Jerome W Haferd - Portfolio SP 2017 by Jerome W Haferd

JEROME W HAFERD jhaferd@gmail.com Born in Akron, OH, 1985. Lives and works in New York City

M. Arch. 2010 Yale School of Architecture, Yale University B.S. with distinction 2007 Knowlton School of Architecture, The Ohio State University

co-collaborator, jerome w haferd & k brandt knapp project designer, Bernard Tschumi Architects adjunct assistant faculty, Columbia University GSAPP

JEROME W. HAFERD jhaferd@gmail.com 12 E. 127th Street, #3 New York, NY 10035

DESIGN PORTFOLIO

ARCHITECTURE SCHOLARSHIP / TEACHING PUBLIC ART / ACTIVISM

Independent

Curtain, Astoria, Queens, NY (built, 2012)

Parting, Long Island City, Queens, NY (built, 2013-2014)

caesura, Marcus Garvey Park, Harlem, NY, (built, 2015)

Notes on the Acropolis (Marcus Garvey Park) (writing, 2016)

Fielded (proposal), Sweet Briar College, VA (Finalist, 1 of 3, 2013)

Tap Cap, New Museum Ideas Festival, NY (proposal, 2012)

Piazalle Roma Transit Hub, Venice, Italy (project, 2009)

DA LOFT, Jersey City, NJ (built, 2015-2016)

Harvard Allston Plan (student project, 2007)

Smart Car Dealership (project, 2007)

Professional

Tour Monaco (in-progress, 2016-ongoing)

Tianjin Museum of Industry (under construction, 2013-ongoing)

Bernard Tschumi : Concept & Notation, Centre Pompidou, Paris, France (built, 2014)

30 Ans du Frac Exhibition, FRAC Centre Toulouse & Orleans, France (built, 2013-14)

Teaching (selected work by students)

Concept & Site : Revisiting the Morningside Gym (GSAPP Advanced Studio V, Bernard Tschumi professor, Fall 2016)

Curtain, Astoria, Queens (built, 2015-2016) with K Brandt Knapp Curtain is an object in the landscape as well as a mutable, spatial experience at close range. The invention of Curtain lies in the coupling of a ‘soft’ material to a rigid but playful underlying structure. The folly rests on a 25 square grid, with an inner 9 square enclosure that transforms via opening ‘beads’. There are only two primary components which make up the architecture; the curtain and its structure. This armature forms a series of frames beginning with an 8’ high, rectilinear proscenium at the front “façade”. The grid of slender, wooden posts meets a triangulate canopy of equally thin, but sturdy wooden members. *Curtain was the winning entry of the inaugral 2012 Folly competition hosted by The Architectural League of New York and Socrates Sculpture Park.

Curtain, site plan (upper left), exterior photograph, elevation, exploded axonometric

FOLLY Organized by Socrates Sculpture Park and The Architectural League July 14 – October 21, 2012

ABOUT THE DESIGNERS Jerome Haferd is originally from Akron, Ohio. His academic and professional pursuits initially led him to several locales, including the Beijing offices of OMA and Zephyr Architects. He now works at Bernard Tschumi Architects in New York. Brandt Knapp, a Baltimore native, currently works at Richard Meier and Partners in New York. She studied photography as well as architecture and has maintained a strong interest in the arts and teaching.

