulates public sentiment during the time period of the war. These experiences would reflect the immense amount of sacrifice and chaos involved with war, and the shifting public perspectives and politics that accompany it. This thesis analyzes the potential impact architecture could have on these spaces of commemoration by integrating affective experiences within war memorial design. Through empirical and historical research on commemoration in the United States, a proposal for a memorial to the ongoing War on Terror will embody the results of the research. En Memoriam seeks to challenge the conventional narrative of a war memorial by recognizing the unique and difficult task of designing a memorial for the War on Terror, itself an extremely ambiguous and controversial war. By realizing the memorial proposal in Washington D.C., the design integrates with the surrounding context of its site, exploring the dichotomy between the policy makers that send soldiers to war in Washington D.C. and their final resting place in Arlington, Virginia. This thesis will examine various monument and memorial design techniques, the civic spaces they create, and their implicit rhetoric. Specifically, it will examine the role of the war memorial in the canon of commemoration and public memory in the United States of America. It will accomplish this by analyzing differing wars and their subsequent memorials, addressing most importantly the most recent war the United States is fighting, the War on Terror. With parameters that have varied in scope and remained ambiguous, the general war on terror has included specific Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with military operations in Libya and Syria to date. A constantly changing enemy and variable site provides the opportunity for future wars to develop in different parts of this region, with the War on Terror thus far internationally accomplishing one thing: the de-stabilization of an entire region and radicalizing of a new generation of people against the United States.

UNITED STATES PROPAGANDA AND PATRIOTISM Architecture has long played a role in the narrative of a nation’s greatness. The rise and dominance of the skyscraper in the 20th century for example has always been a part of the pro-U.S. propaganda that strengthened the national identity of its citizens. Referencing the construction of the Empire State Building, Benjamin Flowers comments the architecture’s connection to U.S. nationalism: “The construction of the Empire State Building, fueled by the wealth and power of clients who were of immigrants rather than the scions of old New York society, served to add legitimacy not just to the men who built it, but to a vision of a pluralist, modern, urban America.6” Even today, many countries compete to build the world’s tallest building as a testament to their strength, power and ingenuity. The physical architecture becomes more than its parts, and its design serves as a monument to the nation that built it. The design of monuments and memorials in the United States as well become the propaganda for a particular perspective of the subject commemorated, imbibing its architecture with a prescribed narrative. The act of war focuses and necessitates a pro-nationalist sentiment, military force on display and sacrifice on the part of civilian population. Under the premise of defending its political and economic interests, this rhetoric and propaganda has justified the military pursuits of the United States in the last century of war across the world. Patriotism and Nationalism within the United States both contribute to this sense of superiority, making the public ignorant to the true impact war has on a region.

COMMEMORATION IN THE UNITED STATES

In the United States, commemoration has been customarily interpreted as a physically manifested product representing a

shared set of national beliefs.7 Memorials and monuments are the architectonic responses, present in all aspects of society. The excess of commemoration can be experienced in daily life, by driving on a highway that memorializes a specific figure, or passing national monuments, cemeteries, and roadside memorials while viewing bumper stickers on vehicles commemorating veterans. The exposure could continue with viewing online memorials while at work, eating lunch in a memorial plaza filled with monuments, and perhaps passing by a candle-lit vigil on the way home on the same memorialized highway. With a society obsessed with memorializing the past in an infinite number of ways, how effective have these methods been in eternalizing the subject they are representing? Commemoration in the United States has existed as well in grander scales, present in the pieces of architecture a nation chooses to design and build. The design of a nation’s federal buildings, memorials, monuments and public spaces all assist in creating and focusing a specific reflection of the beliefs of a country. Every event that brings different nations together to compete (war, sport, technological achievement, etc.) fortifies the construct of national identity, strengthening the collective identity of its citizens. The iconic symbols of United States that accomplish this utilize architectural spaces to impress these experiences on their inhabitants, following an approved historical narrative of the subject commemorated.

The National memorial to the Second World War in Washington D.C. is one such example, ripe with literal symbolism and adorned with 4,000 gold stars representing the over 400,000 individuals that gave their life during the war. The design of the memorial creates an experience that overwhelms the visitor, with inscribed text in bronze and granite slates symbolizing the unity between all of 6 Benjamin Flowers, Skyscraper: The Politics and Power of Building New York City in the Twentieth Century (University of Pennsylvania Press, September 2009). 7 Doss, Memorial Mania.

the territories and states of the United States of America. The memorial pays homage to the World War II veterans, but its design fails to communicate the zeitgeist and scale of the war to the future generations, which frequently interpret it at face value as an expensive photo opportunity.

FIGURE 11 Children play on the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C. FIGURE 12 Photo opportunity at WWII memorial in Washington, D.C.

THE MEMORIAL AS INSTIGATOR Before methods of information sharing were widely available in the public, the memorial was the primary way in which a specific figure or subject was immortalized in public. Their design was more literal than figurative and their role was to serve as an ideal for society to achieve toward, even if that ideal was misguided in its representation. The memorials and monuments of the past century in the United States provided a space for discussion, the legacy of the subject as the instigator of the conversation. They were more than just physical objects; they were representations of the society that erected them at a time where the reputation surrounding the subject was tightly controlled. As methods of sharing information are developed, print, radio, television and Internet provide platforms for contrasting opinions and alternative views of the subject commemorated to emerge. The discussion that the memorial and monument once started is now circumvented by differing developments in communication, necessitating that the role of the memorial to change. Erika Doss, in talking about the roles of contemporary memorials, expands on this: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Memorials are bodies of feeling, cultural entities whose social, cultural, and political meanings are determined by the emotional states and needs of their audiences8â&#x20AC;? The design of a memorial in the information age necessitates the role of the memorial to be complimentary to whichever perspective the user has of the memorial itself, therefore it must use some of the most basic elements of architecture; light, sound, site, materials, to produce a memorial experience that provokes conversation specific to the subject commemorated. By focusing on general themes of a subject rather than the specifics of it, the memorial creates a space that provokes and encourages the public to discuss and present their interpretation of the subject; increasing the likelihood that memorial will achieve its ultimate goal of eternal cultural relevance. These ideas are already being conceptualized in memorial culture, as demonstrated by Paris / Santiago based practice 1week1project. Their un-built conceptual proposal for a memorial commemorates the death of the construction workers building the 2022 World Cup stadiums for Qatar through the stacking of concrete masses that represent each worker that has died while the stadium is built. 8

Ibd.

FIGURE 13 Memorial in World Columbian exposition, 1893 FIGURE 14 Memorial in highway rest stop, 2014

HISTORY OF COMMEMORATION IN THE UNITED STATES The over-memorialization present in United States can be traced through the last century of the countries cultural evolution. Excessive memorials to a specific topic not only oversaturate the position the memorial is trying to take, but cost taxpayers millions of dollars, providing another reason to split opinions of a memorials necessity. Sigfried Giedion, in his 1944 essay titled The Need for a New Monumentality, echoes the obsession with memorialization that had culminated: “Every period has the impulse to create symbols in the form of monuments, which, according to the Latin meaning are “things that remind,” things to be transmitted to later generations. This demand for monumentality cannot, in the long run, be suppressed. It tries to find an outlet at all costs. Our period is no exception.“9 This sentiment developed over a century of commemoration in the United States, coinciding with the development of new technologies and approaches to architectural and urban design.

THE WAR MEMORIAL

The modern war memorial in the United States originated performed by President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address in 1863,

in which he consecrated a national soldier’s cemetery in remembrance of the soldiers that died on the battlefield. By referring in his speech to the creation of the country, President Lincoln was circumventing the ill will towards one another during this time, re-activating the sentiment and pride felt by all Americans during the American Revolution and forging a new American identity. This identity lived in the creation of the national cemetery, which was the first public monument of its kind in the United States during the mid-late 19th century.10 The individual memorial to the soldier, generals and other war-related subjects would follow, evolving in form but static in crafting the American identity and narrative through its commemoration.

9 Sigfried Giedion, “The Need for a New Monumentality,” in New Architecture and City Planning, ed. Paul Zucker (1944). 10 Kirk Savage, Standing Soldier, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War and Monument in Nineteenth-Century America (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997).

FIGURE 15, 16 ,17 Memorials and Plaza in Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri 1904

19TH CENTURY MONUMENTS: PLACES OF IDENTITY Up until the turn of the 20th century, most of the monuments in the United States were artisan-forged statues placed in a public setting, set in a plaza where the public could visit and honor that which was being commemorated. In a nation fragmented and shattered by the American Civil War, monuments in the mid-late 19th century served as a means to re-construct the American identity post the ending of slavery and the Civil War. The United States faced an incredible challenge, to re-define the meaning of freedom in a society that still held onto its pre-Civil War traditions and prejudices of race, slavery and national identity11.Kirk Savage echoes this, saying: “Reconstruction demanded nothing less than the nation and its people re-imagine themselves. Public monuments were at the center of this highly abstract, and yet terrifying, conflict.”12 Public monuments provided a means to re-write history, an ideal to strive towards for the public they were placed within. 19th Century monuments / memorials sought to resolve conflicts and heal wounds, not instigate new problems in a period of turmoil. Savage, in analyzing this issue, agrees: “Public monuments were meant to yield resolution and consensus, not to prolong conflict. The impulse behind the public monument was an impulse to mold history into its rightful pattern.”13 In an age before electronic media, monuments and memorials were part of civic and public life, influencing and shaping the public narrative. Using architectural elements, memorials and monuments responded to the cultural context of the era and served as a means to assist society, in this case, to establish a new national identity of a fragmented and war-torn public. The monument and memorial’s role changed again when the figures were mass produced by the end of the 19th Century, the industrial revolution producing and advertising so much that future monuments could be created by ordering from a catalog. The monument at this time now evolves into a commodity, a consumer good, and is absorbed into American culture faster than ever before.

FIGURE 18, 19 , 20 Doughboy memorial and advertisment, early 1900’s 11 12 13

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

20TH CENTURY MEMORIALS: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE & MONUMENT EXPANSION The early 20th Century saw President Theodore Roosevelt expand on the monument momentum by signing the Antiquities Act of 1906, which gave the president the power to declare national parks & national monuments. The subsequent decades witnessed the creation of the National Park Service to manage the growing land systems, global chaos from World War I and domestic instability with the Great Depression. Once a rarity, the monument as it is designed starts to fade into the background during the late 1930s and early 1940s, when European modernism starts to infiltrate American culture. The National Park Service accepts management of Monuments and Memorials in 1936 as existing aesthetic conditions deteriorate and monumentality in society is re-analyzed by scholars. The visitor center is introduced, and is popularized during The National Park Service’s modernist 10 year, $1 Billion dollar improvement program in 1956 called Mission 66’. The visitor center typology incorporates exhibits of additional elements relating to the monument / memorial, adding more context to the reputation and rhetoric of the monument. As a style, Mission 66’ created “Park Service Modern,” a mid-century modern approach to quickly add facilities that were needed to service the growing number of visitors to the nations monuments, memorials and national parks. The architecture of these visitor centers shaped the narrative of the monument / memorial, continuing the role of the monument from the 19th Century while adding a platform to allow the monument / memorial to stay culturally relevant through the addition of exhibits and events in the future. The Wright Brothers memorial in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina is one such example of this.

FIGURE 21, 22 Wright Brothers Memorial & Monument, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina

FIGURE 23 Visitor Center, Wright Brothers Memorial

The memorial, first dedicated in 1932 is 428 acres and involved over 1,200 tons of granite, 2,000 tons of gravel, 800 tons of sand and 400 tons of cement to create the granite monument is 60 feet, perched on 90 foot Hill, adorned with reliefs of flight. The memorial adds a visitor center during Mission 66’, adding yet another set of buildings, facsimile recreations and exhibits in 2003 to further advance the significance of “the birthplace of flight”. The result is an amalgamation of styles and design that collectively pushes the particular role the Wright Brothers had in the overall American identity. The discussion arises not shortly after the original dedication of the Wright Brothers Memorial as to what a contemporary monument should be following the devastation of a World War, the onset of another and the Great Depression, with Louis Mumford in 1937 claiming that the “monument is dead.” Mid-Century modernism abandons the monumental position, rejecting cultural references to the past in favor a social and spacially progressive future.

DEATH OF THE MONUMENT In 1943, Sigfried Giedion, a historian, José Luis Sert, an architect and urbanist, and Fernand Léger, an artist, each prepared a short public essay interpreting monumentality from their respective fields. The summation of their arguments was distilled into the 9 points on Monumentality, a collaborative effort to define monumentality in 1940’s, which directly effected memorial and monument design. The 9 9

points on monumentality produced a set of guidelines that are still relevant within the scope of monuments and memorial design today, as the United States is equally emerging from war and financial devastation. These points addressed the innate responsibilities of a monument, such as point two, stating “Monuments are the expression of man’s highest cultural needs. They have to satisfy the eternal demand of the people for translation of their collective force into symbols. The most vital monuments are those which express the feeling and thinking of the collective force-the people.”14 The design strategy of the monument and memorial is changing; it’s program expanding past pure form and moving into an instigator of social spaces and programs.

FIGURE 24 Lincoln Memorial with social program

FIGURE 25,26 Memorials & Monuments in advertisements

Louis Kahn viewed architecture and monumentality as vital civic needs, which were essential to community life. Kahn’s conception of monumentality was based on civic community and instilling eternal values in an abstract, technologically expressive architecture. This aimed to fulfill the cultural needs of society through a monument that not just created eternal values from the material selection that was used, but also from design decisions and space created. The memorial itself necessitates more than just material, their design style continuing to adapt and evolve over the subsequent decades. The commemoration of multiple conflicts and military actions, terrorist attacks, events, and ideas deemed imperative to the national narrative reflects a pro-active role of monuments and memorials in shaping the national identity of Americans. Maya Lin’s controversial winning design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial partially realizes the impact of Kahn’s writings and discussion using abstraction, place and simple gestures to make a powerful impact on the viewer. The memorial not only served as a example for the rest of the nation, but it caused public outcry because of it’s radical departure of the more literal commemoration designs the prior century had provided. The narrative in this case was not specific; it was subjective to the viewer. The public was asked to establish a personal relationship with the Vietnam War and it’s memorial, discussed more in depth in subseqeuent sections. Anthony Vidler has more recently described monumentality in the 21st century, which still has as strong relationship to monument and memorials. He describes monuments as being symbols for the ideas of society, translating collective forces into memory to serve as a heritage for future generations. In a recently published essay, he states that monumentality is now defined through new languages of abstraction, technological innovation & function, which coalesce to give new life to the monument, fully symbolizing new forms of community and civic consciousness. This new life inherently imbibes monument and memorial designs with a aura of civic activism in their creation.15 14 15

F. Léger J. L. Sert, S. Giedion, “9 Points on Monumentality,” (1943). Anthony Vidler, “Monument, Memory, and Modernism,” (2010).

Vidler’s thoughts are echoed through the continued re-analysis of monumentality over the past century. The modern day monument and memorial are consumer goods, eternal symbols and tourist attractions that can boost the economy of an area. They need to represent more than the material they’re made of, with cultural needs, civic consciousness and activism transcribed within their landscape and architectural design. How, then, can a monument then be multi-representational and culturally relevant for eternity if its design is static and indicative of a specific place and time? Thus far, they have not been successful. Point 3 of the 9 points on Monumentality agrees, saying: “Every bygone period which shaped a real cultural life had the power and the capacity to create these symbols. Monuments are, therefore, only possible in periods in which a unifying consciousness and unifying culture exists. Periods which exist for the moment have been unable to create lasting monuments.” En Memoriam acknowledges these flaws and incorporates solutions to them into its design proposal. Over-memorialization continues to be one such flaw. So much so, that the United States Congress itself had to issue the National Commemorative Work Act in 1986 to prevent the creation of future memorials in Washington D.C. without congressional approval16. This act intended to severely restrict the number of memorials in the nations capital, leaving political interest groups clamoring for representation as a result. With interest groups now able to memorialize specific things and influence American identity, can the architecture of the memorial provide a truly subjective experience for the public? The national identity and public memory of a countries achievements lies within the symbolism it chooses to identify with. If it is the duty of a monument or memorial as a national symbol to transmit memory and identity to future generations, then it is the position of En Memoriam that those future generations will be better off understanding the complex history of the events or figures that the monument or memorial represents.

Doss, Memorial Mania.

SUPPORTING LITERATURE War commemoration favors the representation of the victors, ignoring the displaced, innocent minority voices affected by war and military action. This is evident in the national narrative presented in the design and placement of memorials on the National Mall in Washington D.C., a highly politically charge location that influences memorial design throughout the country. The research for En Memoriam began by utilizing proquest thesis and dissertation research methods to seek similar theses utilizing keywords of public memory; memorials; collective memory and monuments; monumentality; nostalgia; memory. One thesis was found addressing the design of monuments and memorials with a second thesis found addressing public memory and its physical incarnations. The keywords were then utilized to search through scholarly journals and periodicals in design and architecture based databases, encountering articles regarding the crisis of modernism and new monumentality in the 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and 1940â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Other scholarly articles were found that discussed monument design approach during modernism and how it has translated into post-modernism and beyond. Library searches with keywords resulted in descriptive books on monuments, memorials and other base information to define the generally accepted terms and meanings of the monument / memorial condition in the United States. This thesis investigation is accomplished through the investigation of the current perspectives being represented in monument and memorial design in the United States, the utilization of a classification system that records empirical data through the observation of specific national memorials in Washington D.C.; through the written secondary sources on the topics discussing public memory, memorials, architecture and design; through scholarly research discussing counter memorialization; and the shaping of national identity through monument and memorial design. It addresses design in the context of remembrance, influence and commemoration to suggest a memorial design representing the War on Terror through abstract and vague manners, allowing a subjective interpretation of a complicated and complex war. The research processes above are aimed to explore the different subtopics under the theme of memorial and monument design in the United States. (A) Collective Memory-This subtopic researches how collective memory forms in the public, and how politics can be utilized to distort collective memory to form a specific narrative. The political slant of established and proven collective memory is an essential cog that creates the national image. Texts exploring nationalism and memorial building were explored in this regard. a. Imagined Communities This text analyzes the bigger picture regarding nationalism and nationality and how it was created. Analyzing different elements that lead to the rise of the national identity, this text explores capitalism, religion, monarchy, and social order in relation to time and space to discuss each element and its contribution to the spread of nationality across the world. This text applies to En Memoriam by giving a larger world scale view on how national prejudices come to fruition, giving pre-context to the discussion of the emergence of the national narrative of the United States of America. It is applied to strengthen the argument of re-thinking monument and memorial design through the realization that the national narrative in of itself is a constructed concept.

b. The Future of Nostalgia17 This text analyzes and discusses the concept of Nostalgia through the memory recollection lens, specifically focusing on European and Russian towns while offering a dissection of preconceived attitudes towards Nostalgia. Selections from this text discuss Nostalgia as it relates to memory and history, while providing a detailed breakdown of differing types of nostalgia and how, historically, one has treated the issue. Referencing more the ephemeral and larger scale picture, selections from this book enforces the activation of memory as it refers to monuments and memorials. The discussion in this text refers to the memory activating power of place, a vital characteristic that is inherently interpreted differently by any user to a monument or memorial. This text supports En Memoriam by providing context into the phenomenon of Nostalgia, with intention on utilizing this research to further understand aspects of memory, loss, and re-discovery.

c. Places of Public Memory18 This text specifically focuses on the intersection of memory, place and rhetoric through nine original essays from leading scholars in memory studies. It offers differing perspectives on different public memorial events (such as WWII) and a discussion of how rhetoric can be utilized to influence the memory of a specific event. The text offers insight and acknowledgment on the rhetoric of memorials and museums specifically, while providing a brief historical lesson on the topic. Essays and elements of this text are useful in understanding the background context of the national narrative of the United States and will directly aide En Memoriam in establishing its own rhetoric of the counter memorial. This text as well gives acknowledgment to the disparity between representation in memorials and museums that casts some voices as legitimate while disenfranchising others.

(B) American Public Memory-This subtopic specifically looked at how the narrative of collective memory transformed into the American Public Memory narrative, and how it has physically developed into public programs and civic space. Specifically, how the war and combat memorial has shaped political and public views and instilled the rhetoric of patriotism in the American public. This information specifically related to the thesis by providing a context of public memorials and monuments designs implemented inside and with the rhetoric of the United States. a. Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II 19 This text addresses a debate that emerged during World War II about what formal representation postwar memorials should take. One side advocated for traditional memorials while the other supported “living memorials,” This text explores the meaning of this debate in a broad cultural context, interpreting specific proposals and texts to that living memorials complicated American expectations of memorialization and practices of commemoration, a confusion realized in the controversy over the National Memorial to World War II in Washington, D.C. This text is relevant to En Memoriam because it acknowledges a major cause of over-memorialization, the living memorial. Its discussion on commemorating a war in Washington D.C. with the controversies surrounding it is relevant to 17 Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (Basic Books, 2002). 18 Carole Blair Greg Dickinson, Brian L. Ott, Places of Public Memory the Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials, ed. John Louis Lucaites, Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Critique (Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 2010), Book. 19 Andrew M. Shanken, “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States During World War Ii,” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 1 (2002).

issues that could emerge for the design of En Memoriam.

b. War Memorials as Political Landscape: The American Experience and Beyond20 This text provides a critique on war memorials as propaganda tools that justify the war they represent. It provides an analysis of the interaction of memorials within the society in which they reside, and how the war memorial specifically can influence the public’s perception of war to be positive or negative. This text is relevant to the persuasive ether that exists in memorial and monument creation. The earlier discussions regarding memory and the constructs of nationality emerge as propaganda tools, relevantly tying to underlying purposes of En Memoriam.

c. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century21 Objectively analyzing the nationalistic narrative through differing means of commemoration in the United States, this text discusses the roots of counter-memorialization by suggesting that the symbols utilized for current commemoration are more representative of current political problems rather than accurately representing the past. This text applies to the thesis by providing a source that begins to question the way in which events are commemorated, acknowledging the complexities of making broad, historical generalizations in the name of nationalistic pride and the minority voices that aren’t represented

(C) Architectural Representations-This subtopic specifically looks at how public memory and feeling has been approached through an architectural lens. Precedent projects from architects such as firms 1week1project illustrate and Peter Eisenman illustrate attempts at translating memory to the physical realm of architecture. The discussion and debate over monument and memorial representation in architecture dates back a century, with architects proposing differing responses and theories about how memory should be represented in modern and post-modern times. a. Museums, Monuments & National Parks22 This text addresses the rise of public history and its institutionalization in the 1920’s and 1930’s with the creation of the National Park Service. The angle for which this text views monuments and memorials is within the educational scope of preserving the natural and cultural resources of national monuments. It discusses the scope of the tensions between the National Park Service and administrators in congress to define the national narrative through the decisions on what natural, cultural and civic landmarks to monumentalize. This text is relevant to En Memoriam by introducing the perspective of the educator behind the political and propaganda intentions. Elements of this text provide a more well rounded investigation into the emergence of monuments and memorials as national symbols, and showcases how even ideas with good intentions can be manipulated for corrupt and monetary purposes. 20 James M. Mayo, War Memorials as Political Landscape: The American Experience and Beyond, First ed. (Praeger 1988). 21 John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton University Press, 1993), Book. 22 Denise D. Meringolo, Museums, Monuments and National Parks, ed. Marla R. Miller, Public History in Historical Perspective (Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012).

b. Memorial Mania23 Memorial Mania is a historiography of the rise and explosion of memorials in the United States. It addresses the origins in the 19th century, starting from the national obsession to monuments and statues and continues the discussion of the overuse of commemoration to acknowledge anything and everything in a culture of consumption and mass production. The text analyzes and disseminates whether the memorial is even an effective mode of commemoration, debating and discussing through numerous examples. It is relevant by the pure nature of questions it provokes regarding memorial culture. Since En Memoriam seeks to create a counter memorial, this text provides a thorough analysis of the varying different problems current memorials and commemoration face in contemporary times. It as well provides a historiography of memorialization in the United States, which is helpful in analyzing trends in memorial development.

c. Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities24 This text classifies the emergence of memorial museums over the past 25 years, providing a brief historical background to the still emerging practice of commemorating places of atrocities as mechanisms to teach, inform, and promote peace. This text analyzes and defines the new cultural complex by comparing it to other examples emerging in different countries. The institution, its effectiveness and impact on the greater public is discussed, debated and theorized. It applies directly to facets of En Memoriam, looking to promote a different viewpoint and agenda than the typical propaganda of the memorial. A relevantly recent phenomenon, the text acknowledges that this may be the future of memorialization across the world as countries are more aware of atrocities committed as connectivity increases through globalization.

d. Monument Wars: Washington D.C., the National mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape 25 A historiography and a political narrative, this text analyzes the National Mall in Washington D.C., exploring the origins of the monuments and memorials that live within. The text explores the conceptual origins of the National Mall itself, referring back to the original plans of Washington D.C. to illustrate the political volatility that took place during the development and installment of the monuments and memorials on site. This text directly relates to En Memoriam, providing the political and planning context behind the site where the War on Terror memorial will be implemented. The information in this text provides the rich background narrative to the emergence of the memorials and monuments on the National Mall, the type of information that makes the visiting and viewing of the monuments and memorials a richer experience once understood. The text reveals all of the political in fighting and contextual information that is never represented in the final form of the memorial, which directly relates to the contextual information that En Memoriam extracts.