CURTAIN A project by Jerome Haferd and K. Brandt Knapp

SUPPORT Folly, a partnership of Socrates Sculpture Park and The Architectural League of New York, is made possible through a generous grant from the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts. Socrates Sculpture Park’s Exhibition Program is also supported by the generosity of the Lily Auchincloss Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Mark di Suvero, Lambent Foundation Fund of Tides Foundation, and Spacetime C.C. This program is also supported, in part, by public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency, and by public funds from the City of New York Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council. Special thanks to the City of New York, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Queens Borough President Helen M. Marshall, City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan, City Councilmembers Jimmy Van Bramer and Peter F. Vallone Jr., and the Department of Parks & Recreation, Commissioner Adrian Benepe. HOURS AND DIRECTIONS Socrates Sculpture Park is open 365 days a year from 10 am to sunset and is located at the intersection of Broadway and Vernon Boulevard in Long Island City, New York. Monday through Friday take the N or Q trains to the Broadway stop in Queens and walk eight blocks along Broadway to the intersection of Vernon Boulevard. On Saturday and Sunday take the N train to the Broadway stop. For driving, cycling or walking directions, please visit our website at www.socratessculpturepark.org. CREDITS “Curtain” was selected by a jury that included: Alyson Baker, former Executive Director of Socrates Sculpture Park (2000 –11) and current Executive Director of the Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum Yolande Daniels, Studio SUMO Richard Gluckman, Gluckman Mayner Architects Christopher Leong, Leong Leong Architecture Leo Villareal, artist The program is directed by Elissa Goldstone, Exhibition Program Manager, Socrates Sculpture Park, and Gregory Wessner, Special Projects Director, The Architectural League. ABOUT SOCRATES SCULPTURE PARK Socrates Sculpture Park was an abandoned riverside landfill and illegal dumpsite until 1986 when a coalition of artists and community members, under the leadership of sculptor Mark di Suvero, transformed it into an open studio and exhibition space for artists and a neighborhood park for local residents. Today it is an internationally renowned outdoor museum and artist residency program that also serves as a vital New York City park offering a wide variety of free public programs. Socrates Sculpture Park is the only site in the New York Metropolitan area specifically dedicated to providing artists with opportunities to create and exhibit large-scale sculpture and multi-media installations in a unique outdoor environment that encourages strong interaction between artists, artworks and the public. The Park’s existence is based on the belief that reclamation, revitalization and creative expression are essential to the survival, humanity and improvement of our urban environment. www.socratessculpturepark.org

ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL LEAGUE The Architectural League nurtures excellence in architecture, design, and urbanism. Through lectures, symposia, exhibitions, competitions, publications, and digital communications, the League creates a lively independent forum for artistic and intellectual work. The League presents the projects and ideas of the world’s most interesting and influential architects and designers to New York, national and international audiences; identifies and encourages talented young architects and designers; and helps shape the future by stimulating debate and provoking thinking about the critical design and building issues of our time. www.archleague.org

FOLLY AT SOCRATES SCULPTURE PARK FEATURING “CURTAIN,” THE WORK OF JEROME HAFERD AND K. BRANDT KNAPP

Socrates Sculpture Park and The Architectural League are pleased to present the inaugural installation of Folly, a new residency and commission for emerging architects and designers to produce and exhibit a full-scale project at Socrates Sculpture Park. Socrates, in partnership with the League, established the residency to explore the intersections between architecture and sculpture and the increasing overlaps in references, materials, and fabrication techniques between the two disciplines. Especially popular among the Romantics of the 18th and 19th centuries, architectural follies are small-scale structures often placed within a garden or landscape as a means to draw the eye to specific points or to frame a view. A folly—the name of which derives from the French folie, to mean “foolishness” or “madness”— often has no discernable purpose or function (hence its name), though they might sometimes provide seating or shelter. Follies were often purposely eccentric or unusual, historical or stylistic foils to their immediate contexts, and in this way they were intended to incite the imagination and delight the eye. In playing with conventional ideas of function, form, and scale, the folly is an architectural typology that shares many similarities with contemporary sculpture and installation, making it a particularly apt theme for this new residency.

JEROME HAFERD’S and K. BRANDT KNAPP’S project, CURTAIN, was selected by a jury of architects and artists through an open Call for Proposals that invited emerging architects and designers to speculate on contemporary interpretations of the folly. Curtain is composed of a series of frames of slender wood posts, arranged in a 25-square grid defining a volume of space 25 feet wide on each side, with a triangulated roof canopy that varies in height from 8 –12 feet. The vertical and horizontal planes that make up the volume are draped with a dense “curtain” of white plastic chain. Fixed in some places, hanging free in others, the white chain creates “rooms” that viewers can occupy, offering changing spatial experiences within the outline defined by the wooden framework. The title of the piece alludes to the material quality of the chain as it reacts to breezes off the East River as well as a word play on the architectural “curtain wall,” a nonstructural façade that hangs off the frame of a building.

AN INTERVIEW WITH THE WINNERS INTERVIEW BY GREGORY WESSNER

GREGORY WESSNER: Since this competition called for contemporary reinterpretations of the folly, I want to start by asking, first what is it that you’re doing? And how do you see it as a folly? JEROME HAFERD: Our project is called “Curtain.” Very simply it has three main components that come together to create a volume. Those three components are the frame, made of 4" x 4" wood beams; steel joints that connect the frame; and a curtain of white plastic chain that is then draped over the frame. BRANDT KNAPP: We were really excited about the project prompt [for a folly]. That’s what got us going. We both have an interest in, let’s say, program-less architecture; architecture that has little or no function or purpose. I would say the components are for the simplicity of the project. It is complex in its form, yet simple in its components. We started with a plan that is a very regular orthogonal 25-square grid made up of 5' squares, so it’s 25 feet by 25 feet. Within that larger grid, we inserted a 9-square grid and a 4 square grid. Then in designing it, we set some rules that kept being denied or transformed by the interaction of these three grids. JH: In our research of follies, there are always words like “fantastical” or “fanciful” or “extravagant.” So we really wanted something very clear and simple. The challenge was how could we create a system that is supplying you with an extravagant amount of references and positions and different forms that come out of a very basic set of rules. In addition to our three grids, there were only a few more rules that we wanted to follow, one of which was creating an entry with a very specific form. Beyond that, it became much more loose in how we played with a few key constraints. We started at the front and then let it evolve as we moved back. GW: Let me ask you about these rules: what are they, why do you have them, what do they do? BK: Some of them are extremely simple. As Jerome was saying, we wanted a formal entryway. So if we start with the grid and we know that one side is the main entryway and we know we want to make a fanciful entry, then we have five squares within that side of the grid to work with. Take the center three and there it is. A lot of it had to do with the siting within the park. Then we think about the back of the project versus the front. JH: There’s a progression from the front to the back and displacements along the way, so that you depart from what is a really strong front elevation through a series of weak de-centerings to a small quotation of the front entryway at the back. It is a reminder for us of this progression across and around and through. We start with this almost proscenium entry at the front and it evolves into just a weak little square at the back. You could say the rules are self-imposed but in a sense they’re given to us by what a folly is supposed to do: it’s inherent in a folly to play with rules and to deny expectation. BK: That’s the idea of a folly: it’s “thought play.” We were interested in the idea of transformation and the chain link was the final step to really let this project be extremely transformative. Allowing those curtains to be pushed aside and off the structure. That for us was the last layer of play. JH: The chain is great because it clicked with us and brought us in dialogue with certain artists, which is what we really wanted to bring into the project. BK: We’re not extremely interested in material, but the fact that it’s way plastic, glossy chain link … GW: You’re very excited about that. JH: Yeah. [Laughter] GW: What artists were you looking at that you wanted to be in dialogue with? JH: The chain came out of our internal discussions about making something that is sort of a field and an envelope emerging out of that field, but as soon as we started to think about beads or chain, that’s when we began to look at artists who had done this before. Felix Gonzalez Torres was one of the first we looked at. Jesús Rafael Soto is another artist that we looked at, because we wanted to kind of explore references that we were perhaps vaguely aware of but wanted to delve deeper into. BK: In our proposal we had a word-play about an idea of a “curtain wall.” It was interesting for us because we work day jobs where we’re working on curtain wall schedules and it’s all very standard and architectural, like a kit-ofparts, and something to order and then this fabricator is going to make it. When we’re sitting here, when we’re designing our folly, we’re thinking, “Okay, what is the enclosure of this thing? Like how do we make partitions or walls or how does this volume really show itself?” There’s of course something beautiful about seeing just a wood frame, but it needs to be a folly. We wanted to find out how exactly to make this volume without using plastic sheets that would just keep out the water. And we knew