23 Doss, Memorial Mania. 24 Paul Williams, Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities (2008). 25 Kirk Savage, Monument Wars: Washington D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape (California: University of California Press, 2009).

e. Writings on New Monumentality i. 9 points on Monumentality26 ii. The Need for New Monumentality27 iii. Postmodern Cult of Monuments28 iv. Postmodernity and New Monumentality29 v. Monuments & Monumentality30 vi. The CIAM discourse on Urbanism 1928-196031 The writing in all articles above describes the conversation and debate regarding the late 1930’s crisis of modernism and monumentality. If a modern design was meant to break from the past, then surely it could not be a monument, which eternally refers to the past. The debate spawned many articles and opinions on how monumentality should be interpreted through architecture, thus including monument and memorial design. The texts suggest basic guidelines for monument and memorial design (amongst other architectural standards as well) to accurately represent the modern monument and memorial. The conversation continues through other articles that describe the transition of monumentality into post-modern representation, and the implications that has on the design elements, materials, spatial configuration, planning, and siting of the memorial itself. These articles relate the context of monument / memorial design within the realm of architectural history, strengthening the architectural narrative of En Memoriam while helping to establish the representational standards of the thesis. One overall thought distilled in the information of the texts on monumentality is that monuments and memorials should be representative of the cultural needs of the people. Taking this into context of the event and those unrepresented, this directly relates to the goals and ambitions of En Memoriam.

(D) Empirical Analyses-Through empirical observations and rigorous research of multiple war memorials in Washington D.C., a designed classification system organizes memorials based on the design and construction utilized to create a functional space. This data will be utilized to create theories of war memorial commemoration in the United States, and suggest different strategies for future memorial and monument design. This classification system is based off of factors determined to be ignored by monuments and memorials in general, specifically war memorials / monuments.

The research specifically focuses on first establishing the constructs of collective memory and nationalism through monuments and memorials, then moves to represent the situational context of memorial design within the United States by focusing on the rhetoric of American identity and the political implications caused by such memorials. En Memoriam then acknowledges the discussions regarding monuments and memorials in the architectural realm, by empirically analyzing monuments and memorials in the nations capital, re-igniting thought processes behind debates on monumentality to further solidify the argument. The bodies of research from the sources outlined above provide an established, well-rounded critical investigation into commemoration and nationalism, distilling it through further research of the approaches taken by architects, planners and historians. 26 27 28 29 30 31

J. L. Sert, “9 Points on Monumentality.” Giedion, “The Need for a New Monumentality.” Mario Carpo, “The Postmodern Cult of Monuments,” Future Anterior IV, no. 2 (2007). Gianni Vattimo, “Postmodernity and New Monumentality,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 28 (1995). Cecil D. Elliott, “Monuments and Monumentality,” Journal of Architectural Education 18, no. 4 (1964). Eric Mumford, The Ciam Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000).

CONTEMPORARY COMMEMORATION

Along with the literature outlined previously, En Memoriam will reference existing contemporary methods of commemoration,

specifically the methods architects have used in the memorialization of difficult events and figures whose subject matter dealt with terrorist attacks, death, war, and acts of violence. The War on Terror involves commemorating all of these difficult elements with continuous scrutiny of mass media and the Internet.

MEMORIAL AS A RHETORICAL TOOL The memorial in the United States has, since its inception, been a tool for the government to influence public opinion and propagate a narrative that shapes the national response on a particular subject. The memorial has supported the intentions and narrative of the government under the precipice that it was doing so for the benefit of the country and its citizens. This is especially true for the war memorial, in which the United States has always furthered the narrative that it is the champion of freedom and justice against corrupt and evil powers around the world. This narrative is challenged when the United States faces the daunting task of commemorating the Vietnam War, an unpopular war that was extensively documented through television media, a first for a U.S. war at the time. With this documentation, the public was able to see the ugly side of the war, the violence, carnage and death that up until this point, was not shown to the public during previous United States wars. Before the memorial to the Vietnam War was even conceptualized, the traditional pro-United States narrative of a memorial is discredited through the documentation of the war. How can the war memorial represent the triumph over evil powers, when the video documentation of the war it represents contradicts the propaganda released by the government? The war memorial saw its role first shift from establishing a national identity to now providing an experience for public visitors through its design with the implementation of Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. The design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is provocative by not directly telling the viewer what to believe or think about the Vietnam War, rather, allowing them to connect with the register of those dead through a monolithic, abstract memorial. The statement that was made was one of universality to death, that no matter what experience you had with the Vietnam War, you could connect with the people’s names that were inscribed in the wall by touching the engraving and seeing your reflection in it’s polish.32

FIGURE 27,28,29 Conceptual drawings and renderings by firm1week1project detailing World Cup Qatar 2022 memorial

Another example of an inverse to the traditional role of the memorial is with a project by Paris / Santiago based practice 1week1project. As mentioned previously, their un-built conceptual proposal for a memorial commemorates the death of the construction workers building the 2022 World Cup stadiums for Qatar in real time, through the stacking of concrete masses. Each mass represents a 32

Lora Senechal Carney, “Not Telling Us What to Think: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial,” Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 8, no. 3 (1993).

worker that has died, creating an intricate public and circulation space that connects the tower as it grows. While not built, a conceptual approach like this acknowledges the evolution of the memorial not only as a tool for the government, but as a method of protesting injustices as well. In each example, the memorial uses minimally designed elements to create spaces that comment on the subject they are commemorating, leveraging the architectural spaces and design to provide profound memorial experiences to the public.

SCALE & TIME: LANDSCAPE AS MEMORIAL

Increasingly in contemporary memorial culture, memorials to horrific subject matter are designed not solely as objects to be

viewed, but rather environments to be experienced. Landscape architecture has served successfully in creating memorials that argue for a more phenomenological approach to commemorating events of this nature, utilizing scale, place and time as the design mechanisms that provide a different experience of the memorial when visited at various times in the future. Using permanent architectural elements and contrasting them with temporal landscape elements, the continual cycle of growth, decay and rebirth is visible, creating a deeper connection to the subject matter between the memorial design and the viewer.

FIGURE 30,31,32 Memorial to drug violence in Mexico City, Mexico by Gaeta Springall Aquitectos / Lighteam

The Memorial to the Victims of Violence in Mexico by Gaeta Springall Arquitectos / Lighteam commemorates victims of the War on Drugs in Mexico through 70 slabs of Cor-ten steel arranged horizontally and vertically, varying in density throughout a 3.7 acre landscaped environment. The memorial allows its viewers to interact with the Cor-ten slabs by encouraging them to mark the slabs with chalk, expressing an emotion felt towards those that were lost, or other sentiments about the drug violence taking place all over Mexico. This simple element imbibes the memorial with the voice of those that are affected by the violence the most and sends a message to the government in a public setting. The focus of the memorial is on peace, the public interpreting the meaning and significance of each design element, the public spaces they create, and the relationship to drug violence in Mexico. The Cor-ten slabs will age, rust and stain, creating a potentially more powerful message as both the memorial and the drug war ages, registering their changes over time on Mexico.

The fascination over time lapse and decay in design are not a new thought in architectural discourse, and certainly not in memorial

design. One could look back as far as the mid 19th Century to see respected architectural writer John Ruskin address this: “(...) the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, nor in its gold. Its glory is in its Age, and in that deep sense of voicefulness, of stern watching, of mysterious sympathy, nay, even of approval or condemnation, which we feel in walls that have long been washed by the passing waves of humanity.” John Ruskin, “The Lamp of Memory”, The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849)33 33

John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture (New York: Wiley & Halsted, 1857).

FIGURE 33 Ruins of Bank of England by Joseph Gandy, 1830

FIGURE 34 Ground Zero Viewing Platform, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, 2001

The power of the sublime in architectural ruins, decaying structures and aging of material over time disgusts yet fascinates the

public, exciting them to create new architecture while marveling at the ruins that were created out of horror. This was proven rather recently, after the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11th, 2001. Within mere weeks, Mayor Guliani commissioned the construction of a temporary viewing platform that addressed the publics desire for a dignified place to view the ruins of the trade center. Hazardous air, human and building remains were all that was left of the towers, yet the public clamored to be able to view and reflect. The platform was designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, and consisted mainly of metal scaffolding, plywood, and wooden decking creating an affective experience for the viewers. A typical memorial is static, stoic and intended to represent its subject for eternity, while a landscape is vibrant, alive and never static. The experience that one has in a landscape memorial is unique to the conditions and context of the site on that day. The larger concept of landscape memorials may not be realized until years later, when the vegetation on the site activates different aspects of its design as it matures.

FIGURE 35 Rendering of Flight 93 Memorial by Paul Murdoch architects

The memorial to the Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania combines these different elements to create a memorial site that changes by the seasons, and evolves over time. The static architectural elements are connected through a crescent of 450 red maple trees that will grow and bloom over the subsequent decades, changing the way the memorial is experienced. Instead of an object to focus upon, the memorial to flight 93 provides a platform for its visitors to focus on peace and healing in the wake of a terrible tragedy. Covering 2,200 acres of land with a 3-mile approach to the crash site, the memorial uses time, landscape and scale as a tool to impress on its visitors the scope and significance of the subject and the place memorialized within. Scale, time and landscape as design tools challenge the immediate satisfaction of a static built memorial, transitioning the initial 19

effect of its design from immediate to different moments in its future, preserving the memory of the subject it commemorates. By delaying the instant gratification of the memorial upon dedication, this approach preserves the relevance of the memorial and allows for the interpretation memorial itself to evolve with the society that interprets it.

TRENDS IN ABSTRACTION AND AMBIGUITY The increase of the methods in which the citizens of the world communicate has allowed societies to view and make known the ramifications of the military actions of government. Since these actions are now being broadcast almost in real-time to other parts of the world, narratives and propaganda created by the governments to justify their actions are refuted, discredited and proven wrong. To cope with this, contemporary memorials have adopted an abstract design, focusing on ambiguous, universal elements of a tragedy that all can relate to, instead of a specific patriotic narrative that can be discredited. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial was the first national-scale exhibit of this design, with no flags, symbols or patriotic markings in its initial design. Its only means was to speak to a core subject of war that many countries glorify as a needed sacrifice, death. The abstraction, as mentioned before, allows visitors and the public to connect to the memorial with their own memories, thoughts and personal experiences, creating a much more rich and personal commemoration between the subject and the subject matter.

FIGURE 36, 37, 38 U.S.S Arizona Memorial, Aerial, Entrance and Interior, 1962

While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was the most prolific and controversial abstract memorial, the U.S.S. Arizona Memoria, at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii preceded it with an abstract design. The architecture provided a space for viewing the ruins of the U.S.S. Arizona that was sunken during the attack on Pearl Harbor, where 1,177 crewmen lost their lives. In response to the criticism it received, Architect Alfred Preis defended its design: “Wherein the structure sags in the center but stands strong and vigorous at the ends, expresses initial defeat and ultimate victory … The overall effect is one of serenity. Overtones of sadness have been omitted to permit the individual to contemplate his own personal responses … his innermost feelings.” Alfred Preis, 1962 The variable abstract natures of the memorial are given meaning by the visitors and environment surrounding it. An effective abstract memorial park, albeit not relating to horrific subject matter, is the memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (F.D.R.) in New York City. The Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island was designed by Louis Kahn, providing a landscape and environment that transformed a uninhabitable portion of the island into as Kahn put it, a “room and a garden”. The 4-acre memorial park includes a 3,600 square foot plaza surrounded by 28 blocks of North Carolina granite that contrast with 140,000 cubic feet of Mount Airy Granite. The granite provides platforms for the assemblage of Copper Beach trees and little leaf Linden trees that subtly disconnect the 20

visitor from the NYC surroundings. The memorial engages visitors through its design, letting them answer the questions about the relationships it represents through their own interpretation of the environment. The memorial is completed through the landscape, environment, and user experiences of the spaces designed by Kahn.

FIGURE 40,41 Franklin D. Roosevelt 4 Freedoms Park, Entrance and point perspective, 2012

FIGURE 39 Aerial diagram

Abstraction and ambiguity are realized through geometries when implemented within an architectural design, seeeking to create affective spaces that relate to their subject matter. Acknowledging the connection of this thought to the Phenomenoligical perspective of architectural theory, two examples of architecture that employed these types of methods were analyzed, each memorializing, affecting, and informing their visitors in different ways. The 9/11 Memorial Museum to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks in Manhattan and the National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. were the two buildings studied for the affective spaces they created through their architecture. The 9/11 memorial museum uses dimly lit spaces and lighting techniques to draw the visitors down a winding procession to the base of the foundation of the World Trade Center towers, placing the visitors in the actual site where so many civilians and first responders died on 9/11/2001. The use of the latest in sensory technology, audio, video and projection draw the the visitors into different zones of the spaces that are filled with wreckage, clothing and other ruins of the 9/11 terrorist attack. The museum is chaos on display, rooms that overwhelm the visitor with audio, artifact and video to stimulate a reaction to the scale of the events that occured. The 9/11 memorial museum is not ambiguous in nature, there is clearly a pro-United States rhetoric behind the items displayed within the museum and the much-lauded gift shop, which is one if not the only space in the museum that is bright, white and clean. The descent into the darkness of the exhibits follows a singular set of ramps that intertwine and twist to show views of different elements of the foundation of the World Trade Center towers, framing views and perspectives to affect its viewers. The return to the surface of the memorial museum, and to the surface of the memorial is achieved through a singular illuminated escalator and elevator, metaphorically bringing the visitor out of darkness and back into the light, which coincidentally, is the gift shop in the lobby. The images in FIGURE 40A show the controlled use of light and material used by the memorial museum architecture. The National Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., designed and created 16 years earlier in the late 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s can be seen as a precedent for many of the tools that the 9/11 museum implements. Ambiguity again is not at play in its design, but the architecture of the spaces created affects the visitors through disorientation and display of the sheer amount of artifacts of memorabilia from the Holocaust. The architecture assists, through the display of this information, in creating an affective environment that communicates the scale of the Holocaust. 21

While the location of the museum is not on the site of an actual concentration camp, the architecture of the museum is still able to powerfully create experiences within the museum that are equally effective. James Ingo Freed, the architect of the museum, uses the simple play of light and shadows in circulation and main gathering spaces to reference some of the oppressive elements of the concentration camps. The scale of the memorabilia and artifacts from different concentration camps are combined in different spaces to communicate this scale, enhanced by the architecture to affect the visitors. Images in FIGURE 40B illustrate some of the affective spaces experienced through the abstract geometries of the museum. The United States is again facing a challenging decision on how to commemorate an equally complex and horrific subject matter, the War on Terror. As it enters into its 15th year of military action, the war maintains comparison to the Vietnam War, with support for military action waning since the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden in 2011. The War on Terror represents the first major war the United States has engaged in during the age of the Internet, an untested factor that has served to circumvent governments, spread hate, and contradict the reported military actions of the United States themselves. The contemporary methods outlined above assist in establishing successful design strategies a contemporary memorial should incorporate in an age where terrorism is now defined depending on your perspective and position in relation to the military action taken.

FIGURES 42,43,44,45 9/11 Memorial Museum

FIGURES 46,47,48,49 National Holocaust Memorial Museum

PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN WAR 1899-1902 PUGET SOUND WAR ROGUE RIVER WARS 1855-1856

19 25

BOXER REBELLION 1899-1901 THIRD SEMINOLE WAR YAKIMA WAR 1855-1858

19 36

OVERTHROW OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII 1893 SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR 1898

UTAH WAR 1857-1858

1.1 million casualties

19 0

SHEEPEATER INDIAN WAR 1879

WHITE RIVER WAR 1879-1880

FIRST & SECOND CORTINA WAR 1859-1861

7.5 million Civilian casualties 10.8 million Military casualties

CHEYENNE WAR 1878-1879 DAKOTA WAR OF 1862 1862

WORLD WAR 1 1917-1918 NEZ PERCE WAR 1877 BANNOCK WAR 1878 AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1861-1865

19 33

COLORADO WAR 1863-1865

19 24

18 75 18 50

LAS CUEVAS WAR 1875 GREAT SIOUX WAR OF 1876 1876 NAVAJO WARS 1858-1866

19 16

19 06

18 95

18 90

18 72

18 64

RED RIVER WAR 1874-1875 SNAKE WAR 1864-1868

19 37

e. or sh ea ls na tio . na ea r st t fir na en tio the em y ea es ag e b cr re an vic om al ec l m er n ra k S io sb at ra de ar fe P tn t te s r d al Ha s fi an tion pe me ed a at r N Ca co e be cr de t. d s. un en rp d ea o e t lt. M um n C ida ve ke on tio sol ose La lm a rv on Ro na se s c D. tio on ts i in na l a n C en nk ia m ra ed vil nu t F at n Ci o en g m i . of sid es . e , d ed Pr elt nts ty ish er ev e bl os um Lib sta e Ro on of is e m t. ue e or al en at vic od ion um St er he at on tT n M kS ar en ate al . lP sid n n ed re sig tio na a e P ish io d N y bl t at o b N d y t firs sta . ne rit is ke ed ar sig tho g n i h u kp lis t is a m o s b me ee Ac ent y sta co Cr e ies id n W k be ck r uit res r i Pa ga Ro tiq p we ry oo & An ving s To an rk lita a t i gi vil t P ha al lM De n C nt na & tio ra io a a at t G rk ” ug te N N en a e. rg ma i id c p pl m a e bu es li eo ick Yos Pr pub f p tys et Ch k, ter “ t o r s G af s a en ld pa rk a m fie ry Pa res joy ttle lita al c n e a n ba mi io n or ar al ln at lio t W on ed co N il efi M st en vil ati ed Lin r 2 b . fi Ci n t de 2 e s s e am e fir ng th r m ar rah i co at fo ve b be ign nd ro A s u G nt ne de ro a de g to os si ws law ng ip re llo a uri ar y P Ye ns as M b sig ple and rnia or y ifo lle al Va of C te mi ate se st Yo the to

FIGURE 50 Research Timeline

MODOC WAR 1872-1873 RED CLOUD’S WAR 1866-1868

1920 CAYUSE WAR 1847-1855

1,000,000 annual visitors to national parks.

APACHE WARS 1850-1900

19 60

200,000,000 est. 587,000 Civilian casualties est. 726,000 Military casualties

250,000

17,000,000 annual visitors to national parks.

150,000,000

2000

125,000

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN 2001-PRESENT

2014

250,000,000 225,000,000

VIETNAM WAR 1955-1973

500,000 PRESENT YEAR

375,000,000

KOSOVO WAR 1998-1999

1,000,000

WAR IN IRAQ 2003-2011

1940

125,000,000

100,000,000

286,000,000 annual visitors to national parks.

1979

400,000,000 est. 220,000+ Civilian casualties est. 66,700+ Military casualties est. 38-55 million Civilian casualties est. 22-25 million Military casualties

20 25 0

20 0

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR 2001-PRESENT WORLD WAR 2 1941-1945

20 16 6

20 0

19 75 19 50

50,000,000 25,000,000

100,000,000 annual visitors to national parks.

20 04

20 01

19 92

19 84

19 80

19 72

75,000,000

205,369,795 annual visitors to national parks, Non-recreational visitors recorded.

1963

300,000,000 275,000,000

4,964 Civilian casualties 35,292 Military casualties est. 2.5 million Civilian casualties est. 1 million Military casualties

350,000,000 est. 13,500 Civilian casualties est. 3,300 Military casualties

325,000,000

GULF WAR 1990-1991 KOREAN WAR 1950-1953

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

e. vic er kS ar lP na io at . N d of me nt. ry ai l fro rsa oc e pr ive of om nn t is rs h n ra be on me ea u em ions hy on n m ill 0t M l llio d m 10 a n mi n io 6 da at r 1 ie N d no t d un ho tha ro to ans lG ted ric ria ica me Bu ed A an ld 9 ric ia 39 Af or 5, em 40 re a. M g r, to re r. II in s d A na nte ar lu re za W inc m ion Ce an ris at e ld s M or rce ee re ad c r t T e II, l W Fo lun l R ld W na ed vo na or W io m d o r W i g t n at rin N S. A s a Na s on du U. hip te ck s a ns er G tta ica . rtn en 1 a er ed pa ld /1 Am oriz te Go r 9 e iva in te es uth n a nd pr ld af pa is sa ic- ie ls Ja nd oi bl F ea Pu issy n h llin ed a I e t n i Cr atio ter S the s. e c n l i i N ss, e ng mi 0 or t re om o al re ng ec 00 is a d 0, l H Co es b he squ 12 na s i by acr ly tio bl 0 ar a ed n ta 5 es g 4 ne a N gn llio i s s i lin of s mi l e s i te m ea ta ct 3.2 Si co on es ar to illi d e nA . 1 or be g o d -b gra i m ita rri at te . $1 up th er o rv ys ve r, re 50 lh lc se S er a k n ea o e r es na n -y d m th t. Co Pa Pr c tio Ca 10 an rate A ds al nd t, na n c , a ers mo st iga an ion a em t L at rk n A st Fir ich 66 nt e s ’ es N Pa tio Sy rk d. N ce mm M ter to nal va ils O or co 66 Yo e r I h t i s e S i Tra l In es io l r t s w l IS Vis S. to 19 e b e na ac Na Pr na N ta . in M s. io d es at ion as ric tio es rk U ce an as N ill Eli ch pa s the ervi sto Na e i e n l r t u ka m t. d H a a la na os S as 47 ll-S G on al an e tio acr ark n Al ds ge o en ti P ct, i t vic na s A ld ea ad an a r r er de ark nal s o c e W s N ark k S ra p tio sG lr ar g ny a o’ na sse e P l P up a N isc tio pa th na to to m f the nc a ss in io ra y n re rs at am d o ng tee n F wa N ogr dde ary Sa ate Co olun pr re a ers G V a nniv a

19 56

UNITED STATES WARS 1847-PRESENT

175,000,000

19 35

19 36

19 25

19 33

19 32

19 30

s re

19 23

s re ac

19 18

s re ac

46 8. 79

ile

50 0.

s re ac

go pa a Pa rizon

s re

3. 05

s re

ac n res yo ac an 960

0 ac e 8, us .60 ff 08 1, Ho 9 Blu a s cc ado ott ska Yu olor Sc ebra

ur do t C sa lora nu no h-Co al ona W riz ta

o ac ar .43 gu 50 Sa 2,0

19 19 N

6 .0

19 17

illo br rnia Ca alifo

19 13

19 22

19 11

19 10

19 24 19 16

s es up es ve s re s cr cr ro s s re es ve 2 a n ac s a re G cre Ca cre ac c cr 0 o a ve 3.03 Ca719.2 ny 7,44 ings 0 a ity 57 a in .6 a os 0 ad 20 4 a C d 4 r yc a 3 nog 25 n Ca 59 Ru ico ba xico e C Sp nd l C kot a a s l e r e a ou ssi Da imp tec ex yc M hm da Ca ew Br tah Pip rizon M hio Az ew M Fo outh T tah Le eva U O N S A U

s re ac

19 14

s re on ac nis 6 .3 un 1 Gs s s 58 s re 8, re s the cre s s acre 4 ac re s ac re e a s 8 s re 8 ac of 5 re ac re 84 un 8.36 .0 9 n .9 ac 6. r ac ac 7 D 0 s 3 40 y 8 0 o 2 8 e 1 n 5 s k a 0 t 1. 4 5 5 e y d 2 2 o d l a e 5,3 l n ad s 1, 52 ,1 5, 70 n , 3, ra ,04 n 0 e r 3 7 r 3 4, 5, Ca 1 ro 5 Va ev C Tre 82 Sa 3 Sa co1 ffe 4 a -N rB i h et e t e x at o ia J ua a t ck o u ns a da re ad rt a sh rni la rad ag na ea rn hi Me Su rizon G olor Ce tah B Colo S Arizo D Califo W ew Fo lorid Jo alifo A C