that if it were a harder material there would be no way we would be in budget. We thought this thing also needs to transform. It’s in a park; it needs air to go through it. We wanted it to move and be bendable. How does this happen? JH: I think the juxtaposition to a curtain wall is great. On a certain level the structural system and the envelope of our folly is very ephemeral, but you could argue that it’s laden with just as many constraints, just as many expectations and variables as a super-heavy skyscraper curtain wall. It’s just a different set of them. BK: And conceptually it does make walls. It makes thresholds and it makes barriers between areas and between the interior and the exterior. I know that when it comes to this idea of a curtain and contemporary architecture, we are certainly not the first to propose a curtain. But for us I think people hear the idea of curtain wall and our project is called “Curtain,” so it makes a lot of sense. GW: In addition to artists, what references were you looking at specifically in terms of follies? JH: I looked at playgrounds. [Laughter] GW: So you were picking up on the playful aspect of follies. Follies can have lots of different meanings and purposes. Eccentric. Surreal. Whimsical. Even political. Were there other aspects that you were thinking of? BK: This is where Jerome and I are great partners because we look at different kinds of things. Two things struck me, thinking historically and architecturally. I thought of British landscapes and I thought of grottos. The fact that this is a public park in Queens and follies were typically on very rich people’s property, built in the garden or landscape for a nice view or to possibly have picnics in or something, excited me on a social level. It also excited me on a visual level and to think about idea of what is beautiful and what is the sublime. That this could be in a landscape with New York City skyscrapers in the background–what those views are and what is beautiful today or what is sublime? The idea of the sublime mixed with a grotto made a lot of sense. The texture of a grotto and the texture of the chain link is something that was really exciting to us when we finally had that moment of, “Ah, chain link; that’s easy and it comes in rolls.” JH: Our background is very formal and our architectural education has been filled with a kind of heavy background in the disciplinarity of architecture. Certain references come to our mind simply based on our education and our professional experience. In addition to these things we were also looking at abstract art. It’s interesting to juxtapose minimalist sculpture with certain folly precedents that that come from British landscape, which tend to be much more expressive and very Rococo and Baroque. So we were looking at several different things. BK: And bottom line, it asks you to play. I mean, that’s what this typology asks you to do. We were excited to play. [Laughter] GW: When you say you looked at the work of artists— when architects say that they look at an artist’s work— what are they looking at in that artist’s work for reference and inspiration? What are they taking from it and how does it get translated into architecture? JH: That’s a big question. One thing is an interest in how the artist brings something that is an abstract idea into the real world, how they grapple with a form or an idea that is sometimes essentially abstract and then realize that in space and meant to be perceived in the world. GW: Doesn’t an architect also do that? JH: Yeah, an architect does that. GW: So is there a difference in the way an artist does it versus an architect? JH: I could go on so many different trajectories with this. I, for one, began looking at sculpture even more in this project than I had in the past, but I think that it’s almost easier in a way for architects to engage painting because it deals more with the two-dimensional surface. One way I conceive of architects is that we make drawings and we work with the two-dimensional surface. We work with a frame, we work with composition and formal relationships. I like to see how painters develop their grammar and their language in their work. How they play different games over a series of works, be it shapes— I love to look at how painters work with different shapes; be it larger ideas of the frame and the canvas; or even color or not color. One thing that I began to think about when looking at sculpture versus painting when we were thinking about this project was how it really does matter to someone’s perception as they walk around a piece of sculpture. As much as we like to have the whole picture in one representation, a sculptor is dealing with, among many other things, that problem a lot more intentionally. BK: I think that I’m interested in anything or anyone that poses questions that get me thinking on a level that art is supposed to, but I think that the difference between

many artists and many architects are so blurred. It’s really just that our disciplines that set us apart. I think especially today with new kinds of fabrication technology and the fact that many artists have assistants and don’t create the work themselves, by their own hand, they are working very much like an architect. I think that that line between art and architecture really has a lot to do with disciplinarity. GW: So when you say that a lot of artists are working like architects, what is that way of working? JH: They outsource their production. [Laughter] GW: So you’re saying there’s a change in the way we might think of an artist working, some possibly romantic idea of the artist making a work by his or her own hand, alone in the studio. Now they’re more like an architect, who is orchestrating others to make the work. BK: Yes! Orchestrating, managing the production of the project. That is what architecture is. This reminds me of the question you are asked freshman year in college when you take architecture 101: What is architecture? Is architecture somehow related to art? Does it have an art sensibility? To be able to say this is a work of architecture or a work of art, what are those criteria? To each their own; everybody has their definitions of what art is and we have been formed in a certain way. GW: So ultimately do you think there is there any difference between art and architecture? BK: There really isn’t. JH: There is no difference in the work. The difference is the history and what you’re looking at and what has come before you. And that’s created not only by our education, our discipline, but it’s also external. What are the expectations of a discipline by the public and the history put on those expectations? While we’re on site at Socrates, people ask us, are you making a house? Are you making a shed? BK: Are you making a gazebo? [Laugher] GW: Do you think that visitors are going to look at your piece differently than the other projects in the park, which are made by artists? And would that bother you one way or another? BK: This is the best question, because we’ve been out there every day. A lot of times visitors don’t want to even say “house” or “gazebo,” until they’re told that you’re an architect, which is interesting. They may think it looks like a house, but they don’t want to put it into that category because of the context. JH: They don’t necessarily have the words or any other vocabulary to ask what they want of it. That’s just the closest thing that they can get to, house or gazebo. BK: Power dynamics are always crazy, right? You get people who are like, “wow, architects!” But they you also get people who are like, “wow, artists!” And architecture is just some gazebo or some house, because people always think in typology. JH: But they don’t seem to question that it’s in a sculpture park; they seem cool with that. [Laughter] GW: Your project obviously has a lot to do with grids; you talked about that already. What is the fascination by architects with grids? BK: I think artists are interested in grids as well, as Rosalind Krauss would point out. I think that grids are important to try and understand something. There’s something about using grid paper when you’re in sixth grade that everybody understands. Both of us studied under Peter Eisenman. We heard all the time there are three different types of grids; 25-square grids, 9-square grids and 4-square grids. It has to be one of those three grids. Well, our project is all three of them. JH: I have a funny anecdote, which I think also gets at why we use grids. When we had just the holes dug on site, which is very much based on the grid, Mark di Suvero, who’s obviously very involved with Socrates and very interested in all the work done there, came by and he said, “Oh, so you guys are using a grid? You’re still haunted by Descartes.” [Laughter] It was a little bit of a dig and I said, “Just wait until this thing grows into the trees and transforms.” BK: I think now he’s scared. [Laughter] JH: Because he comes by and looks at it now and it’s amazing how much the grid is present but also invisible, now that the project is coming out of the ground. GW: Now I want to ask you some more broad questions about architecture. As young architects who are just starting out, how do you feel about the practice of architecture right now? BK: Within the last four years there has been all this talk about, “Oh, now that the economy has gone down, we’re going to have paper architects again and produce these Zaha Hadids and are we all going back into our caves to study.” I think that all of us in this world right now, no matter where you are, cannot hide in a cave. We are on the internet, we are connected, we are

expressing ideas. I think that architecture in so many ways, in terms of the profession, is melding in some form or another with academia. Architecture will continue to pick up new ideas and will continue to resurface historical ideas, which is what we’re interested in. We’re interested in being in the here and now, being on the internet, being on the phone, being at the club, being at all of these places and being alive, but at the same time having a root, having a core. I think architecture as long as it has that core—which obviously is its disciplinarity—as long as it has something to fall back on, it’ll continue to grow and continue to foster continue to change. Architecture seems to grow into anything and everything. Hopefully it’ll just continue to be relevant. JH: I’m optimistic about architecture right now. There’s been a lot of frivolity and surface and image and it seems that the next step would be a little bit of interest in meaning again, from the public and from architecture in general, but still retain this kind of postmodern humor. But I think people are interested again in intent and meaning and history. BK: Rather than, how can you just fabricate that or make a cool rendering. GW: Were the 2000s, when there was so much building going on and so many starchitects making spectacle buildings, a good period for architecture? Did that inspire you while you were in school? JH: Only because buildings were actually being built. [Laughter] BK: I think that it was both. You could definitely see a generation gap. Architects that were younger than the starchitect generation that were successful were much more interested in certain types of think tanks or labs and so on. Even though they might not have been making the money or having the publicity that starchitects were having, they seemed to be provoking ideas and be successful and productive and moving forward in their careers. I think that the think tanks weren’t really seen by general public the way starchitects were, but to us, they were just as important and they were emerging at the same time while we were in school. So it just made us realize, “Oh, there are so many different trajectories you can have in architecture, what you can be interested in.” JH: For me it was really interesting because during school I worked in China. I decided, “I’m going to go to a contemporary place where architecture is at the forefront.” See CCTV under construction and see these things that really are kind of other to what we see when we look out of the window here in New York City. That’s why I said it was interesting to me that these buildings were being built. There’s no way to not be excited about that because it pushed architecture so far in terms of actually producing things. It pushed our productive capacity light years ahead in terms of collaborating with other disciplines, getting stuff realized within a budget that allowed it to be realized. You learn, “Oh, you can do this cheaper than we did it before.” I think that it was really important and the aftereffects of that era of high budgeted experimentation are trickling down to a more vernacular expression of forms and ideas that needed that to happen. BK: We’re always excited that there are clients out there that want to support these high budget experimentations. We are really so grateful for those clients. It’s great that somebody wanted to put their money and investment in really furthering our discipline. If those works get built, as Jerome said, then we’re able to study them and look at them on an even deeper level. JH: Brandt and I are really interested in how some of these things that we assume required a digital process actually start to get incorporated into much more baseline analog ideas about form and people get used to seeing different things that may or may not have anything to do with digital processes. BK: But going back to our folly, it was doable because of some of this same software. But even though it’s a crazy triangulated surface, we’re building it out of standard four by fours. JH: Four by fours and bolts. GW: Would this have been doable 12 years ago? BK: No, not without a computer program. In terms of how to design it, I think it would’ve been extremely difficult to hand-draft that conceptual idea. You needed a computer. GW: Would you have even been able to have the idea? JH: That’s the better question and I think, no. I think Brandt and I could sketch this form but it would have been a different thing. But it’s so much a part of our generation’s thinking; it’s not even about being digital or not, it’s just now in the vocabulary of what we think about. Interview conducted on June *, 2012