8 tp 3, do 1 Pos ra lo ado vil rnia Co olor De alifo

19 15

r s re in 2 ac ac es es ts es nta 0.4 2 cr e acr s a d 35 ou 64 Mon acr 0 an acre 53 r 3, 0 an 8 M 4 2 e 2 r 0 e 43 G de 5,0 eli ico dy ota lin ico ai k n pu Mex leur e and Mex sa a tm re Da Ca ew S ain B ew Ca rizon Ka laska Ve orth N

r s s n es e ac s r re re s es ac oss es oo acr 58 ac re ac 5. is y acr es M .8 s 12 ac 92 r cr .1 as e 31 w s cr e 51 re 5. ne .5 9. t C a c a 3 9, Le re 4 34 z cr 51 i d .5 f th 2,6 a ,65 ,2 an a ion 8. k 0 a ck s 5,58 ille 007 Bay ,37 her 0 ac d . 1 ki 2 at 1 ar 1 ulas 2 Pinolina oo 2 rs o 2 ahu 3 et 5 Be 4 er Mk ier at M M le r W k e c a riw see iri a up a rt a rt a rt P ia st Ca rt Yor at va rni th Yor lac W rizon Fo lorid Fo lorid Fo eorg Ca outh Fo ew Cr aho Ch rizon La alifo Fa ew G laska Me nnes F F N Id A e N S C A

sa Ka ld ska O

ld fie e ttle es idg s Ba acr Br acre 5 ow 60 inb 1 tka Ra tah Si laska ta

le Ho na

g Bi

s re tle s ac e as res cr c a st 02 0 re 76. a C.39 a er 16 m 1 Fo ,7 u o ow 60 16 r o tez or xic sT M Me vil ming on ona El ew De yo riz

19 29 8

19 0

19 25 0 19 0

18 75

re s

ria l ee use M , .0 em 8 o

30 rid So a to Flo

75 7.5 1 re s

re s

19 od 9. 65 ac

4, 83 0. 22

re s re s

1. nge 04 ac re s

re s 13 e 8. 39 ac

Co F ro Flor ort C n na ad ida ar ol o in izo

17 od 7.7 6 ac

i o N am N ede Ar rka Ind nc P h R rlin ew i o ew r ka n lto ennsy nsto Vi ob gto ns sa iana ln Y Yo al r e o Bo as s lv w nH r n rk Ha gini rt Po a E yh k Gr ania n F l o Li

or ia l

M M f fe Di C So ou iss rs str W uth n ou o ict a n r i Da t Ru of r M N Co ko sh at ta m lum em i on o bi or al 1, re a ia 27 Ex l 8. 19 p 45 2. an ac 83 s i re o ac n s re s en e

or ia l Di hn str ict Pa of ul Co Jo ra lum n nt bi es .7 6 a M ac em re s

Yo ral rk G

Di nc Di hn Di lys N rig or str ol str str se th ht ict n ict Er ic Ca Br of M t of s S of ics ro ot Co em Co . G Co so lin he lum o lum n lum ra a rs N bi ria n b b M i i t a a a l a M tio 42 em e n 8. o mo 7.2 al 44 ri 9 M ria ac al ac em l re re s s 10

s 9 os 1,3 Cr s ly ado che Ho olor Ar tah C

d fie tri ona Ar

s re

nto a To rizon

91 3. 19 1,

19 0

31 19

18 50

t res en 1 ac um 6.0

on Ma on bi

es cr

a gs res s .13 es re llin ac nic acr n 643 s ac re we 160 ca 80 ne 20 nyo 10, ac 2 l 1 D , , 0 Vo 1 Co 5 Caco iff 64 Cl xico en ia er ia co xi ila Me Lass liforn ind iforn ha w Me C al C e G ew a

rn s re n ve c es o a cr s s s Zi Ca re re s s re 56 s c / n s 0a s e k s s r re r ac 4. re ac s s pu ,20 ar cre ge s on 0 a 0 ac 0 re 27 ve cre ap re es ac s ac e a , i c 2 6 y v a e r 0 0 r Cl a id es cr ac lym 639 32 ve 1 od 295 an 8,1 ivi 1 Ca 10 -w 0 a Ca 5.8 0 r 30 co a d 60 Br acr s 1, 2 0 a 0 1 0 o u o 6 C e 8 t 36 t O n n ta o ,0 C n al 20 cle ca 1 an o W ele n to un 16 ego n 4 vajo nd n Q xic so g ir nia tur 1 na rnia el ak he ado ma a is na ra a r a a ou ing ra Me ho omin uk h W olor Tu rizon Lewonta Na tah Pin alifo Jew uth D Mu alifor G rizon G ew S y M ta O rego N rizon M ash o C A C

55 19

3 48 94 1 19

35 19

22 19

26 19

gt lum hin f Co

as t o W istric

85 18

19 0

60 19

o to Th istric

62 19

ff Je olumb

64 19

27 19

s ma

nM so er ia

& e M5.8 ry eac 2 o t P c Vi al â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tion y rr a Pe tern In hio

97 18

U.S. MONUMENT COMMEMORATION

19 41

l ia res or ac em 8.36 re

19 52 l ia or s

12 19

19 07

re s

U.S. MEMORIAL COMMEMORATION

s re ac

20 14

es cr 0 97

es cr

20 12

s re ins ac nta s30 ou cres tain ,3 96 l M 0 a un rie 00 o s 4 , ab 350 n M eak s a n G rnia rg rt P xico ier ld Sa lifo O se e M So Ca De ew o l N ffa d s Bu s oa s re k res s z s ac an ailr acre re ng cre ve cre oc ac 1 ac ou 5 a bm R 0 8 ha .5 a y R ,726 rd 4,65 Tu und 1,75 s Y 9.6 te ,10 1 r C 10 ne 4 rle 5 Sta e 1 riet gro 1 sa nia im do t O nia r r r t a a r r h a s r Ce alifo C olor Fo alifo Ch hio Fir elaw Ha nde land C C C O D U ary

20 13

20 11

as W

e a ro .21 on 25 M 3 r t ia Fo irgin

te a or ,555 l N 2 ds 4 de 2 lan e s nd nI ra ico Jua ton n hing

, 13

20 0

20 01

19 96

s re

es cr

20 0

19 78

20 0

20 01

20 0

20 13

c s nd cifi Pa sla s e nI am h t u ck s ia s d G n t s i ds iles ai ile n Ro cre u e M l r s& h en an M nt 8 a lo Mi aw are ro res nc nd es a c e Isl re G Te ,14 nm s H a cr V l qu ar re Isla e qua n S I 5 a ter re e 4 in 07 a I qu s T na iles mot 88 S In 5 ac tuw ter 00 uri .34 ar 0 S na ria M Pla 04,1 es 0,0 n B ka 2.7 Ka W ,31 ia Ma are Re 6,8 do 7 a- ico izo 2 thw 14 ca rk ld 6 ar er qu fic 8 sh Mex arr rnia or ii or ii fri Yo M orth 16 S aci aii N awa A ew P aw W awa N 5,2 Ka ew C alifo N H o ah Id

l a es ol mo Mil At Sa re se can qua Ro meri 51 S

19 39

19 38

20 25 0 20 0

19 75 19 50

19 37

Ly M nd

em or ia l Di eo str rg ict e of M Co a lum so bi n a M es

n t on he Po 17 tom ac a r c

Di em on str ict or Ba in of ia Co l G es lum ro Jo bi ve hn a o s

Di ore str a ict n of W Co a lum r V bi et a er

cr es

em 1. or 56 ia a l

sM C

za l

Te ha xa m s i

54 .

re s

Di oo klin str se D ict v of elt ela Co M n lum e o bi mo a r

ia l

Fr R an

re s

Di ar Pe ligh D me M wig st ti nn t Di isa ric sy 93 rict n L an Distri emo ht D str b of u lva i l ct e ct ri Co th nia V of d of a Eis lum er en Co fo ete Co l bi Kin .2 lum r L ra ho lum a ,3 g, we bi ife ns b 19 ia a Jr. M .9 r 6 M e 10 m ac 4 e 4, o ac re m s 40 ria re 2. o s 0 l 74 ria ftÂ˛ ac l re s s

ini M

s n nk f s ts ha ee cre Ba as ien l R a er ar res al nc s u ra 708 Riv s s es es n-P ac ast nd re iyo res e A cre cr Co 12, ri cre rt cr r a ac sk ac th a ia a yo 00 o es ou 6 a se 9 a lla s Isl s ds 0 Si 0 f 00 o 69 n ,0 C acr iss ,34 De 6,14 s Pi acre rs acre lan e - ,00 s o 4,0 qu 7,7 Ca 014 ia 3 ria ,10 7 n 8 n o , 1 e y 1 8 M s s 7 0 n I a ad 52 yon o 16 n S ia 32 nd 1 lifor ia 8 ua F 7 er rk 2 in and er a 3 or 4 mpe na 5 sc n n ad ia rn ra na a rn g na a ov Yo rg Isl pp an n na Ca rego Ca olor G alifo G rizo C alifo A rizo G ew Vi irgin U ont So rizo Po ont A A C

s re

e om s s H cre ier 3 a nte d l 2. la s s re s rs s So ca s s re e c e r re ac re Es cre & s a ac Riv ac ias 0 a ac 00 s re ln l 00 st es se 00 00 y 00 00 a iff ac co 0 re acr ch 5,0 , 0, le ,0 t. E 0, ,0 c 0 r Cl 000 Lin . Fo 17 ea 19 ts 60 ar 20 S 95 80 ai 0 la 10, -Ch 1,7 ell- 10, k 5,8 on 3, nt D.C d 8,9 R St 1,7 illi 29 ide ton oo 12 ord ton\ n nF ng ta nd m a a r ko a ra a ko es ing nw a nf ng ra Ve rizon Pr ash Iro rizon Ha ashi G tah Yu laska Yu lask W lask No laska W A A A U

19 43

74 19

r s r c a re a n cre e ac ac re ge 0 ac ac cr cti 0 0 r a ac d 0 ac 0 0 d a ac i 0 n ,0 00 te 0 00 00 Ar 0,00 00 0 00 Br 0,0 00 0, ns ,00 0, y ,0 ,0 Isla 00 0, 0 e s 2 0 s ,0 0 , 89 se 0 k 50 nd ,59 ,1 ,2 rd 85 k 50 lle 71 rd 0 th ,2 3, ru 56 La 2 rof 1 cha 3 ralty 1 jo 2,2 lar 2, Va 1, Fjo 57 of 8 li K s i k k i C e a e yF ha ng ke ka obu ka ena ka Gat ska Den ska Cap ska eri ska Bec ska Ania ska Adm ska s B la a a K las K las a a a la la Al Al Al Al Al ka

ist

19 49

11 20

97 994 993 987 1 19 1 1

84 19

82 19

19 56

kla

ma ho lk a homa O

illi

26 N

l na Ca s s es s re s s re tu cr es s re hio cres s ac s re nd res s cr ry e re ac c a 8 d a e ac f a O ac la ac r s o s cr e s 4 e f 60 Ca 690 a s I on ac 0 ac e .41 lan 9.9 e & at cre .9 67 e 50 cr d r 5 a R 3 a ee 7,0 e 0, e e n ny ,546 2. sa ,50 o mi 14 Is ,11 ol ,9 00 .4 u b 10 ,0 H .51 l R 3 Pip 33 ra 2 el 1 ot 4 o 9 nd 50 av 10 ak ,26 o 2 a R Ca 2 1 8 3 5 n e a o a n to M 1 e 3 an nL y ig a ta t L ing an nia Isl nds ll C pi so ap e y g r r g n bl z a ck in iso Jers ck Isla sse ma es land ar a Tu rizon Sa orida Fo yom Ch alifo Ca tah Or rizon fig Ja yom Ef wa Ed ew M rizon C A W Bu irgin Ru laba Ch ary U Fl A o W

19 61

r W nd ge Isla Ro hode

cre

s a am .56

67 66 65 19 19 19

FIGURE 51 Research Timeline

ty 3 acr

0 04 002 00 2 2 20

l C

14 20

ria

ic Ch rt ornia o f P ali

72 19

19 69

us ca

o em

120

t M 1.9

0 5.

o ag

ld C or t of W istric

H es ia at lumb St

e M II a ar umbi W ol

ia or s em acre

av acre

eu us

d Co ite t of yM Un istric av D N es ia at b St olum d C ite t of Un tric

o ol

l cres ria 25 a o m 8.

ag M al s

e in az nc e s er nd gn epe i S nd 56 of I the ion l to rat l ria cla mbia ia s o e lu or acre em e D f Co m 8 e .1 M f th ct o sM 2 o istri an D r te ia Ve mb m Colu a f etn t o Vi istric

ko sz s ciu acre s Ko .02 d res us ia e an ac n d Isl 8.5 adnsylva t l 8 h T en e ev P os ia o R b re lum do of Co o e t Th istric

ARCHITECTURE AND THE MEMORIAL “A design isn’t finished until someone is using it” -Brenda Laurel

Memorials follow styles and trends in design, making social and political commentary, subtly or flagrantly, regarding the subject it commemorates. Architectural design reflects political positions. This is especially apparent in Washington D.C. The capital city of the United States was designed to be a memorial to the nation. The U.S. faces mounting pressure on establishing memorials representing oppressed groups, now given a voice through new methods of technology and communication.34 En Memoriam utilized research methods aimed to examine monuments and memorials in Washington D.C. through the critical theory paradigm, analyzing the ignored populace of established memorials. Civilian casualties, residual damage to war torn areas and psychological damage to family members of service members are examples of this populace, the magnitude of the effect contingent on the location, duration and type of war fought.35 It used grounded theory to analyze war and military memorials in Washington D.C. elsewhere to codify shared design characteristics, while revealing areas of representation that their design is similarly lacking in. This analysis exposed areas of disparity in the memorials design, construction and implementation. These observations provided new ways to analyze and define larger issues existent in the culture of commemoration across the United States.36 Grounded theory was chosen over other qualitative methods because of its strength and power to conceptualize different perceptions of reality based on data, important factors when dealing with political constructs of any sort. As opposed to case study,37 historiography38 or action research,39 grounded theory analyzes empirical data and interprets from a different cultural viewpoint, exposing weaknesses in the memorial design from its conception. Since memorials change meaning as time progresses and culture changes, this method allowed for a study to determine theories based on the design metrics of the memorials. The information derived from this method is employed to design future memorials that alleviate the design flaws of those researched. The strengths of this method are related to the objective analysis of the different memorials and monuments, including acknowledging (but not succumbing to) the inherent political narrative existent in their design. Grounded theory allowed an analysis of the different formal and cultural categories responsible for the formation of the monument or memorial in question, producing data that clarified the complex social issues of memorialization in different ethnic or social populations existent in the United States. Creating a rich data set through a multiplicity of empirical methods was a strong feature of utilizing grounded theory, as it helped incorporate many different realities to forge a new perspective not apparent in the current memorial design culture. Weaknesses of the methodology are related to the paradigm and cultural upbringing that is involved in the background of the researcher. The cultural knowledge and history of the researcher when researching may prohibit an objective statement from being made, as all are prone to some sort of bias from the conditions in which we are raised. This could lead to assumptions made by the researcher that 34 Savage, Monument Wars: Washington D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape. 35 Critical Theory: Seeks human emancipation to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them. 36 Grounded Theory: Systematic methodology in the social sciences involving the construction of theory through the analysis of data. 37 Case Study: An intensive analysis of an individual unit (as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to environment. 38 Historiography: The writing of history; especially: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods 39 Action Research: Research initiated to solve an immediate problem or a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a “community of practice

are not objective, skewing the data set gathered. En Memoriam acknowledges the current state of monumentality within the cultural zeitgeist, and incorporates ideas from Louis Kahn’s investigation into monumentality during the early 1940’s as an element of its design proposal for a War on Terror memorial. Louis Kahn provided arguments on monumentality during a cultural transition out of modernism; En Memoriam recognizes and suggests that the culture in the United States is now transitioning out of postmodernism, with monumentality needing to be re-analyzed for a contemporary audience. The specific tactics employed to investigate this phenomenon was a codified empirical investigation and series of site visits in Washington D.C. during March 2015. Techniques of recording empirical data on codified sheets and observing the memorial culture in Washington D.C. helped provide a rich data set from which a grounded theory regarding memorial design was drawn. Similar theses that approached memorialization and death were utilized to form the foundation of the logic and methods of En Memoriam. A thesis by Queena Yi from the University of Washington’s Master of Architecture program titled Memento Mori | A Nonsectarian Memorial Site in Seattle investigated re-instituting the program of the cemetery back into the urban fabric, analyzing existing methods of memorialization from the author’s personal experiences of traveling abroad in three separate instances. The combination of the author’s three different analyses of death in each culture together with a discussion on the process of memorialization and death produced a conceptual design for a contemporary urban-based cemetery. Another thesis from the University of Buffalo’s M.Arch program titled Unveiling Memory-Tracing of Knowledge in Physical Material by Rami Haydar focused on discussing the overarching issue implicit in any form of memorial or monument design: the incorporation of memory into physical media. This thesis provided analysis example that assisted in the framework and creation of En Memoriam. En Memoriam was initiated in three different phases: (1) Historical data collection and analysis, (2) Empirical data collection and analysis and (3) Memorial design proposal. Phase one involved the research of memorial and monument culture in the United States, creating a detailed timeline of the events that were commemorated and the time period in which they took place, mainly focusing on war and military action in the 19th and 20th century. Phase one involved investigation into the history of commemoration in the United States, as well as the trends of design and construction of their corresponding memorials. This amalgamation of information, as explained earlier in this thesis, provided the context for contemporary monument and memorial design to be analyzed based on the earlier described methods. The resultant timeline is displayed previous to this section (figure 41). Phase two involved travel to local memorials and Washington D.C. to observe, gather and codify empirical data through observation. This observation and data was recorded denominating the different cultural, architectural, and spatial characteristics of the memorial to determine its effectiveness as a design. Phase two utilized the following means of documentation to acquire data: photography, video, interviews with park service employees, and a form that records different design criteria objectively to separate politics from memorial and monument design. Phase two also involved the processing of this data gathered in the empirical site visit, utilizing sentiments of monumentality in architecture and psychology to suggest variable perspectives of the subject commemorated that are usually ignored in a memorial design. The second phase built upon the historical investigation of the first, fusing the results from each to inform phase three. Phase three combined outcomes and concepts of the first two phases and incorporated them into a design proposal for a memorial commemorating the War on Terror in Washington D.C. The scope of the proposal developed conceptual design drawings and material choices, but was not specified in construction drawings or detail models. Plans, sections, models, and renderings were made with intention to represent the experiences within the spaces of the memorial design. 28

The acknowledgment of the politics imbibed within the history of the memorial along with contemporary commemoration methods were the basis for the creation of an objective classification system, analyzing the effectiveness of the memorial solely through its design. The process in phase two was executed through a series of empirical site visits to record the design elements of established memorials and monuments, culminating with an analysis of the national mall and its related memorials. Given the time and scope of this thesis, 30 memorials were studied using this system. Seven memorials are discussed in detail as an example of the process with the remaining memorials provided as reference in the following pages. MEMORIAL:

LOCATION:

DESIGNER:

WAR:

YEARS FOUGHT:

LOCATION:

BOX 1 BOX 2

NOTES:

CHARACTER

BOX 3

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) BOX 4A VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

BOX 5

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)BOX 4B WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN _________ _________ _________

BOX 7

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

_________ _________ _________

BOX 6

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

FIGURE 52 Analysis form

MEMORIAL DESIGN ANALYSIS

Each memorial intends to communicate a narrative related to the subject commemorated. The form distills the narrative of the

memorial into its differing elements, first classifying the name, location and designer of the memorial (FIGURE 42, box 1), then registering the subject or war, the time elapsed / years fought and location the subject / war predominantly took place (FIGURE 42, box 2). The differing characters of the narrative represented in the memorial are then observed, also taking into account alternate characters and perspectives that were not a part of the approved narrative at the time of the memorials commission (FIGURE 42, box 3). With the characters and background information on the subject of the memorial acknowledged, the actual design of the memorial is then classified to divulge trends in design across the memorials studied. The form classifies the design in its different parts, from the concept of the design to the differing architectural and landscape design elements present (FIGURE 42, box 4A, 4B). To fully understand the impact of the scale, design and place of the memorial, as many memorials and monuments were visited within the time allotted for the duration and scope of the thesis, with the status of whether the memorial being classified was visited or not denoted in FIGURE 42, box 5. The final element that was analyzed was the formal design of the memorial and how it represented the subject it was commemorating, either through direct or ambiguous representation. A direct design consisted of detailed statues, plaques, engraved stones 29

or related elements that directly conveyed the message the public was to interpret from the memorial, framing the subject in an approved manner(FIGURE 42, box 6). An ambiguous design consists of abstract elements that do not clearly convey a narrative; it makes the public project their personal experiences relating to the subject onto the design elements present, which completes an incredibly personal narrative of the memorial that is not controlled. It lends itself to differing responses of the subject, making each interpretation subjective to the personal values of the viewers (FIGURE 42, box 7). This system was applied to different monuments and memorials commemorating death, violence and war across the world, with differing results. The following memorials were chosen as they best exhibited a range of results from the process, and were able to be empirically studied during the scope of this thesis. MEMORIAL: Vietnam Veterans

LOCATION: Washington D.C.

DESIGNER: Maya Lin

WAR: Vietnam War

YEARS FOUGHT: 1955-1975

LOCATION: South Vietnam

NOTES:

3 acre area with memorial wall sunk into ground. On site of old munitions factory from WWI.

Ambiguous memorial design controversial for lack of ornamentation and called "black gash of shame" Ambiguity allows visitors to complete design through projection of own personal experience coupled with emotions the design elicits.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER PR-U.S. Servicemen

AN-Vietcong

CHARACTER

AN-U.S. Servicemen

NE-Vietnamese Civilians

CHARACTER

PR-Vietcong

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

2 solid Gabbro Walls, engraved with death of servicemen.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

Walls get higher entering into apex, lower when exiting. Axis with WM & LM

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

_________ _________ _________

YES NO

�

3/2015 ___________

Design decisions of memorial wall �

�

WATER

PATHWAYS

GRASS TREES

HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN

PR-Pathway/Walls _________ AN-Memorial Grounds _________ NE-Pathway/Walls _________

WAR: Iraq & Afghanistan Wars

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

CLEAR ALL

FIGURE 53 Vietnam Veterans Memorial analysis form MEMORIAL: Gratitude & Honor LOCATION: Irvine, California

VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL

_________ _________ _________

YEARS FOUGHT: 2003-Ongoing

DESIGNER:

City of Northwood

LOCATION:

Iraq & Afghanistan

The national memorial to the Vietnam War commemorated the Vietnam War from 1955-1975 and is situated on a 3-acre site Part of 14 acre park. Made of 5 granite covered pedestals standing side by side that list names of fallen servicemen. NOTES:

Can list up to 8,000 names, is updated on a yearly basis.

Inspired by Vietnam Veterans Memorial in D.C., uses data from Pentagon.

on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. An old location of a World War I era munitions factory, the site has since been conditioned to On street corner, surrounded by traffic with flag pole in center.

Started out as temporary memorial of wooden posts in background of field, grew into permanent.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION:

combine an abstract installation ofCHARACTER stone gabbro walls sunken within CHARACTER a simple landscape that includes CHARACTER descending paths to view inscribed CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER PR-U.S. Servicemen

AN-Iraqi Military

NE-Civilian Casualties

AN-Afghanistan Military

PR-Al Qaeda

names on the walls. The original design removes standard pro-United States rhetoric to focus specifically on an outcome of war and death REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED in a more solemn and serene way. As one approaches the engraved gabbro walls, theyNOT areREPRESENTED brought down to the center of the memorial, COUNTRY

COUNTRY

FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE the list of the dead growing with the size of the wall asFIGURE they descend. The descent separates the public from the national mall, allowing them IDEA

IDEA

GROUP GROUP GROUP to focus solely on theGROUP names of the dead, their reflection in the polished GROUP stone creating a GROUP more intimate and personal experience. In the

CONCEPT:

Create a simple memorial for ongoing Wars in Middle East.

Claims to be only Memorial in U.S. to these Wars.

United States, the Vietnam War was controversial; it was the first major war to be covered by extensive television and broadcast journalism. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

VISITED

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

Pavers WATERby each side PATHWAYS VISITOR COURTYARD _________ YES This brought resentment andCENTER awareness to the public_________ about the horrors perpetrated of the war, damaging the reputation of the �

United States as

ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ __________ SERVICEfor SPACES _________ liberators justice and democracy.

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

Placement / array of pedestal

�

___________

GRASS TREES

HILLS BENCHES

�

Flagpole _________ _________

FORMAL DESIGN

STATUE(S) PR-Courtyard/Path The perspective ofAMBIGUOUS the United States placed the Vietcong as the antagonist, supporting the spread of communism, which at the time HIGHLY _________ DIRECT �

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

�

AN-Pedestals _________

AMBIGUOUS

PLAQUE

ENGRAVED STONE civilians, the Vietcong NE-Park Spaceof the United States. From the perspective of some was considered detrimental to the interests and culture Vietnamese LOW AMBIGUITY _________ �

were protectors of North Vietnam and the United States was the antagonist, invading and destabilizing their country. 30

The ambiguity in the design of the memorial is meant to reflect the controversial nature and differing opinions of the Vietnam War, providing a design that does not preach to the public a specific narrative, rather, depends on their personal relationship with the war to define it. In choosing to specifically not acknowledge the pro-U.S. rhetoric, it also ignores the tortured, raped and murdered civilians that were ramifications of the invasion of Vietnam. The positioning of the memorial on the national mall amongst other war and national memorials does not assist in its effectiveness, rather, it subdues it as another link in the chain of memorials that â&#x20AC;&#x153;need to be seenâ&#x20AC;? rather than appreciated within their own particular context and subject matter. Maya Linâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design does disconnect the viewer from the mall, but the popularity of the memorial has decreased its effectiveness to those with no personal experience of the Vietnam War.

FIGURE 54 Vietnam Veterans Memorial entrance

FIGURE 55 Vietnam Veterans Memorial ground / wall plane

FIGURE 56 Vietnam Veterans Memorial landscape

World War II Memorial

MEMORIAL:

WAR: World War II NOTES:

LOCATION: Washington D.C.

DESIGNER:

YEARS FOUGHT: 1939-1945

LOCATION: Europe

Friedrich St. Florian

7.4 Acre area, Mainly landscape and Water features. Site of former rainbow pool at end of reflecting pool.

Controversy over broken view between Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, Took open space used for protesting

Design was criticized as pompous, full of trite imagery, courtyard filled with reliefs telling story of war

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

AN-U.S. Soldiers

PR-Axis Powers

NE-Civilian Deaths

CHARACTER

AN-Allied Soldiers

CHARACTER

PR-PTSD / Effects

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Semi-Circle of 56 granite pillars, for all U.S. State / Territories.Bass reliefs and engravings tell "story" of deployment

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE Archway __________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

_________ _________ _________

YES NO

�

3/2015 ___________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Arrangement of Pillars HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

�

WWII VALOR WAR: MEMORIAL World War

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN

PR-Pillars/Circle _________ AN-National Mall _________ NE-Water Feature _________

FIGURE 57 WWII Valor Memorial analysis form U.S.S. Arizona Memorial MEMORIAL:

WATER GRASS TREES

�

Fountain _________ Pool _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

CLEAR ALL

DESIGNER: Alfred Preis

Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii

LOCATION:

LOCATION: Europe

YEARS FOUGHT: 1939-1945

10.50 Acre area, hovers over wreckage of U.S.S. Arizona, navy ship sunk in bombing at Pearl Harbor.

NOTES: The national memorial to World War II in Washington D.C. commemorates the involvement of the United States in the Second "Squashed Milk Carton", ambiguous design removes sadness from event to "permit individual to contemplate his own personal responses, innermost feelings"

Design is 3 parts of program: entry + assembly room + shrine / 7 windows to commemorate date, 21 windows allow personal interp. World War, from 1939-1945. Built on a 7.4-acre area on the National Mall and designed by architect Friedrich St. Florian, the memorial

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION:

CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER breaks the line ofCHARACTER site between theCHARACTER Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, causing controversy on its placement when it was PR-Japanese Soldiers AN-U.S. Servicemen NE-Local Sealife Effects

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED first constructed. TheREPRESENTED memorial design consists of 54 granite pillars arranged in a semi-circle, replacing what was once the rainbow pool NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

FIGURE

GROUP

COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY at the end of the Washington Monument’s iconic reflecting pool. The pillars represent all COUNTRY of the U.S. states COUNTRY and territories at the time of the IDEA IDEA IDEAwithin the design IDEAof the memorial, with many war through plaquesIDEA and names inscribed into each. IDEA The narrative of this war is quite clear

engravings marking the stepsAmbiguous of the U.S. deployment into WWII, representing the battles reasons armed forces were brave. design elicits strength, weakness as andwell strength again, portraying statusand of U.S. duringthe attacks CONCEPT: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED The characters represented clearly inSPACE) the design of the memorial areLANDSCAPE the U.S. soldiers as the protagonist and the axis powers as VISITOR CENTER

COURTYARD

_________

YES

WATER

PATHWAYS

TREES

BENCHES

�

Open Water _________

the antagonist. Amongst other characters, not represented memorial wereGRASS fellow allied soldiers, civilians displaced in Europe and NO HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ in the �

SERVICE SPACES

__________

_________

___________

_________

the effects of the PTSD and weaponry used during the War. While the overall historical narrative is pretty clear as to which sides were the Form, Elements (Window) AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

STATUE(S)

PR-Water AMBIGUOUS _________ instigators of the warHIGHLY and which were violated, the design of the memorial received imagery in its reliefs, coming DIRECTa lot of criticism for the PLAQUE AN-Assembly Room �

across as pompous

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOWtrite. AMBIGUITY and

� �

_________ NE-Ocean Floor _________

AMBIGUOUS

ENGRAVED STONE

The architecture and landscape elements of the design do create a plaza to be visited and are educational in their application, but the lack of ambiguity does not engage the visitors to create a memorial experience. Once the mystery of the memorial representation is solved, accepted and communicated to the public through the design, it is generally understood amongst the public. This causes the loss of respect for its design and misinterpretations of the monument or memorial in unintended ways. A visit to the site confirmed this thought, as various tourists and visitors merely posed for pictures of granite pillar engraved with the name of their home state while others used the elements of the memorial as a jungle gym. Most who visited the memorial had taken pictures and observed the memorial because of its location and reputation of being an object of importance, rather than being told through the design of the memorial the event its commemorating has importance. When the visitors to a memorial care solely about the general idea 32

behind it and can ignore the experience created by the design, the cultural relevance of the memorial is drastically shortened. Congress has acknowledge this in the past, voting to re-allocate, decommission or remove memorial status from several previously accepted memorials. This ability now firmly recognizes memorials as consumer goods, similar to the products sold in the visitor centers on their grounds. The design of the WWII Valor memorial is ineffective in different areas, most notably scale and representation. The design fails to communicate the immense amount of life sacrificed at home and abroad to the public through its design, allocating a wall adorned with 4,048 gold stars as the piece to commemorate the lives of the over 400,000 soldiers and servicemen that died or were missing in action. The scale of this loss could be better incorporated into the design, giving the user a much more affective experience relating to the Second World War.

FIGURE 58 WWII Valor Memorial central plaza

FIGURE 59 WWII Valor Memorial wall of gold stars

FIGURE 60-61 WWII Valor Memorial statues / monuments

FIGURE 62-63 WWII Valor Memorial photo opportunities

MEMORIAL: Korean War

LOCATION: Washington D.C.

DESIGNER:

WAR: Korean War

YEARS FOUGHT: 1950-1953

LOCATION: Korea

NOTES:

Cooper-Lecky Architects

2.20 Acres, originally designed by architects from Penn State, dropped out after commission wanted changes

2,500 images of soldiers and photographs from war are sandblasted into 100 tons of "Academy Black" granite from California

Statues are stainless steel, sculpted by Frank Gaylord. REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER AN-U.S. Servicemen

CHARACTER

PR-Russia & China

NE-Civilian displaced

PR-North Korean Military

CHARACTER

AN-U.N.

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Triangle intersecting circle in plan, 19 soldier statues representing all branches in military, reflection in granite represents 38th parallel

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO)

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

SERVICE SPACES

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

MEMORIAL:

�

3/2015 ___________

_________

�

on Federal Building

WATER GRASS

PATHWAYS HILLS

TREES

BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN

PR-Pathway/Wall _________ AN-Tree ring/pool _________ NE-Surrounding Grounds _________

Oklahoma City Bombing

WAR:

YES NO

Placement of pieces /concept

FIGURE 64 Korean War Memorial analysis form

KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL n/a -Attack

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

_________ _________

�

Soldier Field _________ _________

_________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

CLEAR ALL

LOCATION: Oklahoma City

DESIGNER:

YEARS FOUGHT: n/a-1995

LOCATION: Oklahoma City

Butzer Design Partnership

3.3 acres, 624 designs submitted. Filled with abstract representations 168 people D.C. that died. The national memorial to the Korean War (or Korean Conflict, as it officially known)ofinthe Washington commemorates the NOTES: Features Gates of Time, Reflecting Pool, Field of Empty Chairs, Surviors wall, Survivor Tree, Memorial Fence, Children's area, Building Plazas.

Visitors center Conflict also on from site. Open to public days a year. involvement of theMuseum Unitedand States in the Korean 1950-1953 in North24/7 and365 South Korea. Built on a 2.2-acre site off the National REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION:

CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER Mall, the memorial design was originally a result ofCHARACTER a nationwide contest, with four students from State College, PA winning the grand prize. NE-Civilians Killed

PR-Timothy Mcveigh

NE-Time

AN-U.S. Government

The project architecture firm of Cooper-Lecky modifiedREPRESENTED this design, addingREPRESENTED sandblasted photos of 2,400 servicemen to the black granite REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

FIGURE

IDEA

wall and changing the pose of the 19COUNTRY stainless steel soldier statues so theyCOUNTRY appear as to beCOUNTRY marching throughCOUNTRY the Korean wilderness. COUNTRY COUNTRY

The U.S. servicemen of all branches of the military, as represented by the 19 soldier statues, are the focus of the memorial. The

GROUP GROUP GROUP protagonist and theGROUP antagonist are the North Korean military and threat ofGROUP communism against the AmericanGROUP way of life. By focusing

CONCEPT:

Large Scale Bronze gates mark times of attack, memorial between is abstract/ambiguous representation of events

specifically on the servicemen through the statues and sandblasted images, the memorial controls the narrative away from the fervor ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

VISITED

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

Chairs VISITOR CENTER the unrepresented COURTYARD _________ _________ associated with the war, mainly global condemnation from theWATER United NationsPATHWAYS and the civilians displaced from the YES �

MUSEUM (INFO)

SERVICE SPACES military action. The narrative of the

ENCLOSURE __________in memorial

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

the

_________ design _________that

�

GRASS

HILLS

Abstract elements, layout of design elements

FORMAL DESIGN

the military, residually also the politicians that ultimately decide to deploy the military.

PR-Gates frame Memorial _________ AN-Reflecting Pool � _________ although more abstract NE-Landscape/Chairs � _________

HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

The design of the memorial, LOW AMBIGUITY

�

_________

TREES the pro-United BENCHES is___________ presented supports States trope of unconditional support to _________

DIRECT

than the WWII valorAMBIGUOUS memorial, still is

STATUE(S) PLAQUE forthcoming withSTONE its intention, ENGRAVED

figuratively

leading the visitor into battle through its arrangement. Described as a circle intersecting a triangle, the visitors walk down a path with the reflective black granite wall on one side and the soldiers marching on the other. The wall, intended to represent the 38th parallel divide between North and South Korea, is reminiscent at times of the polish on the wall of the Vietnam Veterans memorial. The path leads to a reflecting pool at the end of the wall, with a grove of Linden trees and benches allowing the visitors to sit and reflect on the memorial and observe the subtle inscription of the total dead carved in the reflecting pool edge. A dynamic element of the memorial is the ability for the experience of the soldier field to change during the year, with each season providing a new backdrop for the soldiers to be viewed across, visually relating to the differing environmental conditions faced during the war. The architecture of the materials and spaces combines with landscape and physical elements to give not only a partial identity to those that paid the ultimate sacrifice, but to create a platform and 34

backdrop that will change based on the evolving environmental conditions of the National Mall.

A visit to the site supported this interpretation, with the scale of the memorial adding to the experience of the visitor to the site. The

soldier statues are scaled up to denote their separation from regular society, with the juniper bushes surrounding them adding an element of chaos to the order created by the memorial.

The Korean Veterans memorial is partially successful in its attempt to display a more diversely representative population of the

armed forces, but like previous memorials analyzed on the national mall, it suffers from a more literal design that prevents future generations in interpreting more than what is presented and displayed. These literal design decisions inhibit the public from fully understanding the scope and scale of the war and culture during that time period.

FIGURE 65 Walkway into memorial

FIGURE 68 Memorial soldier statues

FIGURE 66 Reflecting wall

FIGURE 67 Sandblasted images of soldiers in wall

FIGURE 69 Memorial soldier statues in context of memorial

Victims of [Drug War] Violence

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: War on Drugs NOTES:

LOCATION: Mexico City

DESIGNER:

TIME: 2006-present

LOCATION: Mexico

Gaeta-Springall Arquitectos

3.7 Acres, 70 slabs of Cor-ten steel arranged horizontally or vertically, increasing in density

as you move toward the center of the memorial.

Quotes in Spanish and English regarding death, peace and understanding adorn many slabs

User interactive, chalk writings on steel express emotion of public-reveals ignorance, direct connection to issue, or aspiration for peace

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

PR-Drug Cartels

PR-Mexican Govt.

CHARACTER

AN-Drug Cartels

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

70 Cor-ten Slabs gradually increase in density, weave in an out of environment with paths of reflection

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

_________ _________

YES NO

_________

___________

�

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Design and Placement HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

�

WATER

PATHWAYS

GRASS TREES

HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN

PR-Pathways/Steel _________ AN-Center of Memorial _________ NE-Water, landscape _________

FIGURE 70 DC War MemorialJews analysis form Murdered in Europe MEMORIAL:

TIME:

�

Cor-Ten _________ _________

_________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

CLEAR ALL

LOCATION: Berlin, Germany

Jewish Holocaust SUBJECT:(DC WWI MEMORIAL WAR MEMORIAL)

CHARACTER

AN-Mexican Govt.

NE-Civilian Deaths

DESIGNER: Peter Eisenman LOCATION: Germany

1936-1945

4.7 acres area covered with 2,711 concrete slabs (stelae).

Controversy over shoddy construction and

NOTES: World War I memorial along the National Mall in Washington D.C. can be viewed as an example of the temporality The National companies involved with the creation of the memorial (relation to Nazi's) plagued the memorial before it opened. Company that provided anti-graffiti paint produced krylon B, poison gas used during WWII.

Millenials use it for backgrounds on Social Media.

of the meaning behind a memorials commemoration. The memorial in its conception began as a local memorial to the members of REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER

CHARACTER

Washington D.C. and the capital that served in World War I, referred to as “The Great War” from 1914-1918. A simple 43.5’ diameter AN-Modern Germany PR-Nazi Military NE-Murdered Jews NE-Time REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED bandstand located in West Potomac Park, the DC War Memorial served as a platformREPRESENTED for programs to REPRESENTED be carried out honoring the soldiers NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY and servicemen over the years. ACOUNTRY 47 foot tall peristyle Doric temple,COUNTRY the bandstand isCOUNTRY marble with concrete foundations and not only is the FIGURE

FIGURE

IDEAput in the park, IDEA IDEA falling into disrepair, IDEA IDEA first memorial to be as well the onlyIDEA local memorial. After it was expanded and restored in 2008 and GROUP

GROUP

Grid of undulating Concrete in slabs re-designated CONCEPT: as the National World War I memorial 2011.meant

GROUP

to produce uneasy, confusing atmosphere

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) memorial were LANDSCAPE VISITED The characters represented in the design initially to honor the(ENVIRONMENTAL U.S. servicemenCONSTRUCT) local to the Washington D.C. area, VISITOR CENTER

COURTYARD

_________

YES

WATER

PATHWAYS

TREES

BENCHES

�

Monoliths _________

NO GRASS HILLSthe politics ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) later being re-designated as nationally representing the servicemen. The other allied powers, behind the struggle with the axis _________ _________ �

SERVICE SPACES

__________

_________

___________

_________

powers, and theAMBIGUITY civilian casualties and displacement were not mentioned FORMAL or represented EXISTENT IN: DESIGN in the memorial, rather solely the names of those STATUE(S)

PR-Concrete Grid

HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS _________ that died and served from the Washington D.C. area were inscribed upon itsDIRECT marble base. The D.C. War Memorial does not explicitly have PLAQUE AN-Concrete Grid �

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

�

LOW AMBIGUITY

�

_________ NE-Info. Center _________

AMBIGUOUS

ENGRAVED STONE

lavish engravings or garish plaques similar to the World War II valor memorial, rather, it simply serves as a marker to the war designed in Washington D.C.’s iconic Greek architectural style.

The design of the bandstand reflects the prevailing Greek-styled architecture present in high-level government buildings in

Washington D.C., providing a subtle representation of the authority in the surrounding environment while still representing through plaques and program the soldiers that died during the war. Designing a memorial as a platform for a program allows the memorial to become something other than a static symbol. It fosters interactions, stories and experiences for those associated with the war as a means commemorate it. The cultural longevity of such a memorial depends not solely on the design of the memorial, but the public that connects with it. This provides the memorial experience of the D.C. War Memorial, not as a somber vehicle of reflection, rather a mechanism to generate new experiences and interactions under the similar theme of service to country during World War I. 36

The simplicity in the design of D.C. War Memorial allowed its infrastructure to fall in disrepair, slipping into the subconscious of

the public memory as the United States became involved with subsequent deadlier and larger scale wars. To re-animate the memorial, President Obama and congress authorized stimulus money in 2010 to repair the infrastructure of the memorial, re-authorizing it as a national World War I memorial in 2011. This attempt aimed to get the memorial back into the conversation of the memorial culture on the National Mall, revitalizing the memorial in the public memory of the visitors. A visit to the site on a rather busy day at the National Mall found nearly no interest or population visiting the memorial, despite the renovations and re-allocations made by the government to increase the reputation of the memorial in public discourse.

The D.C. War Memorial approaches the commemoration of war and violence in a different manner, providing the platform for

various programs to occur in honor of those that have served and died in World War I, using their memory as the foundation for future experiences. With the allowance of a program to occur on the site of a memorial, the D.C. War Memorial sustained cultural relevance for nearly 80 years before being restored and re-allocated as a national memorial. It was moderately successful in using program as a tool to maintain cultural relevance, but unsuccessful in its design to engage and keep the interest of the public it serves.

FIGURE 71 View from inside memorial outward

FIGURE 72 View of grounds of memorial

FIGURE 73 View of memorial columns

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS

�

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

�

LOW AMBIGUITY

�

SUBJECT: Terrorist

AMBIGUOUS

ENGRAVED STONE CLEAR ALL

LOCATION: New York, New York

attack on Twin Towers

TIME:

STATUE(S) PLAQUE

DIRECT

AN-Memorial Groves _____________ NE-Approach/Groves _____________

9/11 Memorial

MEMORIAL:

NOTES:

PR-Plaza/Scale of Arch _____________

DESIGNER:

Micheal Arad & Peter Walker

LOCATION: New York, NY

9/11/2001

8.0 acres, 420 pound granite slabs line the pools of the memorial, with bronze reliefs of victims lining the pool.

Scale of pool overwhelms visitors, while 30' falling waterfalls calms. Site is 16 acres in whole.

Black interior, somber footprint is contrasted with plaza of life and landscape greenery. REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER NE-Civilians Dead

PR-U.S. Govt.

PR-Al Qaeda

CHARACTER

AN-U.S. Govt.

CHARACTER

AN-Al Qaeda

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Reflecting Absence-footprint of towers contrasts with life of plaza, mediating emotion while occasionally overwhelming.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

_________ _________

VISITED YES NO

_________

Materiality of Fountains � � �

PR-Around Fountains ______________ AN-Pathways, Benches ______________

NE-Park setting ______________

�

8/29/14 ___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

_________ _________ _________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

FIGURE 74 September 11th, 2001 Memorial analysis form

SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 MEMORIAL

Reflecting Absence, the title of the winning designs for the September 11th 2001 Memorial competition, commemorates the

terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers in New York City on September 11th 2001. One of the most recent high-profile memorial competition in the United States, with over 5,200 submissions, the memorial is divided between a monument and a landscape that both contribute to the strength of the memorial experience. The public enters the memorial through a landscaped plaza of over 400 Swamp White Oaks that were selected within a 500-mile radius of Manhattan, Shanksville, PA and Washington DC. The landscape provides a serene approach to the monument, acting as a green roof to a museum, a train station and other facilities that are located 70’ below the surface. The monument of the memorial consists of two deep reflecting pools outlining the footprint of the World Trade Center towers in granite, with each name of the deceased inscribed into a bronze relief that caps the granite and surrounds each nearly 1-acre pool.

The setting for the memorial is surprisingly serene, given the highly published patriotic rhetoric associated with the memorial

after the trade center tower attacks. The over 3,000 dead from the trade center attacks in 1993 and 2001 are the main characters of the narrative represented in the memorial. The surrounding museum and newly built freedom tower represent the rhetoric and patriotism of the United States, symbolically protecting the memorial site. The unfortunate dichotomy of producing a memorial to a terrorist attack is that in honoring the dead of the attack, the memorial also inherently becomes a trophy to the terrorist organization that committed the act.

The static elements of the memorial, the reflecting pools and approach, are scaled appropriately to make a profound effect on

the visitors, creating a relationship between the X and Y-axis of the memorial site. The Y-axis element, the plaza surrounding the pools, is adorned with White Swamp Oaks varying in arrangement between floating paving systems, allowing the trees to grow naturally within nutrient-rich, non-compacted soil. The trees are alternated with light color pavement and green space that lead the visitors to the reflecting pools. The X-axis elements, the reflecting pools, are 30’ deep and include some of the largest manmade waterfalls in North America. The 38

dark, contrasting bronze and granite offer its visitors a view into the depth and darkness in the attacks on the tower, the nearly 1-acre pools impressing upon them the true scale of the attack. The living elements connect both axes of the memorial and alter the experience of the public during the changing seasons. The trees and greenery in the plaza appropriately change color while providing seasonal outdoor spaces for small public to occur. A more temporal program of the memorial showcases the life represented within, with support staff placing flowers on the inscribed names around the memorial pools on the day of the victimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s birth. This program connects the visitors visually and more profoundly with the dead, reminding them that the victims were more than a name.

The memorial viewed detached from the museum and architecture that accompanies it, provides a dynamic combination of

landscape and architectural spaces that focus purely on the victims of the attacks. These spaces allow its visors to grieve, connect and reflect on the events of September 11, 2001 on a personal level. A visit to the site observed visitors mourning in different areas, as well using the plaza spaces for reading and other programs. The power of the plaza comes from its use as a platform for different program to occur, making a statement that despite the events that have transpired on the site, the attacks will not stop the way of life of the people of the United States. The memorial is successful at remaining culturally relevant through the changing temporal landscape, genius loci of the site, and supporting elements of patriotic rhetoric, namely the nearby Freedom Tower and the 9/11 memorial museum.