Folly, exhibition handout and interview (collaboration with and graphic design by Pentagram)

Parting, Long Island City, Queens (built, 2013-14) with K Brandt Knapp Parting is a sequence of spaces created through a game of occupation, play, and passage. This folly, the second in a series, forms thresholds and frames, beginning with an 8’ high entry under which a pedestrian path meanders through. The folly is 25’ x 25’, with columns that directl play with the ground plane on a 25 square grid and beams that follow a game of rise and fall. The structure is topped by a triangulated canopy, which chain link then envelopes and dances across, thus creating dramatic angles. There are only three primary components which make up the architecture; the frame made of wood; steel joints that connect; and the curtain of plastic chain that is then draped. The center houses an opening to the sky, while elsewhere diagonals plunge towards – and even meet – the ground. The final effect achieved is a habitable ‘drawing’, with thick lines (columns and beams) and thin lines (chain). The “rules” of the game for this project were designed to explore architecture and form making. These rules are denied, played with, and transformed by the interaction of the folly with its site and users.

a b

19 a

a b

a a

a L

21 a

b 8

b b

615

b 7 19

b b

25 26

a b

b a

F b a O

a b

b a

K a

b 12

a A

E b 4

b b

B b

b 4 a a 3 b

C b

17 11

b b

a 17

14 a

a 28

a C

3 b

Curtain (2012), notated members

a b

7 b

a 24

a 25

a a

a 10

22 b

G 21

a a

b 20

N 16

11 K

b 4

P a

14 1

a S

L b

a a

M 32

a b

Q a

18 a

a 28

a a

b 25 a

a 29 a

b 27

19 b

8 I

a 3 b

b 3

b a

a D

a 10

a b

D b

14 b

a a

Parting (2013), notated members

JWH_KBK_052212_ B - 1b - 2a - 11a - 12a

12a

0 1/4"

.6°

3 9/16"

3 1/2"

11a

/16 "

11 11/16" 10 13/16"

3 1/2"

/16 "

12b

1'-1 1/4"

1'-0"

11 13/16"

3 1/2"

JWH_KBK_052212_K - 12b - 13a - 14a - 15a - 16a - 17a JWH_KBK_052212_K - 12b - 13a - 14a - 15a - 16a - 17a

1'-1 1/4"

16a 16a

15a

1 3/4" 3'-

9 1/8"

1'-0"

1 3/4" 3'-

5/1

17a

9 1/8"

1'-0"

3 1/2"

K 3 1/2"

/2"

13a

14a

12b

/2"

13a

3 1/2"

1'-0"

1'-0 5/16"

3 1/2"

12b

12a 63.4°

11 13/16"

11a

45.0

16"

9 7/

11 11/16" 10 13/16"