FIGURE 75 North Tower Memorial pool

FIGURE 76 South Tower Memorial pool

SUBJECT:

Terrorist attack on Pentagon on 9/11

NOTES:

LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia

DESIGNER:

TIME: September 11, 2001

LOCATION: Arlington, VA

Pentagon Memorial

MEMORIAL:

Julie Beckman/Keith Kaseman

Captures moment in time at 9:37 am when plane struck Pentagon with 184 lives lost.

184 memorial units are located on a stainless steel strip laden Age Line, relating memorial units to when each victim was born.

Memorial units are canitlevered bench, lighted pool of flowing water-made of stainless inlaid with smooth granite.

CHARACTER

NE-Victims

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

PR-U.S. Military /Govt.

CHARACTER

AN-Extremism

AN-Al qaeda

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT: Time. Age of victims, time of attach, 85 Crape Myrtles will grow and shade over time. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

_________ _________

YES NO

_________

___________

ďż˝

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Bench Design HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

_____________ _____________

LOW AMBIGUITY

_____________

WATER GRASS

PATHWAYS HILLS

_________ _________

TREES

BENCHES

_________

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE CLEAR ALL

FIGURE 77 Pentagon Memorial analysis form

MEMORIAL: LOCATION: DESIGNER: PENTAGON MEMORIAL SUBJECT: TIME: The Pentagon Memorial at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia commemorates the singleLOCATION: engine plane attack of American Airlines NOTES:

flight 77 on the Pentagon, where 184 people were killed. The attack on the Pentagon was apart of 3 coordinated attacks by Al Qaeda against the United States, the other two attacks occurring at the World Trade Center and a thwarted attack on Washington D.C. which REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION:

CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER crash landed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Pentagon Memorial is located on the site ofCHARACTER the terrorist attacks,CHARACTER next to the Pentagon in

Arlington, VA. The approach to the memorial is guarded by security forces, with a heavy government presence imbibed in the ambiance of REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT the memorial. It REPRESENTED consists of 184 memorial units arranged in a plaza surrounded by a wall andNOT trees, with each memorial unit consisting of a COUNTRY

COUNTRY

stainless steelFIGURE bench with inlaid granite, reflecting pool under each unit incorporate victim engraved into the FIGURE a small personal FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE a name of theFIGURE granite.

IDEA

GROUP

The memorial represents the victims of the attack, but similar to other terror memorials, it inadvertently memorializes the extremism CONCEPT:

that encourages such attacks. The memorialSPACE) benches are arranged in the plaza LANDSCAPE on a linear timeline, registering the age of the victims and ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED WATER PATHWAYS _________ NO GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ TREES steel on the bench BENCHEStimeline _________ __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ The memorial attempts to use time as a design element,___________ incorporating stainless and 85 Crape Myrtles

VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD visually directing the visitor towards the penetrated_________ section of theYES Pentagon.

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

that will grow and change over time, altering the experience based on the season. It is regarded as an attempt because STATUE(S)time as a design HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS

______________

LOW AMBIGUITY

______________

DIRECT

PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

element is onlyPARTIALLY used toAMBIGUOUS create an aesthetic; it is not incorporated into the conceptualAMBIGUOUS root of the memorial. The choices made by the memorial ______________ intend to emulate other terror memorials by creating zones of tranquility, but the site is overwhelmed by nearby highway and associated noise of Washington DC. The Pentagon memorial uses abstract shapes to create the memorial units, but clearly delineates their purpose, removing ambiguity from its interpretation. The memorial does not need to focus its narrative on pro-U.S. rhetoric; it is ever-present in the architecture and planning that surrounds it. 40

A visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective reveals that the memorial itself seems to be designed for form more than substance, with designated areas to

manage groups of visitors for historical tours. These areas position the memorial to be another cog in the memorial machine in Washington DC. As a plaza, the architects succeed in creating an informative space, but as a memorial, the design fails to create memorable affective environments for its visitors. The most powerful move in the design of the Pentagon memorial is the overall arrangement of the plan, which focuses through the perspective the flight path into the damaged section of the Pentagon, allowing the visitor to visualize the sequence of events that took place.

FIGURE 78 Pentagon Memorial entry

FIGURE 79 Memorial benches with reflecting pool

FIGURE 80 Memorial benches, trees and replaced area of Pentagon

Flight 93 Memorial

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: Hijacking of Flight 93 NOTES:

Shanksville, Pennsylvania

LOCATION:

TIME: 9/11/2001

DESIGNER:

Paul & Milena Murdoch

LOCATION:

Shanksville, PA

2,200 acres, purposely ambiguous, controversial of initial crescent design (allusion to Islam)

Includes Tower of voices filled with 40 wind chimes (crew/passengers), black slate wall marking the edge where plane crashed

Ambiguity leads to a number of anti-government conspiracy theories that the site is damning the dead

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

PR-Al Qaeda

NE-Civilians Dead

CHARACTER

AN-Al Qaeda

PR-U.S. Govt.

AN-U.S. Govt.

CHARACTER AN-Civilians Dead

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT: A design that is contemplative and inspirational, timeless tribute. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

_________ _________ _________

YES NO

3/2015 ___________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

�

PR-Plaza/Scale of Arch _____________

9/11 Memorial

SUBJECT: Terrorist

CLEAR ALL

LOCATION: New York, New York

attack on Twin Towers

TIME:

�

_________ _________ Plaza _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

AN-Memorial Groves _____________ NE-Approach/Groves _____________

FLIGHT 93 MEMORIAL

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN �

FIGURE 81 Flight 93 Memorial analysis form

MEMORIAL:

WATER GRASS TREES

�

DESIGNER:

Micheal Arad & Peter Walker

New York, NY

9/11/2001

The Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville Pennsylvania primarily uses the landscape of theLOCATION: site to create a series of temporal NOTES:

8.0 acres, 420 pound granite slabs line the pools of the memorial, with bronze reliefs of victims lining the pool.

experiences Scale that grow in addition to thevisitors, memory of the attempted terrorist attackcalms. on September 1, acres 2001.inA whole. 2,200-acre site, the approach of pool overwhelms while 30' falling waterfalls Site is 1 16 Black interior, somber footprint is contrasted with plaza of life and landscape greenery.

to the main area of the memorial is 3 milesREPRESENTATION and winds through the Pennsylvania countryside. The memorial, designed by Paul & Milena / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER

CHARACTER

PR-U.S. Govt.

PR-Al Qaeda

AN-U.S. Govt.

AN-Al Qaeda

CHARACTER

Murdoch is NE-Civilians ambiguousDead in its design, choosing to rather create a landscape connected by architectural spaces that activates during the seasons. The abstraction of the memorial design was changed several times after the public perceived it to pay homage REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED and ambiguity NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

to Islam, pointing towards MeccaCOUNTRY reminiscent of the symbol of Islam in plan. The narrative expressed in the design was actually one of COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE reflection and FIGURE tranquility, providing spaces to leave temporal memorial tributes and be immersed in the calmingFIGURE effect of the scale of the IDEA

IDEA

GROUP The NationalGROUP GROUPof the memorial,GROUP surrounding nature. Park Service, manager provides a visitor GROUP center and support GROUP services that aim to inform

CONCEPT:

Reflecting Absence-footprint of towers contrasts with life of plaza, mediating emotion while occasionally overwhelming.

the context of the event that transpired, giving the memorial location a stronger genius loci to the its visitors.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

VISITED

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

The characters represented in the memorial are again relegated to specifically those that have died in the crash, which are VISITOR CENTER

COURTYARD

_________

YES

�

WATER

PATHWAYS

_________

GRASS HILLS two memorials ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ inscribed on a black slate wall at the end of the crescent shapedNO procession. In comparison to the other discussed from the 8/29/14 SERVICE SPACES

__________

_________

___________

TREES

BENCHES

_________

ofmemorial Fountainsis not as concentrated or apparent, partly due to the immense scale of the attacks on 9/1 1/2001, the narrative the Flight 93 AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: ofMateriality FORMAL DESIGN

PR-Around Fountains AN-Pathways, Benches � ______________ � NE-Park ______________ metrics of the setting crash. Although

STATUE(S)

AMBIGUOUS ______________ site. Concurrent HIGHLY with the mission of the National Park Service, the narrative behindDIRECT the design and display of exhibits PLAQUE at the memorial are �

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

AMBIGUITY meant to inform LOW the visitors about the

AMBIGUOUS

ENGRAVED STONE

this method through the National Park Service supports a pro-United

States narrative, the Flight 93 Memorial does a better job than most at being objective in its presentation.

The Architectural elements of the memorial, the visitor center and permanent memorial infrastructure, all rotate around the flight

path of the plane as it crashed into the field. A black granite pathway and lookout is equipped along the circulation path of the visitor center above the crash site, pointing down to the memorial wall at the memorials base. The connecting pathway, a crescent radiating off the crash site, creates 40 memorial groves each hosting 40 trees for a total of over 1,600 trees of varying species of Sugar & Red Maple, 42

Elm, and White Oak. The combination of architectural and landscape elements creates a memorial that is grand in scale and provides different experiences annually and seasonally as the trees grow and mature. The static architectural elements at the beginning and ending of the crescent attract and inform visitors of the memorial in the immediate while the conceptual strength and effect of the entire design is realized over the subsequent years of growth. The memorial stays culturally relevant through the development of the elements in the crescent, permitting that each visit to the memorial may hold a different experience than the last, dependent upon the status of the environment around it.

The stage of the memorial at the time of the visit saw only the memorial elements of the crash site completed, with the visitor center

still under construction and the memorial groves still being planted. With only one functioning piece of the memorial constructed, the Flight 93 Memorial was still profound in its scale, with a true traversing from top to bottom taxing on the human body, making a physical impact on the visitor through its design. Time and scale, with the size of the memorial and its construction, appear to be a major element of the design, forcing the visitor to physically exert themselves and absorb the immensity of the memorial.

The design of the Flight 93 memorial at times can make the visitor feel uneasy, tired and uncomfortable in experiencing it through its

use of scale, time and ecology. Through these design tools, the memorial creates an environment that allows its visitors to reflect, contemplate and empathize with the victims of hijacking of Flight 93. If a memorial can affect a visitor in this way, it is successful in translating some of the sentiments felt by the grieving family members and victims of the crash through the memorials architecture and design.

FIGURE 82 Entrance to crash site memorial

FIGURE 84 Crash site divider wall

FIGURE 83 Landscape and built environment of memorial

FIGURE 85 Platform to leave personal effects

FIGURE 86 Memorial Wall

Design was criticized as pompous, full of trite imagery, courtyard filled with reliefs telling story of war

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

OTHER MEMORIAL EXAMPLES AN-U.S. Soldiers PR-Axis

Powers

NE-Civilian Deaths

CHARACTER

PR-PTSD / Effects

AN-Allied Soldiers

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTEDtypes andREPRESENTED REPRESENTED The scope of this thesis wasREPRESENTED able to analyze 31 memorials of varying different commemoration locations, distilling NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

different successful and unsuccessfulCOUNTRY means of commemoration with similar subject matter. The COUNTRY subsequent memorials in the following figures COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY FIGURE FIGURE FIGUREof this thesis. The FIGURE were analyzed, FIGURE but were not able to be visited due to the scope and time frame analysis on theseFIGURE memorials was not done IDEA

IDEA

empirically, rather, through secondary images, video and academic texts. GROUP GROUP GROUP

IDEA

GROUP

Semi-Circle of 56 granite pillars, for all U.S. State / Territories.Bass reliefs and engravings tell "story" of deployment En Memoriam that the most effective way to translate the emotion behind a commemorated event into the architecture of its CONCEPT: argues

ARCHITECTURE SPACE) the memorial VISITED LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) memorial is to create affective(PROGRAMMED environments, keeping culturally relevant and establishing a provocative experience connecting Fountain WATER PATHWAYS � _________ YES � Pool � GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE _________ _________ NO 3/2015 Archway ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE _________ _________ Equipped with aSPACES understanding of the historical context behind memorials in the United States and different design strategies

COURTYARD _________ the visitors directlyVISITOR to theCENTER event for generations to come. MUSEUM (INFO)

Arrangement of Pillars

AMBIGUITY IN: to select Washington D.C. as a location that FORMAL DESIGN distilled from the analysis, itEXISTENT was natural leveraged the the results of the research thus far into a STATUE(S) HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS

�

PR-Pillars/Circle _________

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

AN-National Mall cohesive design for a National War on Terror memorial. _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS �

LOW AMBIGUITY

�

NE-Water Feature _________

U.S.S. Arizona Memorial

MEMORIAL:

WAR: World War II NOTES:

PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE CLEAR ALL

DESIGNER: Alfred Preis

Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii

LOCATION:

LOCATION: Europe

YEARS FOUGHT: 1939-1945

10.50 Acre area, hovers over wreckage of U.S.S. Arizona, navy ship sunk in bombing at Pearl Harbor.

"Squashed Milk Carton", ambiguous design removes sadness from event to "permit individual to contemplate his own personal responses, innermost feelings"

Design is 3 parts of program: entry + assembly room + shrine / 7 windows to commemorate date, 21 windows allow personal interp.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER AN-U.S. Servicemen

PR-Japanese Soldiers

CHARACTER

NE-Local Sealife Effects

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Ambiguous design elicits strength, weakness and strength again, portraying status of U.S. during attacks

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Form, Elements (Window) HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

� � �

PR-Water _________ AN-Assembly Room _________ NE-Ocean Floor _________

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

�

Open Water _________ _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

FIGURE 87 U.S.S. Arizona Memorial analysis form & image

FIGURE 88 Jefferson National expansion analysis form & image

FIGURE 89 Washington Monument analysis form & image

HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

�

Oklahoma City Bombing

MEMORIAL: WAR:

PR-Pathway/Wall _________ AN-Tree ring/pool _________ NE-Surrounding Grounds _________

�

n/a -Attack on Federal Building

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE CLEAR ALL

LOCATION: Oklahoma City

DESIGNER:

YEARS FOUGHT: n/a-1995

LOCATION: Oklahoma City

Butzer Design Partnership

3.3 acres, 624 designs submitted. Filled with abstract representations of the 168 people that died.

NOTES:

Features Gates of Time, Reflecting Pool, Field of Empty Chairs, Surviors wall, Survivor Tree, Memorial Fence, Children's area, Building Plazas.

Museum and Visitors center also on site. CHARACTER

CHARACTER NE-Civilians Killed

Open to public 24/7 365 days a year.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

PR-Timothy Mcveigh

CHARACTER

NE-Time

AN-U.S. Government

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA IDEA MEMORIAL: Vietnam Veterans GROUP

IDEA

IDEA LOCATION: Washington D.C.

IDEA IDEA DESIGNER: Maya Lin GROUP GROUP GROUP South Vietnam Vietnam YEARS FOUGHT: LOCATION: Large War Scale Bronze gates mark times of attack, memorial 1955-1975 between is abstract/ambiguous representation of events GROUP

GROUP

WAR: CONCEPT:

3 acre area with memorial wall sunk into ground. On site of old munitions factory from WWI. NOTES: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED Ambiguous memorial design controversial for lack of ornamentation and called "black gash of shame"

Chairs Ambiguity allows visitors to complete design through projection of own personal experience emotions the� design elicits. WATER coupled with PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ YES

MUSEUM (INFO) CHARACTER SERVICE SPACES PR-U.S. Servicemen

� NO GRASS ENCLOSURE REPRESENTATION _________ / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: ___________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER TREES __________ _________ NE-Vietnamese Civilians AN-U.S. Servicemen AN-Vietcong Abstract elements, layout of design elements

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

PR-Vietcong

FORMAL DESIGN

REPRESENTED

HILLS CHARACTER BENCHES

REPRESENTED

PR-Gates frame Memorial � _________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS NOT �REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED AN-Reflecting Pool _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY NE-Landscape/Chairs � _________ LOW AMBIGUITY

REPRESENTED

DIRECT NOT REPRESENTED AMBIGUOUS

NOT REPRESENTED

_________ CHARACTER _________

STATUE(S) REPRESENTED PLAQUE NOT REPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE COUNTRY

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

2 solid Gabbro Walls, engraved with death of servicemen.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

YES NO

WATER GRASS TREES

�

3/2015 ___________

Design decisions of memorial wall �

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

Walls get higher entering into apex, lower when exiting. Axis with WM & LM

VISITED

_________ _________ _________

�

FIGURE

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN

PR-Pathway/Walls _________ AN-Memorial Grounds _________ NE-Pathway/Walls _________

_________ _________ _________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

CLEAR ALL FIGURE 91 Gratitude & Honor Memorial analysis form & image

FIGURE 90 Oklahoma City bombing Memorial analysis form & image

MEMORIAL: Gratitude & Honor

LOCATION: Irvine, California

DESIGNER:

City of Northwood

WAR: Iraq & Afghanistan Wars

YEARS FOUGHT: 2003-Ongoing

LOCATION:

Iraq & Afghanistan

NOTES:

Part of 14 acre park.

Made of 5 granite covered pedestals standing side by side that list names of fallen servicemen.

Can list up to 8,000 names, is updated on a yearly basis. On street corner, surrounded by traffic with flag pole in center.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER PR-U.S. Servicemen

Inspired by Vietnam Veterans Memorial in D.C., uses data from Pentagon.

Started out as temporary memorial of wooden posts in background of field, grew into permanent.

AN-Iraqi Military

CHARACTER

NE-Civilian Casualties

AN-Afghanistan Military

CHARACTER

PR-Al Qaeda

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Create a simple memorial for ongoing Wars in Middle East.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

Placement / array of pedestal � � �

PR-Courtyard/Path _________ AN-Pedestals _________ NE-Park Space _________

�

___________

Claims to be only Memorial in U.S. to these Wars.

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

� �

Pavers _________ Flagpole _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

MEMORIAL:

LOCATION:

Wright Brothers National Monument

SUBJECT: Conquest over flight NOTES:

DESIGNER: Rodgers & Poor

Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina

TIME: 1900-1903

Kill Devil Hills, NC

LOCATION:

428 acres, Dedicated in 1932. Involved over 1,200 tons of Granite, 2,000 tons of gravel, 800 tons of sand and 400 tons of cement

Granite monument is 60 feet, perched on 90 foot Hill, adorned with reliefs of flight. Has Mission 66 Visitor Center. Centennial of flight was in 2003, new exhibits were constructed and ceremony was held. (added more meaning)Small airport attached.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

AN-Laws of Nature

PR-Wright Brothers

CHARACTER

NE-Rail industry

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Monument to Flight, atop constructed hill based with sand dune used in actual experiments over vast landscape Kill LOCATION: VISITED

Wright Brothers National Monument MEMORIAL: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

over flight VISITORConquest CENTER COURTYARD SUBJECT:

ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) 428 acres, Dedicated in NOTES: __________ SERVICE SPACES

1932.

_________ TIME: 1900-1903 � _________ Involved over _________

1,200

YES NO tons

Rodgers & Poor

DESIGNER: CONSTRUCT) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL

Devil Hills, North Carolina

PATHWAYS LOCATION:

WATER

of Granite,

9/28/2014 ___________

GRASS 2,000 tons of TREES

HILLS tons of sand BENCHES

gravel, 800

Vast Field Kill Devil Hills, NC � _________

_________ _________

and 400 tons of cement

Granite monument is 60 feet, perched on 90 foot Hill, adorned with reliefs of flight. Has Mission 66 Visitor Center.

Monument & Field AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:in 2003, Centennial of flight was new exhibits were constructed

FORMAL DESIGN

and ceremony was held. (added more meaning)Small airport attached.

PR-Landscape � REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: _________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS DIRECT AN-Monument / CHARACTER Hill CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER � _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS AMBIGUOUS Space PR-Wright Brothers AN-Laws� ofNE-Exhibits, Nature ServiceNE-Rail industry _________ LOW AMBIGUITY REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED COUNTRY

NOT REPRESENTED

NY LOCATION: NOT REPRESENTED Seneca NOTFalls, REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

Women's MEMORIAL: NOT REPRESENTED

Rights National Park

SUBJECT:Women's Rights convention IDEA NOTES:

TIME:

July 1848

STATUE(S)

PLAQUE CHARACTER

ENGRAVED STONE CLEAR ALL

REPRESENTED

NOTDESIGNER: REPRESENTED n/aNOT REPRESENTED COUNTRY

LOCATION: FIGURE

FIGURE

COUNTRY Seneca Falls, NY FIGURE

6.83 acres, church House IDEA was abandoned then IDEA renovated. Park consists IDEA of Wesleyan Chapel, IDEA Elizabeth Cady Stanton IDEA

GROUP GROUPeducation and cultural GROUP center and Richard GROUP Hunt Hous / M'Clintock GROUP GROUP as well as a visitor center, house. (also activists) Includes Declaration park and waterwall with Declaration of Sentiments and supporters engraved in 100' bluestone

CONCEPT: Monument to Flight, atop constructed hill based with sand dune used in actual experiments over vast landscape FIGURE 92 Wright Brothers memorial analysis form & image REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER LANDSCAPE CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER (PROGRAMMED SPACE) (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED PR-U.S. Government AN-Women VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD REPRESENTED ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) REPRESENTED __________ SPACES NOT REPRESENTED NOT SERVICE REPRESENTED

PR-Men NE-LGBTQ WATER _________ YES � REPRESENTED REPRESENTED GRASS _________ NO 9/28/2014 TREES _________ NOT REPRESENTED___________ NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY COUNTRY Field AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Monument &COUNTRY

Vast Field _________ REPRESENTED _________

BENCHES NOT REPRESENTED

_________ NOT REPRESENTED

PATHWAYS

COUNTRY COUNTRY FORMAL DESIGN

FIGURE FIGURE � PR-Landscape FIGURE _________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS IDEA IDEA AN-Monument / IDEA Hill � _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS GROUP GROUP � NE-Exhibits, ServiceGROUP Space _________ LOW AMBIGUITY FIGURE 93 Women’s Rights National Park analysis form & image

CONCEPT:

REPRESENTED HILLS

FIGURE

DIRECT IDEA AMBIGUOUS GROUP

IDEA GROUP

�

COUNTRY STATUE(S) FIGURE PLAQUE IDEA ENGRAVED GROUP STONE

CLEAR ALL

Park is formed through preservation of existing chapel, chapel is re-constructed with open environment / blank wall

MEMORIAL:

LOCATION: Seneca Falls, NY

Women's Rights National Park

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

Women's Rights convention SUBJECT: TIME: VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________

DESIGNER: n/a

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

Seneca Falls, NY July 1848 LOCATION: WATER PATHWAYS _________ YES � NO GRASS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) 6.83 acres, church was abandoned then renovated. Park consists of Wesleyan Chapel, HILLS Elizabeth Cady Stanton House _________ _________ NOTES: 10/5/2014 ___________ Chapel � TREESHous / M'Clintock BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ as well as a visitor center, education_________ and cultural center and Richard Hunt house. (also activists)

interior Includes Declaration parkChapel and waterwall with AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

Declaration of Sentiments and supporters FORMAL DESIGN engraved in 100' bluestone

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: _________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS CHARACTERAN-Lighting/Windows CHARACTER CHARACTER DIRECT CHARACTER

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS PR-U.S. AN-Women LOW AMBIGUITY

_________ PR-Men NE-Benches _________

CHARACTER

NE-LGBTQ AMBIGUOUS

Government

CHARACTER PLAQUE

ENGRAVED STONE

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Park is formed through preservation of existing chapel, chapel is re-constructed with open environment / blank wall

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

�

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE Chapel __________

_________ _________ _________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Chapel interior HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

STATUE(S)

PR-Scale of Chapel Wall

�

PR-Scale of Chapel Wall _________ AN-Lighting/Windows _________ NE-Benches _________

VISITED YES NO

�

10/5/2014 ___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

_________ _________ _________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

Victims of [Drug War] Violence

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: War on Drugs

LOCATION: Mexico City

DESIGNER:

TIME: 2006-present

LOCATION: Mexico

Gaeta-Springall Arquitectos

3.7 Acres, 70 slabs of Cor-ten steel arranged horizontally or vertically, increasing in density

NOTES:

as you move toward the center of the memorial.

Quotes in Spanish and English regarding death, peace and understanding adorn many slabs

User interactive, chalk writings on steel express emotion of public-reveals ignorance, direct connection to issue, or aspiration for peace

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

PR-Drug Cartels

PR-Mexican Govt.

CHARACTER

AN-Mexican Govt.

NE-Civilian Deaths

CHARACTER

AN-Drug Cartels

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

Victims of [Drug War] Violence

MEMORIAL: GROUP

GROUP

War on70 Drugs Cor-ten SUBJECT: CONCEPT:

IDEA

GROUP

Mexico City

LOCATION: GROUP

IDEA

Gaeta-Springall Arquitectos DESIGNER: GROUP

Mexico 2006-present Slabs gradually increase in density, weave in an out of environment with paths of reflection

TIME:

3.7 Acres, 70 slabs of Cor-ten NOTES: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) as you move toward the center of the memorial.

LOCATION:

steel arranged horizontally or vertically, increasing in density

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

Quotes in Spanish and English regarding death, peace and understanding adorn many slabs

WATER VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ GRASS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ NO � REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED___________ REPRESENTATION:TREES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES CHARACTER

Cor-Ten _________ _________ _________ CHARACTER

�

YES User interactive, chalk writings on steel express emotion of public-reveals ignorance, direct connection to issue, or aspiration for peace

Placement AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Design andNE-Civilian Deaths PR-Mexican Govt.

FORMAL DESIGN AN-Drug

PR-Drug Cartels

AN-Mexican Govt.

PR-Pathways/Steel � _________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS AN-Center of Memorial REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED � _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS NE-Water, landscape NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOTLOW REPRESENTED � _________ AMBIGUITY

COUNTRY

COUNTRY Jews in Europe Berlin, Germany FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE MEMORIAL: LOCATION: FIGURE 94 Victims of Murdered Drug war violence Memorial analysis form & image IDEA SUBJECT: Jewish Holocaust GROUP GROUP

NOTES:

CONCEPT: companies

REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

IDEA

TIME:

GROUP

1936-1945

IDEA

Cartels

STATUE(S) PLAQUE REPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED

DIRECT REPRESENTED AMBIGUOUS NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY FIGURE DESIGNER:

CLEAR ALL

COUNTRY Peter Eisenman FIGURE

IDEA

Germany LOCATION: GROUP GROUP

GROUP

4.7 acres area covered with 2,711 concrete slabs (stelae). Controversy over shoddy construction and 70 Cor-ten Slabs gradually increase in density, weave in an out of environment with paths of reflection

involved with the creation of the memorial (relation to Nazi's) plagued the memorial before it opened.

Company that provided anti-graffiti paint produced krylon B, poison gas used during WWII.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

VISITED

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ YES AN-Modern Germany NO NE-Time PR-Nazi Military Jews � ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) NE-Murdered _________

SERVICE SPACES REPRESENTED

__________ REPRESENTED

_________ REPRESENTED

Design and NOT Placement REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED AMBIGUITY EXISTENT NOT IN: REPRESENTED COUNTRY

Cor-Ten � CHARACTER CHARACTER WATER PATHWAYS _________ GRASS HILLS _________ ___________ _________ REPRESENTED TREES REPRESENTED BENCHES REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED FORMAL DESIGN

COUNTRYPR-Pathways/Steel COUNTRY

COUNTRY

_________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE AN-Center of Memorial FIGURE � _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS IDEA IDEA IDEA NE-Water, landscape � _________ LOW AMBIGUITY �

GROUP

CONCEPT: MEMORIAL:

GROUP

Millenials use it for backgrounds on Social Media.

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

FIGURE IDEA

GROUP

NOT REPRESENTED

STATUE(S) COUNTRY DIRECT FIGURE FIGURE PLAQUE AMBIGUOUS FIGURE 95 Murdered Jews in Europe Memorial analysis form & image IDEA IDEA ENGRAVED STONE COUNTRY

GROUP

CLEAR ALL

GROUP

Grid of undulating Concrete slabs meant to produce uneasy, confusing atmosphere Murdered Jews in Europe LOCATION: Berlin, Germany DESIGNER: Peter Eisenman

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

SUBJECT: Jewish Holocaust

TIME:

VISITED 1936-1945

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

LOCATION: Germany

Monoliths WATER PATHWAYS � _________ VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ YES � slabs (stelae). 4.7 acres area covered with 2,711 concrete ControversyHILLS over shoddy _________ construction and NO GRASS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ NOTES: ___________ companies involved the creation of the memorial (relation to Nazi's) plagued the memorial before it opened. TREES BENCHES SERVICE SPACES with__________ _________ _________ Company that provided anti-graffiti paint produced krylon B, poison gas used during WWII.

FORMAL Millenials DESIGN

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

use it for backgrounds on Social Media.

REPRESENTATION PR-Concrete Grid

� _________ / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION:DIRECT HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER AN-ConcreteCHARACTER Grid � _________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS AMBIGUOUS AN-Modern Germany PR-Nazi Military NE-Murdered Jews NE-Time NE-Info. Center � _________ LOW AMBIGUITY

STATUE(S) PLAQUE CHARACTER ENGRAVED STONE

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT: Grid of undulating Concrete slabs meant to produce uneasy, confusing atmosphere ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

VISITED YES NO

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN � � �

PR-Concrete Grid _________ AN-Concrete Grid _________ NE-Info. Center _________

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

�

Monoliths _________ _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

Haymarket

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: Haymarket Bombing NOTES:

LOCATION: Chicago, Illinois

DESIGNER: Mary Brogger

TIME: 5/4/1886

LOCATION:

Chicago, Illinois

Dynamite bombing during a protest against unfair and unsafe labor practices.

Noted that 7 policemen and 3 civilians were killed, others wounded, and associated politicians and protestors holding unpopular views were unfairly tried, jailed and some executed. Is reference to many activists for free speech and other rights.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

PR-Protestors

AN-Policemen

CHARACTER

PR-Bomber

NE-Killed/injured

CHARACTER

NE-Rights of people

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

COUNTRY COUNTRY Brogger FIGURE FIGURE DESIGNER: Mary

MEMORIAL: FIGURE

COUNTRY

Haymarket FIGURE

Chicago, FIGURE Illinois

LOCATION: FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

SUBJECT: Haymarket Bombing

TIME: 5/4/1886

LOCATION:

IDEA

Chicago, Illinois

GROUP

Dynamite bombing during a protest against unfair and unsafe labor practices. NOTES: Abstract figures ambiguously placed to represent chaos and narrative of Haymarket Riot Bombing CONCEPT: Noted that 7 policemen and 3 civilians were killed, others wounded, and associated politicians and protestors holding unpopular views were unfairly tried, jailed and some executed. Is reference to many activists for free speech and other rights.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: Location WATER PATHWAYS � _________ VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER YES � CHARACTER Statue � GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ NO NE-Rights of people NE-Killed/injured PR-Protestors PR-Bomber AN-Policemen 2/22/15 ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Figure Representation FORMAL DESIGN NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED STATUE(S) PR-Figure preaching on top � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY DIRECT COUNTRY COUNTRY PLAQUE AN-Figures supporting bottom � PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE _____________ FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE STONE AMBIGUOUSFIGURE ENGRAVED NE-Wagon pieces � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________ IDEA IDEA IDEA IDEA IDEA IDEA CLEAR ALL GROUP

MEMORIAL:

CONCEPT:

GROUP

Flight 587

Abstract figures ambiguously

SUBJECT: Flight 587 Crash

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) Arched granite wall pointing NOTES:

GROUP

FIGURE 96 Rockaway Park LOCATION: DESIGNER: Situ Studio placed to Memorial represent chaos and narrative of Haymarket Riot Bombing Haymarket analysis form & image November 12 2001 TIME: LOCATION: Queens LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED

toward ocean inscribed with names of 265 killed in flight crash.

Location WATER PATHWAYS � _________ VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ Statue � GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ NO Ambiguity in representation of holes and patterns in wall could be interpreted as inexperience or human/pilot error in FAA. 2/22/15 ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTERFORMAL DESIGN CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Figure Representation STATUE(S) AN-FAA Regulations NE-Passengers/Crew PR-Human� Error PR-Figure preaching on top _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE 97 DIRECT PLAQUE AN-Figures supporting bottom � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED Flight 587 MemorialREPRESENTED analysis AMBIGUOUSREPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE NE-Wagon pieces � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________ formNOT & image NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED CLEAR ALL � 11 pear trees provide separation from heavy traffic and visitors of Memorial. date of crash at time of crash, sunlight aligns with pattern in pavement. YES On

COUNTRY

MEMORIAL: FIGURE

COUNTRY

COUNTRY COUNTRY LOCATION: Rockaway FIGURE FIGURE Park

COUNTRY COUNTRY Studio FIGURE FIGURE DESIGNER: Situ

IDEA

Flight FIGURE 587

IDEA

SUBJECT: Flight 587 Crash GROUP

NOTES: CONCEPT:

TIME:

IDEA

November 12 2001

IDEA LOCATION: Queens

GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP Arched toward ocean withpay names of 265to killed in lost. flight crash. Create granite serene wall and pointing quiet space next to inscribed reflect and tribute those

11 pear trees provide separation from heavy traffic and visitors of Memorial. On date of crash at time of crash, sunlight aligns with pattern in pavement.

Ambiguity in representation of holes and patterns in wall VISITED could be interpreted as inexperience or human/pilot error in FAA. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ YES CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER NO � CHARACTER GRASS CHARACTERHILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ AN-FAA Regulations NE-Passengers/Crew PR-Human Error ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTED Masonry AMBIGUITY EXISTENTREPRESENTED IN: Granite Wall REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED FORMAL DESIGN

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED COUNTRY DIRECT IDEA

IDEA

GROUP

FIGURE

GROUP

NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED STATUE(S) PLAQUE COUNTRY ENGRAVED FIGURE STONE

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Wall space/Pavement � ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRYAN-Tree Grove COUNTRY � ______________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE� NE-Pathways FIGURE LOW AMBIGUITY ______________ IDEA IDEA IDEA

COUNTRY AMBIGUOUSFIGURE

CONCEPT: Create serene and quiet space next to reflect and pay tribute to those lost. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Granite Wall Masonry HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

� � �

PR-Wall space/Pavement ______________ AN-Tree Grove ______________

NE-Pathways ______________

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER

PATHWAYS

_________

GRASS TREES

HILLS BENCHES

_________ _________

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

Irish Hunger

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: Great Irish Famine NOTES:

LOCATION: Manhattan, NYC

DESIGNER:

TIME: 1845-1852

LOCATION: Ireland

Gail-Wittwer-Laird, 1100 Arch

.5 acre, Memorial structure contains ruined 19th century Irish Cabin and stones / vegetation

brought over from Ireland. Structure is literally brought off ground and rests on ambiguous stand that is illuminated at night.

The great famine killed over 1 million people., memorial combines abstract base with cultural origin pieces.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER NE-Irish Society

PR-Drought/Weather

PR-NYC (USA)

AN-Farming Science

CHARACTER

AN-Ireland

NE-Immigtation

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

MEMORIAL: FIGURE

COUNTRY

Irish Hunger FIGURE

IDEA

Great Irish Famine SUBJECT: GROUP GROUP

NOTES: CONCEPT:

COUNTRY

TIME: GROUP

COUNTRY

Manhattan, NYC FIGURE

FIGURE LOCATION:

1845-1852

IDEA

FIGURE DESIGNER: IDEA

LOCATION: GROUP

GROUP

COUNTRY FIGURE

Gail-Wittwer-Laird, 1100 Arch

IDEA

Ireland GROUP

.5 acre, Memorial structure contains ruined 19th century Irish Cabin and stones / vegetation Landscape enacts story, tiny scale makes user reflect and connect. Irish piece of land is roof for pavilion, pavilion lets you leave NYC

brought over from Ireland. Structure is literally brought off ground and rests on ambiguous stand that is illuminated at night.

The great famine killed over 1 SPACE) million people., memorial combinesLANDSCAPE abstract base with cultural origin pieces. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: Stones WATER PATHWAYS � _________ VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ YES � CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER Brush � GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ NO AN-Farming Science PR-Drought/Weather NE-Irish Society NE-Immigtation AN-Ireland PR-NYC (USA) July 2008 Ruins Ruins � ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED Setting / Form

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Pavilion � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY AN-Irish Scenery � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE NE-NYC Battery Park � _____________ LOW AMBIGUITY IDEA IDEA IDEA

NOT REPRESENTED COUNTRY DIRECT

COUNTRY AMBIGUOUSFIGURE

FIGURE IDEA

IDEA

GROUP GROUP GROUP FIGUREGROUP 98 Irish Famine Memorial analysis form & image African Burial Ground MEMORIAL: LOCATION: Manhattan, NYC

CONCEPT:

Landscape enacts story, tiny scale makes user reflect and connect.

SUBJECT: Burial site of at least 400 African Americans

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) .35 acres, re-discovered in 1991 by NOTES:

TIME:

NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED STATUE(S) COUNTRY PLAQUE FIGURE STONE ENGRAVED CLEAR ALL IDEA

GROUP

DESIGNER: Rodney Leon

Irish piece of land is roof for pavilion, pavilion lets you leave NYC

LOCATION: Manhattan, NYC

17-18th Century

GSA, burial site VISITED was excavated

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) with 420 human remains, burial site too large to gather all. Stones

WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ Utilizes 25 foot granite monument featuring map of_________ slave passage, and stones � from North America and South Africa, idea of merging countries on site. �

YES

Brush � HILLS to their ancestors ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ NOmeant to re-connectGRASS "Door of no return" design mimics slave port in _________ West Africa, memorial ethnic African Americans origins. July 2008 Ruins Ruins � ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: Form CHARACTER CHARACTERFORMAL DESIGN CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Setting /CHARACTER STATUE(S) AN-U.S. Civil Rights NE-African Americans PR-Slavery PR-Pavilion � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS DIRECT PLAQUE AN-Irish Scenery � REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS AMBIGUOUSREPRESENTED ENGRAVED FIGURE 99 African Burial Ground Memorial analysisSTONE form & image NE-NYC Battery Park � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________ NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED CLEAR ALL COUNTRY

MEMORIAL: FIGURE

COUNTRY

AfricanFIGURE Burial Ground

COUNTRY COUNTRY NYC FIGURE FIGURE LOCATION: Manhattan,

IDEA

GROUP

SUBJECT: Burial site of at least 400 African Americans NOTES: CONCEPT:

TIME:

IDEA

COUNTRY COUNTRY FIGURE FIGURE Leon DESIGNER: Rodney IDEA

17-18th Century

LOCATION: GROUP

GROUP

IDEA

Manhattan, NYC GROUP

.35 acres, re-discovered in 1991 by GSA, burial site was excavated 420 human remains, burial site too large to to gather all. Re-connect ethnic African Americans/honor those gone with through elements that re-connect U.S. Africa

Utilizes 25 foot granite monument featuring map of slave passage, and stones from North America and South Africa, idea of merging countries on site.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED "Door of no return" design mimics slave port in West Africa, memorial meant to re-connect ethnic African Americans to their ancestors origins. REPRESENTATION / IMPLIEDYES REPRESENTATION: WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER NO � CHARACTER GRASS CHARACTERHILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) CHARACTER _________ _________

__________ SERVICE SPACES PR-Slavery

NE-African Americans

AN-U.S. Civil Rights ___________

_________

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED EXISTENTREPRESENTED AMBIGUITY IN: Memorial Forms

TREES

BENCHES

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED FORMAL DESIGN

_________ REPRESENTED STATUE(S) NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Door ofNOT no REPRESENTED Return � ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY AN-Courtyard Space � ______________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE� NE-Surrounding FIGURE Landscape LOW AMBIGUITY ______________ IDEA IDEA IDEA

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED DIRECT COUNTRY COUNTRY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE IDEA

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

GROUP

PLAQUE COUNTRY ENGRAVED FIGURE STONE

Re-connect ethnic African Americans/honor those gone through elements that re-connect U.S. to Africa

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Memorial Forms PR-Door of no Return � ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS AN-Courtyard Space � ______________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

�

NE-Surrounding Landscape ______________

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

_________ _________ _________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

Steilneset

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: Witch trials NOTES:

LOCATION: Vardø, Norway

DESIGNER:

TIME: 1600-1623 (17th Century)

LOCATION: Vardø, Norway

410 foot long timber structure framing a fabric cocoon and 328 foot timber walkway.

Zumthor & Bourgeois

Walkway has 91 randomly place windows to represent deaths of trials.

Walkway is only 5 feet wide and 328 feet, illuminated by 91 small dim lightbulbs, pulls through space towards end, and into Bourgeois's fire installation.

Walkway made from timber structure with tapered fiberglass membrane, Fire room has weathering steel and tinted glass-contrasting walkway.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

NE-Victims

PR-Norway Govt.

CHARACTER

AN-17th Century Science

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA MEMORIAL: GROUP

IDEA Steilneset

IDEA

IDEA LOCATION: Vardø, Norway

GROUP

IDEA

DESIGNER:

GROUP

IDEA & Bourgeois Zumthor

GROUP

TIME: 1600-1623 (17th Century) LOCATION: Vardø, Norway CONCEPT: Intimate spaces that elicit emotion through minimal lumination / elements

SUBJECT: Witch trials

410 foot long timber structure framing a fabric cocoon and 328 foot timber walkway. Walkway has 91 randomly place windows to represent deaths of trials. NOTES: ARCHITECTURE SPACE) by 91 small dim lightbulbs, LANDSCAPE Walkway is only 5 feet(PROGRAMMED wide and 328 feet, illuminated space towards (ENVIRONMENTAL end, and into Bourgeois's CONSTRUCT) fire installation. VISITEDpulls through

Firewalkway. Walkway madeCENTER from timber structure with tapered_________ fiberglass membrane, Fire room has weathering glass-contrasting � WATER steel and tinted PATHWAYS VISITOR COURTYARD _________ YES

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ NO � CHARACTER CHARACTER TREES CHARACTERBENCHES CHARACTER ___________ __________ SERVICE SPACES CHARACTER _________ AN-17th Century Science PR-Norway Govt. NE-Victims Design

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED PR-Interior Spaces � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED AN-Landscape/Environment � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY NE-Walkway Space � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________

FIGURE

IDEA MEMORIAL: GROUP

FIGURE

IDEA Memorial Roosevelt

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED DIRECT NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY FIGURE

STATUE(S) REPRESENTED PLAQUE NOT REPRESENTED ENGRAVED COUNTRYSTONE

FIGURE

IDEA

IDEA Island, Roosevelt FIGURE 100 Steilneset LOCATION:

GROUP

_________ CHARACTER _________

FIGURE

CLEAR ALL

New YorkIDEA

IDEA DESIGNER: Louis Kahn

GROUP

GROUP GROUP GROUP Memorial analysis form & Washington D.C. 1933-1945 president SUBJECT: Franklin Roosevelt TIME: image LOCATION: CONCEPT: Intimate spaces that elicit emotion through minimal lumination / elements

4 acres, based off of 4 Freedoms speech in 1941 State of Union. 3,600 square foot plaza NOTES: ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) surrounded by 28 (PROGRAMMED blocks of North SPACE) Carolina granite, eachVISITED weighing 36 tons. Copper Beach trees and little leaf lindens

Fire contrast 140,000 cubic feet of Mount Airy Granite. Simplified, roofless version of greek temple. � WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ YES REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ NO � CHARACTER CHARACTER TREES CHARACTERBENCHES CHARACTER CHARACTER ___________ __________ SERVICE SPACES CHARACTER _________ _________ NE-Marginalized Pop. AN-U.S.Design Govt. PR-FDR

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED PR-Interior Spaces FIGURE 101 � Roosevelt _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS DIRECT NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED AN-Landscape/Environment � _____________ Memorial analysis form PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY & image NE-Walkway Space � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________

FIGURE

IDEA MEMORIAL:

FIGURE

IDEA Memorial Roosevelt

FIGURE

STATUE(S) REPRESENTED PLAQUE NOT REPRESENTED ENGRAVED COUNTRYSTONE

FIGURE

CLEAR ALL

IDEA

IDEA Island, New YorkIDEA IDEA LOCATION: Roosevelt DESIGNER: Louis Kahn GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP Washington D.C. Roosevelt SUBJECT: Franklin TIME: 1933-1945 president of self" LOCATION: CONCEPT: "Room & a garden", "room is not just architecture, it is extension

4 acres, based off of 4 Freedoms speech in 1941 State of Union. 3,600 square foot plaza NOTES: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED surrounded by 28 blocks of North Carolina granite, each weighing 36 tons. Copper Beach trees and little leaf lindens

Granite � WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ contrast 140,000 cubic feet of Mount Airy Granite. Simplified, roofless version of greek temple. YES � NO GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: 12/20/2014 ___________ __________ SERVICE SPACES CHARACTER _________ _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER TREES CHARACTERBENCHES CHARACTER CHARACTER NE-Marginalized Design AN-U.S. Govt. PR-FDR AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Memorial

Pop.

PR-Main Courtyard REPRESENTED REPRESENTED ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS REPRESENTED AN-Small Room � NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED ______________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS �

FORMAL DESIGN REPRESENTED REPRESENTED DIRECT NOT REPRESENTED AMBIGUOUSNOT REPRESENTED

STATUE(S) REPRESENTED PLAQUE NOT REPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE COUNTRY

LOW AMBIGUITY COUNTRY

NE-Entrance/side paths � ______________ COUNTRY COUNTRY

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

FIGURE

CONCEPT: "Room & a garden", "room is not just architecture, it is extension of self" ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES � NO 12/20/2014 ___________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Memorial Design

HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

� � �

PR-Main Courtyard ______________ AN-Small Room ______________

NE-Entrance/side paths ______________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

�

Granite _________ _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

MEMORIAL: SUBJECT:

Canadian National Vimy

Canadian Forced Dead in WWI France

NOTES:

Pas de-calais, France

LOCATION:

DESIGNER:

Walter Seymour Allward

LOCATION: France

TIME: 1914-1919

Centerpiece of 250 acre military park of battle Canada won in France during WWI.

Battle at Vimy Ridge

was first time all 4 Canadian Divisions fought as cohesive unit. Seget Limestone bonded to cast concrete frame was material of choice, 100' tall twin pylons with french / canadian symbols on them.

CHARACTER

CHARACTER PR-Canadian Military

Canada owns permanently this section of land from France.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

PR-French Military

PR-Axis Powers

CHARACTER

AN-Allied Powers

CHARACTER

NE-Civilian Casualties

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

MEMORIAL: FIGURE IDEA

SUBJECT:

COUNTRY Canadian National Vimy FIGURE

COUNTRY COUNTRY Pas FIGURE de-calais, FranceFIGURE DESIGNER:

IDEA

GROUP

Canadian Forced Dead in WWI France

GROUP

COUNTRY FIGURE LOCATION:

TIME: 1914-1919

IDEA

LOCATION: GROUP

COUNTRY Walter Seymour Allward

FIGURE IDEA

France

GROUP

Centerpiece of 250 acre military park of battle Canada won in France during WWI. Battle at Vimy Ridge NOTES: Large Pillars representing both countries, Mothers/Fathers weeping over fallen missing soldiers. CONCEPT: was first time all 4 Canadian Divisions fought as cohesive unit. Seget Limestone bonded to cast concrete frame was material of choice, 100' tall twin pylons with french / canadian symbols on them.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

Canada owns permanently this section of land from France. LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ YES CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER � GRASS NE-Civilian Casualties HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ NO PR-Canadian Military PR-French Military AN-Allied Powers PR-Axis Powers Tomb ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED Formal Arrangement

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Scale of Space/ Pillars � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY AN-Interior of Pillars � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE NE-Landscape/Environ. � _____________ LOW AMBIGUITY IDEA IDEA IDEA

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY DIRECT

COUNTRY

IDEA

GROUP

Möltenort, Germany FIGURE 102 Canadian LOCATION: DESIGNER: Germany countries, Mothers/Fathers weeping over fallen missing soldiers. National Vimy Memorial CONCEPT: Large Pillars representing both SUBJECT: German U-Boat Servicemen lost WWI & WWII analysis TIME:form1914-1946 & image LOCATION: Various ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED 50' high sandstone pillar with 15' high bronze eagle on top overseeing the ocean. Two NOTES:

MEMORIAL:

U-Boat Men Lost

AMBIGUOUSFIGURE

FIGURE

NOT REPRESENTED STATUE(S) COUNTRY PLAQUE FIGURE STONE ENGRAVED IDEA CLEAR ALL

PATHWAYS VISITOR COURTYARD _________ Semi-circle walkway from oneWATER _________ Memory hallsCENTER with plaques and other assorted information. honorary hall to other, compressed between two wars. YES � GRASS other side. HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) NOside, Semi-Circle path has WWI U-boat _________ deaths on one WWII U-boat Tomb ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTERFORMAL DESIGN CHARACTER CHARACTER AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Formal Arrangement

NE-Civilian Casualties U-Boat Men DIRECT NE-Sealife _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS AN-Interior ofLost Pillars Memorial analysis form _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED AMBIGUOUSREPRESENTED & image NE-Landscape/Environ. LOW AMBIGUITY _____________

PR-German Military

AN-Allied Military Military PR-Scale ofPR-Axis Space/ FIGURE Pillars 103 � �

CHARACTER STATUE(S)

PLAQUE REPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE NOT REPRESENTED CLEAR ALL

NOT REPRESENTED

� NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

COUNTRY COUNTRY Germany FIGURE LOCATION: Möltenort, FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE DESIGNER: Germany

IDEA

MEMORIAL: FIGURE IDEA

SUBJECT: German GROUP

NOTES: CONCEPT:

U-Boat FIGURE Men Lost

TIME:

IDEA

NOT REPRESENTED

_________ _________

IDEA

1914-1946

IDEA

Various

LOCATION: GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP 50' high sandstone pillarEagle with in 15'center, high bronze eagleover on top overseeing the ocean. Semi-Circle with Bronze strength everything, service

U-Boat Servicemen lost WWI & WWII

Memory halls with plaques and other assorted information.

Two

Semi-circle walkway from one honorary hall to other, compressed between two wars.

ARCHITECTUREpath (PROGRAMMED SPACE)deaths on one (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED Semi-Circle has WWI U-boat side, WWIILANDSCAPE U-boat other side. REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: WATER PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ YES CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER NO � CHARACTER GRASS CHARACTERHILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) CHARACTER _________ _________ PR-German Military

SERVICE SPACES

AN-Allied Military

__________

NE-Civilian PR-Axis Military___________

_________

Form Meaning /Construct meaning REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

Casualties

TREES

NE-Sealife BENCHES

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED FORMAL DESIGN

REPRESENTED EXISTENT IN: AMBIGUITY

_________ REPRESENTED

STATUE(S) NOT REPRESENTED PLAQUE COUNTRY

NOT REPRESENTED REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Circle NOT Walkway ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY COUNTRYAN-Halls COUNTRY ______________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE NE-Landscape FIGURE LOW AMBIGUITY ______________ IDEA IDEA IDEA

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED DIRECT COUNTRY COUNTRY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE IDEA

IDEA

GROUP

ENGRAVED FIGURE STONE

CONCEPT: Semi-Circle with Bronze Eagle in center, strength over everything, service ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

Form Meaning /Construct meaning

PR-Circle Walkway ______________ AN-Halls ______________ NE-Landscape ______________

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

_________ _________ _________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

Jewish Martyrs

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: Holocaust NOTES:

DESIGNER: Louis Kahn

Not Built (Battery Park)

LOCATION:

LOCATION: Nazi Germany

TIME: 1933-1945

66ft sq. plinth with seven 10 x 10 squares 11' high made of elongated cast glass brick.Only center cube would be inscribed

Visual reading through cubes of movement, other people. Context gives meaning to site while embodying hope and despair.

Small circular chapel in center, would be only holder of program. REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

NE-Jewish Martyrs

PR-Nazi Germany

CHARACTER

PR-Axis Powers

AN-Allied Powers

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

MEMORIAL:

CONCEPT:

Not Built (Battery Park) Jewish Martyrs Louis Kahn DESIGNER: Silence and light, light and LOCATION: movement from city around it, material leaves a shadow full of light

SUBJECT: Holocaust

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

66ft sq. NOTES: VISITOR CENTER

Nazi Germany

TIME: 1933-1945

LOCATION: CONSTRUCT) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL

VISITED

plinth with seven 10 x 10 squares be Casting inscribed Glass Casting 11' high made of elongated cast glass brick.Only center cube wouldGlass

WATER PATHWAYS � _________ _________ YES _________ _________ NO (Doesn't Exist) Chapel Small circular in center,_________ would be only holder of program. ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES chapel _________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: Design of memorial AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: FORMAL DESIGN CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER STATUE(S) PR-gridded space,scale/light � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS NE-Jewish Martyrs AN-Allied Powers PR-Nazi Germany PR-Axis Powers DIRECT PLAQUE AN-NYC area context � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS AMBIGUOUSREPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED NE-PathwayREPRESENTED / Grid � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________ CLEAR ALL NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED COURTYARD

�

Visual reading through cubes of movement, other people. Context gives meaning to site while HILLS embodying hope and despair. � GRASS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO)

COUNTRY MEMORIAL: FIGURE

COUNTRY

FDR

COUNTRY COUNTRY Washington D.C. formCOUNTRY FIGURE 104 Jewish Martyrs analysis & diagram

LOCATION:

FIGURE

FDR SUBJECT: IDEA Presidency ofIDEA GROUP

IDEA TIME:

GROUP

DESIGNER:

FIGURE

1933-1945IDEA (president)

GROUP

COUNTRY Lawrence Haprin, LA

FIGURE

GROUP

FIGURE D.C. IDEALOCATION: Washington IDEA

GROUP

7.5 acres, traces 12 years of U.S. History through 4 outdoor rooms (1 for each term of FDR). NOTES: Silence and light, light movement city around Water it, material leaves a shadow full of bylight Intended to serve the disabled / impaired but and design was flawedfrom in its application. applications represent challenges faced FDR. CONCEPT: Single large drop-crash of economy. Multiple stairstep drops-Tenessee Valley dam project. Chaotic Water-WWII.Still Pool-Death. Wide Array-retrospective look.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: FIGURE 105 FDR Memorial analysis formGlass & image Glass Casting Casting

CHARACTER COURTYARD PR-FDR ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) AN-Disability Chapel __________ SERVICE SPACES REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

CHARACTER VISITOR CENTER

�

CHARACTER _________

CHARACTER WATER CHARACTERPATHWAYS CHARACTER � _________ YES NE-Disabled Citizens AN-WWII GRASS HILLS _________ _________ NO � (Doesn't Exist) TREES BENCHES _________ _________ REPRESENTED ___________ REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

Design of memorial NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED AMBIGUITY EXISTENTNOT IN: REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED FORMAL DESIGN

COUNTRY COUNTRY PR-gridded space,scale/light � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY

COUNTRY

FIGURE FIGURE� _____________ FIGURE AN-NYC area context PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS IDEA IDEA � _____________ NE-PathwayIDEA / Grid LOW AMBIGUITY GROUP

MEMORIAL: CONCEPT:

GROUP

FIGURE IDEA

GROUP

COUNTRY

DIRECT FIGURE AMBIGUOUS IDEA

GROUP

NOT REPRESENTED

STATUE(S) COUNTRY PLAQUE FIGURE ENGRAVED STONE IDEA

GROUP

CLEAR ALL

4 FDR differing conceptual rooms metaphorically representing aspects of each of Lawrence FDR's 4 Haprin, terms. LA D.C. LOCATION: Washingtondifferent

DESIGNER:

Presidency of FDR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

TIME:

1933-1945 (president) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)D.C. VISITED LOCATION: Washington

Cherry Trees � WATER VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ _________ 7.5 acres, traces 12 years of U.S. History through 4 outdoor rooms (1PATHWAYS for each term of FDR). YES � Walls NO � GRASS HILLS challenges_________ ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ Intended to serve the disabled / impaired but design was flawed in its application. Water applications represent faced by FDR. 3/2015 Open Rooms ___________ � BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES of economy. _________ Single large drop-crash Multiple stairstep_________ drops-Tenessee Valley dam project. Chaotic TREES Water-WWII.Still Pool-Death. Wide Array-retrospective look.

NOTES:

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: FORMAL DESIGN AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: CHARACTER PR-FourCHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER Rooms � ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS DIRECT NE-Disabled Citizens AN-Disability PR-FDR AN-D.C. AN-WWII landscape � PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS ______________ AMBIGUOUS

ENGRAVED STONE REPRESENTED

LOW AMBIGUITY REPRESENTED

NE-Tree grove alongside � ______________ REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

NOT REPRESENTED

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

4 differing conceptual rooms metaphorically representing different aspects of each of FDR's 4 terms.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE �

Open Rooms __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

STATUE(S) CHARACTER PLAQUE

�

3/2015 ___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER

PATHWAYS

GRASS TREES

HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN � � �

PR-Four Rooms ______________ AN-D.C. landscape ______________

NE-Tree grove alongside ______________

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

� �

Cherry Trees _________ Walls _________

_________ STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: Legacy of MLK Jr. NOTES:

LOCATION: Washington D.C.

DESIGNER:

TIME: 1929-1968

LOCATION: All over U.S.

Martin Luther King Jr.

ROMA design group

4 acre area, Granite mountain carved with differing quotes from many of Dr. King's speeches.

Sculpture by Lei Yixin.

Walkway between MT. is symbolic of moving through struggles as he did to reach a stone of hope.

Mountain can be also interpreted ambiguously as fight against society, public for equality REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

CHARACTER PR-Racism/Inequality

AN-MLK Jr.

CHARACTER

NE-Marginalized Pop.

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE MEMORIAL:

Martin FIGURE Luther King Jr. IDEA IDEA Jr. SUBJECT: GROUPLegacy of MLK GROUP

COUNTRY

FIGURE

COUNTRY

FIGURE Washington D.C.

LOCATION:

IDEA

GROUP TIME: 1929-1968

GROUP

4 acreofarea, Granite of mountain carved with differing a mountain despair, a stone of hope" quotes NOTES: CONCEPT: "Out Sculpture by Lei Yixin.

FIGURE

DESIGNER:

COUNTRY FIGURE ROMA design group

IDEA

IDEA over U.S. GROUP LOCATION: AllGROUP from many of Dr. King's speeches.

Walkway between MT. is symbolic of moving through struggles as he did to reach a stone of hope.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) ambiguously VISITED LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL Mountain can be also interpreted as fight against society, public for CONSTRUCT) equality Inscription REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: WATER PATHWAYS � _________ VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ YES CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________ NO �

Jr. __________ SERVICE SPACES AN-MLK

PR-Racism/Inequality

NE-Marginalized Pop.

_________

___________

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED EXISTENTREPRESENTED AMBIGUITY IN: Mountain Pieces/path

FIGURE� IDEA

BENCHES

REPRESENTED REPRESENTED FORMAL DESIGN

REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Path/scaleNOT through MT. � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS NOT REPRESENTED COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY AN-MLK Sculpture stone � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS

FIGURE LOW AMBIGUITY IDEA

TREES

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED DIRECT COUNTRY COUNTRY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE

NE-Tree Grove /Inscription FIGURE Walls

_____________ IDEA

IDEA

_________ REPRESENTED STATUE(S) NOT REPRESENTED

PLAQUE COUNTRY ENGRAVED FIGURE STONE

IDEA

CLEAR ALL

FIGURE 106 GROUP GROUP Holocaust GROUP GROUP Ohio GROUP GROUP Ohio Statehouse Columbus, MEMORIAL: LOCATION: DESIGNER: Libeskind Studio MLK Jr. Memorial "Out of a mountain of despair, a stone analysis form &of hope" CONCEPT: Holocaust 1936-1945 SUBJECT: TIME: LOCATION: Europe/Germany image ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) All lines irregular, stone benches and wallsVISITED point towards the Bronze sculpture carved with survivor story. NOTES: Inscription Controversy over separationCOURTYARD of church and state, as shattered star of David appears in WATER bronze sculpture in front of statehouse in Columbus. � PATHWAYS VISITOR CENTER _________ _________

YES

Framed view through star could ambiguously criticize govt., irregular shapes in� bronze may represent ever vigilance in preventing Holocaust from happening.

GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ NO ___________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER 107 Mountain CHARACTER Pieces/path FIGURE

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN:

FORMAL DESIGN

Ohio Statehouse AN-Holocaust Dead PR-Nazi Germany AN-Government PR-Path/scale through MT. � _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS Holocaust DIRECT REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED AN-MLK Sculpture stone � _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS Memorial analysis AMBIGUOUS NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NE-Tree Grove /Inscription Walls � LOW AMBIGUITY _____________ form & images

NE-Holocaust Dead

COUNTRY

FIGURE MEMORIAL:

COUNTRY

FIGURE Holocaust Ohio Statehouse

IDEA

Holocaust SUBJECT: GROUP

CONCEPT: NOTES:

COUNTRY

FIGURE Ohio LOCATION: Columbus,

IDEA

GROUP

TIME: GROUP

_________ CHARACTER STATUE(S) PLAQUE REPRESENTED ENGRAVED STONE NOT REPRESENTED

CLEAR ALL

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

_________

IDEA

1936-1945GROUP

FIGURE

DESIGNER:

COUNTRY

FIGURE Studio Libeskind

IDEA

IDEA GROUP GROUP LOCATION: Europe/Germany

Memorial to encourage of point values across ethnic identity and creed. All lines irregular, stonecontemplation benches and walls towards thegenerations, Bronze sculpture carved with survivor story.

Controversy over separation of church and state, as shattered star of David appears in bronze sculpture in front of statehouse in Columbus.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE)

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

Framed view through star could ambiguously criticize govt., irregular shapes in bronze may represent ever vigilance in preventing Holocaust from happening.

Bronze PATHWAYS � _________ VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIEDYES REPRESENTATION: WATER NO � CHARACTER GRASS CHARACTERHILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) CHARACTER _________ _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER ___________ BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ AN-Holocaust TREES Dead NE-Holocaust Dead PR-Nazi Germany AN-Government

AMBIGUITY IN: Bronze reliefREPRESENTED REPRESENTED EXISTENTREPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS

FORMAL DESIGN REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

PR-Framed viewNOT through Star NOT REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED DIRECT

______________ AN-Statehouse COUNTRY COUNTRY______________ COUNTRY PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS NE-PathwayFIGURE LOW AMBIGUITY FIGURE FIGURE ______________ �

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY AMBIGUOUSCOUNTRY FIGURE

FIGURE

REPRESENTED STATUE(S) NOT REPRESENTED PLAQUE COUNTRY ENGRAVED STONE FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT:

Memorial to encourage contemplation of values across generations, ethnic identity and creed.

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

VISITED YES NO

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Bronze relief HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

�

PR-Framed view through Star ______________ AN-Statehouse ______________ NE-Pathway ______________

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS TREES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PATHWAYS HILLS BENCHES

�

Bronze _________ _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

Dwight D. Eisenhower

MEMORIAL:

SUBJECT: President Eisenhower NOTES:

LOCATION: Washington D.C.

DESIGNER: Frank Gehry

TIME: 1953-1961 in office

LOCATION: All over U.S.

4 acres, small park situated in Washington D.C. surrounded by Department of Ed and FAA buildings.

(both initiated by eisenhower during presidency) large scale stainless steel tapestries with giant blocks of stones represent accomplishments and visual metaphors.

CHARACTER

PR-Eisenhower

Marginalized population during presidency and other perspectives not considered.

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

NE-Civilians Neglected(p)

PR-Axis Powers (wwII)

CHARACTER

AN-U.S. Military (WWII)

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

MEMORIAL: CONCEPT:

Washington D.C. Gehry Dwight D.ofEisenhower Create space scale and tranquility among buildings of accomplishments, use metaphorFrank to incorporate LOCATION: DESIGNER:

President Eisenhower SPACE) SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED

over U.S. in office TIME: 1953-1961 LOCATION: All LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED

4 acres, COURTYARD small park situated in Washington D.C. surrounded by Department PATHWAYS of Ed and FAA buildings. WATER VISITOR CENTER _________ _________ NOTES: YES (both initiated during presidency) scale stainless steel tapestries with of stones � GRASS HILLSgiant blocks_________ ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO)by eisenhower _________ largeNO represent and visual metaphors. Marginalized___________ population during presidency and other BENCHES perspectives not _________ considered. TREES __________ SERVICEaccomplishments SPACES _________

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: of Memorial AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Scale FORMAL DESIGN

CHARACTER CHARACTER PR-Tapestry/Urban Context _____________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUSNE-Civilians Neglected(p) PR-Axis Powers (wwII) PR-Eisenhower AN-Tapestry/Urban Context _____________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED NE-Tree/Lanscape LOW AMBIGUITY _____________ NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED

CHARACTER

COUNTRY

MEMORIAL: FIGURE

COUNTRY Veterans Disabled for Life FIGURE

IDEADisabled SUBJECT:

IDEA from Wars Veterans

GROUP

CHARACTER

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

LOCATION: Washington D.C.

IDEA TIME:

CHARACTER STATUE(S)

AN-U.S. Military (WWII)

IDEA 1776-present

GROUP

CLEAR ALL NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

DESIGNER:

Michael Vergason Landscape

LOCATION:

All IDEAaround world

IDEA

GROUP

PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE REPRESENTED

FIGURE

GROUP

1.7 acres, design that went through many changes to arrive at final design. Includes Memorial Grove, NOTES: Create space of scale and tranquility among buildings of accomplishments, use metaphor to incorporate CONCEPT: Walls of remembrance, eternal flame, reflecting pool, wall of gratitude, other standard memorial elements.

Criticized when initially designed as collection of elements, not cohesive design by committee. ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) VISITED REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: WATER CHARACTER PATHWAYS CHARACTER VISITOR CENTER CHARACTER COURTYARD _________ _________ CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER YES GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) AN-Veterans _________ _________ NO � AN-Psych. Issues PR-Veterans NE-Civilians ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Scale of Memorial

FORMAL DESIGN NOT REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED PR-Tapestry/Urban Context HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS COUNTRY _____________ COUNTRY COUNTRY

NOT REPRESENTED COUNTRY DIRECT

AN-Tapestry/Urban Context _____________ FIGURE

PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS FIGURE FIGURE

FIGURE

NE-Tree/Lanscape FIGURE 108 Dwight D. Eisenhower analysis form & image _____________ AMBIGUITY IDEALOW IDEA Memorial IDEA GROUP

GROUP

COUNTRY

AMBIGUOUSFIGURE

NOT REPRESENTED STATUE(S) COUNTRY PLAQUE FIGURE STONE ENGRAVED

FIGURE 109 Veterans IDEA Disabled for Life Memorial IDEA IDEA analysis form & image CLEAR ALL

GROUP

GROUP Washington D.C.

GROUP

Michael Vergason Landscape Veterans Disabled for Life MEMORIAL: Generate LOCATION: DESIGNER: Memorial space with elements of tranquility / peace, remembrance & eternity CONCEPT: SUBJECT: Disabled Veterans from Wars TIME: 1776-present LOCATION: All around world

ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) 1.7 acres, design that went through NOTES: VISITOR CENTER COURTYARD _________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT)

VISITED

many changes to arrive at final design.

Includes Memorial Grove,

Fire

WATER PATHWAYS � _________ YES wall of gratitude, Walls of remembrance, eternal flame, reflecting pool, other standard memorial elements. NO � GRASS HILLS ENCLOSURE MUSEUM (INFO) _________ _________

Criticized when initially designed as collection of elements, not cohesive design by committee. ___________ TREES BENCHES __________ SERVICE SPACES _________ _________ REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: Overall Message AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTERFORMAL DESIGN CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER STATUE(S) AN-Psych. Issues PR-Veterans PR-FlameNE-Civilians Pool Zone � ______________ HIGHLY AMBIGUOUSAN-Veterans DIRECT PLAQUE AN-Memorial Grove � ______________ PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED REPRESENTED AMBIGUOUS ENGRAVED STONE � NE-Reflecting Pool LOWREPRESENTED AMBIGUITY ______________ NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT REPRESENTED NOT COUNTRY

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT: Generate Memorial space with elements of tranquility / peace, remembrance & eternity ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

_________ _________ _________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: Overall Message HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

� � �

PR-Flame Pool Zone ______________ AN-Memorial Grove ______________ NE-Reflecting Pool ______________

VISITED YES NO

�

___________

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER

PATHWAYS

GRASS TREES

HILLS BENCHES

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

�

Fire _________ _________ _________

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

MEMORIAL:

�

_________ AN-Pathways/Around Dome _________ NE-Landscape/Park _________

International Peace/Perry's Victory

SUBJECT:War of 1812 NOTES:

DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE CLEAR ALL

LOCATION: Put-in-Bay, Ohio TIME:

DESIGNER:

1812-1815

25.83 acres, Worlds most massive Doric Column 352' tall.

LOCATION:

Joseph Freelander / Alexander Seymour

U.S. Territories

Honor those who fought in Battle of Lake Erie.

Commemorates lasting peace between U.S., Canada, and Britain, 3 officers from U.S. & Britain are buried beneath monument.

Granite construction with viewing platform at top, reminiscent of Lighthouse, battle was key win in War of 1812 by U.S.

CHARACTER PR-Oliver H. Perry

REPRESENTATION / IMPLIED REPRESENTATION: CHARACTER CHARACTER

CHARACTER

AN-U.S. Servicemen

PR-British Military

CHARACTER

NE-Canadian Civilians

NE-Lake Eco. Conditions

CHARACTER NE-Ship Service Workers

REPRESENTED

NOT REPRESENTED

COUNTRY

FIGURE

IDEA

GROUP

CONCEPT: Pillar of Granite, looking over undefended border off of Lake Erie ARCHITECTURE (PROGRAMMED SPACE) VISITOR CENTER MUSEUM (INFO) SERVICE SPACES

COURTYARD ENCLOSURE __________

AMBIGUITY EXISTENT IN: HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS PARTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LOW AMBIGUITY

VISITED

_________ _________

YES NO

_________

___________

Meaning behind Pillar Choice �

PR-Viewing Deck _________ AN-Plaza below _________ NE-Peace Park, Landscape _________

�

LANDSCAPE (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCT) WATER GRASS

PATHWAYS HILLS

_________ _________

TREES

BENCHES

_________

FORMAL DESIGN DIRECT AMBIGUOUS

STATUE(S) PLAQUE ENGRAVED STONE

FIGURE 110 International Peace / Perry’s victory Memorial analysis form & image

SITE ANALYSIS: WASHINGTON D.C.

Washington D.C., from its urban planning to its individual memorial designs, is purely a place of representation. It is that within this

representation the cities of the United States look for precedents of new methods and strategies for commemoration, often mimicking popular design styles and processes for local memorials to the same subject.

It is within this city, a unique dichotomy exists between Washington D.C. and Arlington V.A.; as D.C. is the location where

politicians first make the decision to send soldiers into war, and Arlington V.A. is the last place the soldiers rest. In essence, the political machine in Washington D.C. fuels its own success, for every war that is fought, there is sure to be a national memorial that follows. Washington D.C. and nearby Arlington V.A. were visited and analyzed in March 2015 to find the best suitable site for the installation of a War on Terror memorial.

FIGURE 111 L’Enfant Plan for Washington D.C.

FIGURE 112 McMillan Plan for Washington D.C.

WASHINGTON D.C., MEMORIAL CAPITAL

The relation of Washington D.C. to the memorials and monuments that inhabit it is more complex than the existence of memorials

on the National Mall. George Washington chose the site for the capital city as a monument to the great nation that the United States was to become, envisioning Washington D.C. as a bustling port that would one day connect the western rivers to the eastern seaboard.40 The hiring of French architect and mapmaker Pierre L’Enfant by Washington to design the plan for the city would serve to strengthen this idea, suggesting broad avenues and boulevards that led to different national monuments and memorials on a city-wide scale. L’Enfant’s plan at its base was a Jeffersonian grid with scattered coordinates superimposed onto it to create public squares and circles. These public spaces were recognizable through a national monument that was housed in their center, connecting each other through grand avenues and boulevards radiating in diagonals that cut through the grid.41 The public monuments in these spaces allowed the complex and abstract relations of L’Enfant’s plan to be understood and visible from the ground, leading the public from one monument to the next and giving them the ability to measure the expanse and growth of the city. It’s evolution over the next two centuries would reflect the challenges the rest of the United States would face on a national scale and the attempts of urban designers, architects, and planners to solve them through design. The injection of a more vibrant national rhetoric would be implicit after the American Civil War when Washington D.C. adopted another major urban plan, the McMillan plan, in the late 1800’s. The McMillan plan incorporated patriotic rhetoric into the rather ambitious 40 41

Savage, Monument Wars: Washington D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape. Ibid.

goals of the new City Beautiful movement, with a oversight committee comprising of architect Daniel Burnham, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr., architect Charles F. McKim, and sculptor Augustus St. Gaudens to preside over the plans implementation. The plan would reclaim green space, strengthen the National Mall, eliminate slums and establish a comprehensive park and recreation system. The McMillan plan improved upon Lâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Enfantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan and created a living monument to the United States experience, both the good and bad aspects, at a national, city and local scale. The development of memorials in Washington D.C. over the subsequent century would mirror public attitudes about architecture, space and design. The McMillan plan provided vast open spaces in the monumental core of the city along the National Mall, allowing citizens to symbolically gather and protest different public policies and problems over the subsequent decades.

FIGURES 113-115 Civil unrest in Washington D.C.

The transformation of the national mall in the early 20th century away from the picturesque traditions of antiquity represented a transformation of consciousness in the American public away from public grounds and into public space.42 Public grounds were seen as ornament to the earth, static and re-arrangements of ground treatments, where public space is intangible, abstract and pure, its only definition rising out of the public and their perception of its meaning based on their own experience. A bloody battlefield to a child is just a field to run in, until they learn the historical significance that the field had played. Since President Lincoln dedicated the first war memorial in 1863 at the field that held the Gettysburg address, memorials and monuments have had many ways in being defined. The public space that was created in Washington D.C. represented the national grandeur that the distracting details of the picturesque garden could not create, removing and renaming local statues and memorials to forge a cohesive representation and symbol of national power.

Ibid.

WASHINGTON D.C.

National Park Service managed sites

1 2 FIGURE 116 Prospective Sites for memorial proposalin Washington, D.C.

SITE SELECTION

The site selection for national commemorations has historically been in close proximity to the monumental core of Washington D.C.,

namely the National Mall and immediate surrounding areas. Despite the different design decisions and moves of many of the memorials, the memorial landscape around the national mall seems homogeneous and commercialized. Even the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial, as controversial and championed as its design is, falls victim to being just another memorial on the highly advertised tour of national memorials.

Empirical analysis confirms this, as the most commanding aspect of the memorial core was the expanse of the land that connected

them. A walk to each memorial and to the capitol building registered at over five miles, enough to tire out the casual visitor. With this in mind, the site for a memorial to the War on Terror should incorporate scale and this expanse of space, separating from the memorial core of Washington D.C. to fully communicate the scale and effect the war has had on the United States economy, population, and reputation abroad. It is recognized that any particular site can be given meaning; the rhetoric by the proper authorities empowers the government to designate any site they view as significant to the narrative of the United States. The Lincoln Memorial, built on dredged soil from the Potomac River, was not installed on land of significance, it was only when an urban planner and architect declared the area to be that the dredge became an important part in the foundation of a memorial. The scale factors are much more apparent in Washington D.C., the National Mall and their memorials when they are visited and analyzed empirically. Few photographs and pieces of media truly account the affect that the distance, height and overall scale has on the viewer. The context and surrounding environment in which these memorials reside add to the experience of the memorial design, leveraging these different environmental factors as assets to the experience of a memorial. Scale, distance and environmental factors were all considerations in revision of potential sites to two.

NATIONAL MALL

CAPITOL BUILDING

MEMORIAL PROPOSAL AREA ANACOSTIA RIVER

FIGURE 117 Site one

Site one suggests an transformation of the National Mall with expansion past the capitol building to the east, eventually connecting it to the Anacostia River and creating a complimentary lawn to the National Mall past the Supreme Court building. The immense scale of the site, at more than 3.5 kilometers, would provide development ground for future war memorials that relate to the War on Terror. The memorial for the War on Terror then becomes a platform to register residual military actions caused by the initial War on Terror, creating a timeline of the de-stabilization of a whole region. The first site offers direct connection to the urban grid of Washington D.C., and a controversial dynamic with the removal and displacement of existing infrastructure, resonating to the public the outcome of a larger part of the War on Terror, the Iraq War.

FIGURE 118 Site two

Site two suggests the site for the memorial to be located on a series of interstitial spaces on the city limits of Virginia and Washington D.C., southwest of the national mall and wedged between the Potomac River and Arlington National Cemetery. The site 60

consists of green buffer zones, foliage and main arterial highways that connect the surrounding region. The potential of the site has already begun to be realized, with the southeast corner of it hosting a memorial grove to Lyndon B. Johnson and a memorial to the Navy Merchant Marine. Similar to the Lincoln memorial site, these memorials add meaning and value to the lower third of the site, while the upper twothirds currently remain as service spaces. The scale of the site, noise pollution and heavy volumes of traffic through it provide a unique opportunity to create memorial experiences for different circulation types, leveraging undesirable factors as assets instead of nuisances. The site itself is a pressure point between the politics of war in Washington D.C. and their consequences, which lie in Arlington National Cemetery. By placing a prospective War on Terror memorial within sight of Arlington and the National Mall, it positions the public between two iconic symbols of United States war, allowing them to decide for themselves their own public memory of the war. The addition of the site’s green areas together form a space that is roughly 1.25 miles long from end to end, allowing the distance of the memorial to partially affect its visitors through scale. The seemingly secluded nature and ambiguity between the state and local jurisdictions of the site coupled with its rather innocuous landscape led to its selection as the location for the memorial to the War on Terror.

SITE ANALYSIS: COLUMBIA ISLAND WASHINGTON D.C. / ARLINGTON V.A.

The site, officially known as Columbia Island, was a natural extension of the northern Roosevelt Island that became its own island

in the late 19 century, when erosion from the Potomac River washed away the connecting land piece. The Army Corps of Engineers th

continued growing the island by adding dredge materials from the bottom of the Potomac from the early to mid 20th century. Meaning was given to the dredge island over the course of this growth with the installation of highways and several commemorative areas in the island’s southeastern portion. A memorial grove, a park and a memorial imbibed part of the island with the reputation of the monumental core in Washington, bestowing cultural value to a piece of land that was once quite literally at the bottom of a river. UA

WOODED AREA U1

COLUMBIA ISLAND SITE SOIL SURVEY ACRES IN SITE

% OF SITE

UDORTHENTS, SANDY

2.2

1.3%

UDORTHENTS

54.6

31.4%

UDIFLUVENTS, SANDY

14.5

8.3%

LINDSIDE LOAM

8.7

5.0%

BIBB SANDY LOAM

7.4

4.2%

U1 UA

U3 UA Bg UA

FIGURE 119 Columbia Island ecological / soil diagram

The layering of dredge material from the Potomac River has created a soil base that is classified under the Udorthent category, generally indicating that the drainage of the soil is high. The above figures illustrate the soil composition of the island, which was later shored up by the army corps of engineers to resist erosion and degradation to the infrastructure on the island. The ecology of the island has since evolved naturally from the soil, assistance coming from the National Park Service when they planted 2,700 Dogwood trees and more than 1 million Daffodils from 1965-1968. The addition of these landscape elements coordinated with the southeastern portion of the island being commemorated for President Lyndon B. Johnson and his wife, known as Lady Bird Johnson. With this memorial grove, the 61

southeastern portion of the island program now included a marina and a national Merchant Marine Memorial that overlooked the National Mall. The commemoration of the lower southeastern portion of the island gave new value to what was once a land mass made from dredge material.

FIGURE 120 Columbia Island circulation diagrams

An initial observation of the site upon visit observed the commanding nature of the transportation infrastructure has on its green space, relegating them to secondary buffer zones. A formal analysis of the surrounding area of the site was performed to distill different elements such as infrastructure, buildings, slope, water and circulation. The analyses confirmed the focus on circulation paths and transportation and revealed two axes, one between memorials in the Northwest and Southeast intersecting with one from the Southwest to the Northeast. These axes, along with other politically established boundary lines provided the limits of the site utilized for the memorial proposal.

B C A

C A

B B A

B A

FIGURE 121 Boundary diagrams

The boundary lines established were broken down into seven program zones, formed by viewing each area as to their proximity toward Washington D.C. or Virginia. The zones between the boundaries established of each state were viewed as zones of conflict, ideologically representing a pressure point between the two programs existent in Arlington, Virginia, the location of the U.S. war deaths and Washington D.C., the location of the politicians that are responsible for sending them to war. With the zones hierarchy determined, the transportation infrastructure is overlaid to visualize the different areas that could be infused with commemorative program, assigning value to a previously desolate bunch of residual green spaces. These spaces are leveraged and connected, creating a comprehensive landscape that on different scales acts as a memorial that reflects the changing public perspective of the complex war on global terrorism led by the United States of America.

FIGURE 122, 123 Conceptual sketches of war-torn landscape areas

WAR ON TERROR MEMORIAL DESIGN The design of the physical memorial to the War on Terror is a culmination of the entirety of research provided thus far, accounting for how historically memorial design has developed in the United States, the implicit rhetoric in memorial creation, contemporary methods of violence / war commemoration, and a system that empirically analyzes and distills the effectiveness of prominent memorial designs. The design is conceptual in nature, suggesting spaces and programs that challenge the conventional means of commemoration, the ultimate goal being the alteration of the way in which war is traditionally represented in the national conversation.

DESIGN PROCESS The approach to the design process is to combine elements of landscape and architecture to inform two different environments connected through grand distances, utilizing existing infrastructure to create unique spaces and experiences. The interpretation of their connection to the War on Terror would depend on the visitor’s relationship to the war and their reaction to the spaces and experiences that they are traversing. The memorial employs time as one of its main conceptual engines, incorporating the ecology of the area along with architectonic materials in the creation of these experiences around the program spaces.

The landscape of the memorial covers the different program zones, and increases in the intensity of its application towards the

center, designated the conflict area. The design of the landscape is intended to disturb the environment around it, through the deposit of sand in the main conflict area emulating the invasion into the Middle East by the United States. The sand would be deposited over a period 63

of years using dredge material from the Potomac River during its routine dredging by the U.S. Army corps of engineers. The dredged material, likely to be composed of sandy loam, would be dried and then deposited on site in phases. The initial shock of the memorials creation would be when the public views this stage from the highways surrounding the memorial, observing its growth over subsequent years. The correlation of this intervention with the war is apparent, but also allows for deeper interpretations by the visiting public.

FIGURE 124 Sand deposit over time change

A simplistic interpretation views the act of covering the ground with sand as referencing the invasion of a foreign material on a naturally occurring ecosystem. This move can also be perceived as merely a reference to the sand of Iraq and Afghanistan, the two major wars in the War on Terror thus far. The location of the sand also reminds the public and politicians of the psychological baggage that plagues servicemen upon their return. An in-depth interpretation would reveal the ecological consequences of the sand deposit, allowing varying flora and fauna to develop on its surface while constructing and killing the existing ecology, a metaphor that parallels the invasion by the United States into foreign countries. With this development, the sand deposited would foster unwanted ecological growth in parts of the site, referencing the segmentation and unpredictability of the most recent targets of the War on Terror, Daes’h (ISIS). The landscape of the memorial would take significant time to complete, allowing for different experiences and interpretations to arise as different phases of the memorial are completed. To conceptualize the form of the landscape at different time periods of the memorial, study models were generated that depicted the possible surface conditions of the site of the memorial. These models were treated as barren landscapes and given program apporpriate to the countours and surface conditions of each model. They were then divided and combined together in different arrangements to conceptualize space and program that is formed as the landscape evolves over time. The models were mainly conceived as an exercise in the application of meaning to a unknown, desolate landscape; providing value to certain spaces based on the meaning applied to them. 64

This methodology in the application of value to a landscape that was previously not valuable mimicks the process of applying rhetorical power to objects and lanscapes that are commemorated as monuments and memorials.

SURFACE 1

SURFACE 2

SURFACE 3

SURFACE 4

FIGURE 125 Conceptual landscape forming exercise

The study models revealed possible spaces and connections from the overlapping landscapes, relegating this study solely as a conceptual exercise and not further utilized for the memorial design. The architectural element of the memorial host different programs within two different zones that interconnect and influence the way each program is experienced. Â The main memorial space is realized as a corridor carved into the earth, with varying heights and widths following an axis from the Merchant Marine Memorial in the southeastern 65

section of the site to the Navy Memorial in the northwestern section of the site. This 1.2-mile path splits the corridor between a surface zone and a subterranean zone, allowing the landscape architecture of each to shape the experiences in the differing programs.

FIGURE 126-131 Conceptual surface program sketches

The surface zone integrates with the landscape, crossing over the subterranean corridor to form a bridge for circulation and viewing of the corridor below. In areas not connected with a bridge, large slabs of granite with varying heights protrude from the corridor, creating a viewing parapet for the visitors of the memorial landscape and a fissure in the conceptual pressure point between D.C. and Arlington. The granite provides the necessary support for three program spaces in the memorial, each having different experiences based on their location in the subterranean or surface zones. The scale of the spaces formed by the architecture is charged with impressing enormity of mass and scale on the viewer, avoiding a specific translation of how the war effects the United States, but suggesting that its effect on United States is grand in scale, and will never completely be comprehended. The memorial corridor spans the entire axis of 1.2 miles, with roughly a third of that distance representing the surface zone of the memorial. The subterranean zone integrates with the landscape of surface zone, leveraging the drainage properties of the sandy loam soil 66

base to affect the granite walls of the memorial. A drainage system channels water from the surrounding soil area into weep holes arranged at different levels in the corridor wall, embedded cor-ten steel within the drainage pipe allows runoff water to drip down,Â staining the pieces of granite interred as the corridor wall. The staining of the wall interrupts the usually pristine environment of the memorial experience, fluctuating in size and frequency depending upon water saturation of the surrounding environment. Â Over time, the memorial corridor wall registers different concentrations of staining, visually reflecting the drainage of the soil structure in the immediate environment while serving a role in the experience of the memorial. Â The staining process gives a sense of temporality to the otherwise static memorial element, leveraging the design as not just a piece of architecture and landscape, but also a graph of the ecological condition of the site.

FIGURE 132-137 Conceptual subterranean program sketches

THE PROGRAM

The way in which a space is utilized defines its value, relevance and form in contemporary culture. This notion has been debated

through architectural discourse in the past century, most notably in the shift of thinking from European modernists deriving architectural form from function. Within memorial design, program has had a varied history of application in shaping public spaces. From plazas and courtyards to facsimile recreation of forts, program has been both integrated into the memorial design and has been built separately to permit the visiting public to learn, view and reflect on the subject of the memorial. Program elements, such as visitor centers and museums, add value and meaning to the memorial by informing public about context not represented in the form of the memorial. This use of multimedia and other mediums can give a specific meaning to what was once an abstract or formal design. In this manner, program increases the value of the memorial, creating subconscious connections to the event commemorated and fostering new experiences through the architecture of the memorial.

The design proposal for the War on Terror memorial takes this into account, harboring a public program that provides necessary

support services to its visitors. It uses the subterranean and surface zones of the memorial as a platform for a program that accommodates a variety of needs including spaces for gathering, learning and healing. A place for gathering, a program element that has arisen out of the monumental core in Washington D.C., is supported through the design of the larger scaled spaces of the memorial, providing infrastructure to support the gathering of groups of people for protest, worship, ceremonies, speeches and other public programs. The events taking place at the memorial will inherently have the undertones of being in some way related to the War on Terror, alluding to the expanse and effect the war has on contemporary society and culture. A place to learn, a program element that has been frequently added to many national memorial and monuments, often takes the form of a visitor center on its site. The visitor center archetype, with its patriotic or pre-determined rhetoric, would not serve as a place to learn in this memorial, rather, the design of the memorial corridor and landscape would imbibe major concepts about the war into their design. This would charge the public with learning about the war through the memorials design, provoking them to interpret each design move differently in relation to the war. A place to heal is a program element that resonates the most in memorials of terror, violence and war. Many visitors to these memorials go to deposit emotions of sadness, angst, and anger into the architecture, allowing them to have closure and to continue living their lives. The design for the War on Terror memorial creates spaces that provoke this reaction in its visitors through its architecture. Through the use of scale, light, and materials, the corridor and the surface of the memorial create moments of great affect that encourage a different response, albeit meditation or adverse reactions, that bring closure to them. The memorial quarantines specific areas of its design to bring closure and healing to the returning veterans of the war, arguably those that are in need of healing the most.

FIGURE 138-140 Conceptual program space sketches

MULTIMEDIA V.A.

D.C. 6

16 18 18 20

28 24

300’

20 20

0 100’

14 12

22 4

2 4

SC ALE=

16 18 22

26 26

800’ 1:5,000

10 4 1

1214

6 8

12 24

SPACE TYPE A

C. D.

T O

NORTH ENTRANCE

N TO NG I SH WA

IV E

20 20

16 12

28 CENTRAL GATHERING SPACE

8 6

MODELED SECTION A-A

8 20

SPACE 24 TYPE A

18 18

6 16

20 30

34 32

36 16

12 10 12 10 8

SOUTH ENTRANCE

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

KEY EXISTING FOLIAGE / TREES

EXISTING BUILDINGS

EXISTING ROADWAYS

NOTATED ELEMENT

FIGURE 141 Site Plan

The subterranean and surface programs inhabit different space types that leverage the existing infrastructure in the creation of affective spaces within the design. Space type A occurs when the corridor intersects a roadway, creating a chamber underneath the roadway in which the sound of traffic overhead resonates. The resonant sound from the traffic overhead is amplified and echoed, creating an audible experience referencing the sounds of a battlefield, but dependent on the the above vehicular circulation and evironment to produce it. 69

FIGURE 142 Conceptual Rendering, Central gathering space

FIGURE 143 Conceptual Rendering, Program space type A

FIGURE 144 Site Model, Birch plywood, plexiglass, and finishing nails

FIGURE 145 Central gathering space, site model

FIGURE 146 Detail, site model

DETAIL AXONOMETRIC OF MEMORIAL CORRIDOR DRAINAGE / STAINING

AREA OF SAND / ECOLOGY

MEMORIAL CORRIDOR WALL

SANDY LOAM LAYER OF CLAY FOR NATURAL WATER DRAINAGE

WEEP HOLES FOR DRAINAGE /STAINING

CORTEN STEEL PIPE OR SIMILAR FOR STAINING PURPOSES

GRAVEL BASE FOR DRAINAGE IN PATHS

UNPOLISHED GRANITE OR SIMILAR WHITE STONE TO MAXIMIZE STAINING EFFECT

FIGURE 147 Detail, staining drainage system diagram

FIGURE 148 Plaster corridor sections, A-A

FIGURE 149 Aerial view of corridor section A-A, plaster

FIGURE 150, 151,152 View down corridor with differing widths, plaster

Plaster casts of differing sections of the corridor were made to represent, sectionally, the different widths, heights and spatial density of the memorial corridor. These varying elements differ the experience for the visitors to the memorial, making them uncomfortable at times of the environment around them. These elements channel the visitor through the corridor to the main gather space, the deepest section of the corridor and directly in the path of the memorial procession from Washington D.C. to Arlington National Cemetery.

FIGURE 153 Rendering after initial sand deposit, landscape

FIGURE 154 Rendering after growth, landscape

FIGURE 155 Rendering after continued growth, landscape

FIGURE 156 Rendering after staining, corridor

FIGURE 157 Rendering after continued staining, corridor

FIGURE 158 Rendering after continued staining, corridor

CONCLUSION

En Memoriam started with a critical analysis of the history, trends, and tendencies of war commemoration in the United States, ex-

ploring cultural patterns in the memorials and monuments that are designed. This inquiry exposed the question as to the effectiveness of the war memorial and its place in contemporary society, challenging the methods and tools traditionally used to design them. Further empirical and secondary research exposed a flaw in United States memorial culture, the relevance of the memorial diminishing over time versus its intention of remaining timeless and eternal. Emerging memorials to terrorism, violence and war in the United States are beginning to address this issue, but succumb to patriotic rhetoric that shorten the memorial lifespan instead of providing engaging memorial experiences that prolong it. Memorializing the War on Terror while it is ongoing charges the memorial as a commentary on the war itself, its location between Arlington National Cemetery and Washington D.C. emphasizing the disconnect between social, political and economic classes. This design proposal is an attempt to synthesize the research conducted into a contemporary war memorial in an age of terrorism, violence and war.

Challenges within the execution of this thesis were numerous, notably the distilling of cultural bias in the analysis of memorials, the

interpreting of a politically charged contemporary issue in society and the sheer scale of commemoration in the United States. Terrrorism, as it turns out, is no longer inherently a term dictated by the United States government, rather it is dependent on the perspective of the terror act that one holds.

En Memoriam as a thesis attempts to re-conceptualize the architectural approach to war memorial design in an age where the

public is no longer kept hidden from the atrocities of war. With some of the impractical design moves that it suggests in the War on Terror memorial proposal, it is suggesting that this approach not hold onto the comfortable means of commemoration that society has grown accustomed to. The reprocussions that the United States has caused in its 150 years of war should cause discomfort and disruption in domestic society, perhaps the only way that the American public will truly grasp the effects of war waged so far from home. The intention of En Memoriam is not to suggest another memorial design in the United States commemoration ethos, but rather to begin the conversation on the many issues plaguing contemporary memorials in the United States, and acknowledge the necessity of architectural design and discourse in the conversation on how to solve them.

Bibliography Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities [in English]. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Verso Books, 2006. 2006. 1983. Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century [in English]. Princeton University Press, 1993. Book. Boym, Svetlana. The Future of Nostalgia. Basic Books, 2002. Carney, Lora Senechal. “Not Telling Us What to Think: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial.” Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 8, no. 3 (1993): 9. Carpo, Mario. “The Postmodern Cult of Monuments.” Future Anterior IV, no. 2 (2007). Daggett, Stephen. “Costs of Major U.S. Wars.” 9: Congressional Research Service, 2010. Doss, Erika. Memorial Mania. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago, 2010. Elliott, Cecil D. “Monuments and Monumentality.” Journal of Architectural Education 18, no. 4 (1964): 51-53. Flowers, Benjamin. Skyscraper: The Politics and Power of Building New York City in the Twentieth Century [in English]. University of Pennsylvania Press, September 2009. Giedion, Sigfried. “The Need for a New Monumentality.” In New Architecture and City Planning, edited by Paul Zucker, 1944. Greg Dickinson, Carole Blair, Brian L. Ott. Places of Public Memory the Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials. Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Critique. Edited by John Louis Lucaites Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 2010. Book. J. L. Sert, F. Léger, S. Giedion. “9 Points on Monumentality.” 1943. Mayo, James M. War Memorials as Political Landscape: The American Experience and Beyond. First ed.: Praeger 1988. ———. “War Memorials as Political Memory.” Geographical Review 78, no. 1 (1988): 62-75. Meringolo, Denise D. Museums, Monuments and National Parks. Public History in Historical Perspective. Edited by Marla R. Miller Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012. Mumford, Eric. The Ciam Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000. Rabinbach, Anson. “From Explosion to Erosion: Holocaust Memorialization in America since Bitburg.” History and Memory 9, no. 1 (8/10/2014 Fall 1997): 226-55. Ruskin, John. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York: Wiley & Halsted, 1857. Savage, Kirk. Monument Wars: Washington D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape. California: University of California Press, 2009. ———. Standing Soldier, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War and Monument in Nineteenth-Century America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997. Shanken, Andrew M. “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States During World War Ii.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 1 (2002): 130-47. Vattimo, Gianni. “Postmodernity and New Monumentality.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 28 (1995): 39-46. Vidler, Anthony. “Monument, Memory, and Modernism.” 2010. Williams, Paul. Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities [in English]. 2008.

FIGURE 159 Outcome