3 1/2"

3 1/

45.0

1'-0 5/16"

11a

2a 10 1/4"

10 1/4"

/16"

63.4°

11 1'-0

12a

3 1/2"

1'-0"

11a

11a 9 7/16"

3 1/

16"

9 7/

9 7/16"

2a 10 1/4"

3 9/16"

/16"

0 1/4"

11 1'-0

3 1/2"

1'-0"

13a

12b 13a

14a

Parting, exterior photograph of see.mee hosted local projection artists event

caesura, Harlem, (built, 2015-2016) *with K Brandt Knapp and Jessica Feldman (sound/media artist) cae•su•ra: a forum is inspired by Marcus Garvey Park’s iconic antebellum Fire Watchtower & Bell, and by Harlem’s vibrant tradition of activism and rallies. The bell is silent now, as the tower was temporarily dismantled in 2015 as the first phase for its reconstruction. Simultaneously, Harlem is undergoing dynamic change and New York City is experiencing a resurgence of public culture. caesura seeks to temporarily fill an architectural gap – and create a social space – by echoing and inverting the form and function of the absent tower. Like the bell, caesura aims to call up the neighborhood, to preserve and revitalize Harlem’s histories, and to connect newer and older community members to each other, by reactivating this site for congregation, viewing, and listening. The installation will reframe history with a temporary structure and sound. A “caesura” is a break or pause, a place to catch your breath, most specifically in ancient spoken-word art.

caesura, Harlem, (built, 2015-2016)

caesura, closeup showing plastic membrane with sound transducer

â&#x20AC;&#x153;We wound through the poorer streets at first, a black image of sorrow, then turned into Seventh Avenue and down and over to Lenox. Then I hurried with the leading brothers to the park in a cab. A brother in the Park Department had opened the lookout tower, and a crude platform of planks and ranked saw horses had been erected beneath the black iron bell, and I could feel my eardrums throbbing with the old, hollow, gut-vibrant Dong-Dong-Doom.â&#x20AC;? (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (New York: Vintage, 1995), 451)

Harlem Fire Watchtower (historic photograph, shown on Acropolis - currently removed for restoration)

clockwise from top left : site plan (drawing), elevation (drawing), event flyer (by the artists), exterior (photograph), local arts event (photograph), Harlem Fire Watchtower (historic photograph circa 1922, currently removed from site)

- Marcus Garvey speeches at UNIA (United Negro Improvement Association) (west 138th st) (1921) - #BlackLivesMatter protest in East Harlem winter 2104 - Malcolm X at Abyssinian baptist church June 1963 - Assata Shakur reading her letter to the Pope 1998 from exile in Cuba (born in Queens went to college in Harlem at City College and was a leader of the Harlem branch of the Panthers.) - #BlackLivesMatter/#Shut DOwn 5th Ave protest in Harlem (December 2014) - Assata shakur chant and Rebel Diaz song - Robert Mugabe (president of ZImbabwe) at Mount Olive Baptist Church in Harlem speaking on Land Reform in Zimbabwe (2000) - Marcus Garvey Park drum circle recorded June 2015 (excerpted speeches, caesura audio recording composition; produced by Jessica Feldman)

caesura, lit to celebrate Open House New York and community end of season event,

Notes on the Acropolis, Project #6 (journal, forthcoming 2017) Notes on the Acropolis

The Acropolis of Marcus Garvey Park (mini-seminar lecture, GSAPP Advanced Studio, Fall 2016)

Harlem’s Marcus Garvey Park Acropolis – also known as Mount Morris – is an exceptional instance of an alternative space for social dynamics in the city. The Acropolis rises out of the quotidian gridwork of East Harlem, paradoxically positioning itself as both community center and marginal space. The natural schist rock formation is traversed by a classical promenade of stairs and landings as well as the improvised paths of its users. The idealized plan of terraces is bent repeatedly in order to adjust to the natural topography, resulting in a hybrid between the formal and the topographic. At the summit, the mountain culminates in a flattened elliptical plinth, which is capped by a historic Watchtower. The visual and circulatory connections between the different layers reveal an urbanism counter to that of the surrounding planimetric city in which the park’s heterogeneous user groups interact and negotiate spatially through section. The current ecology of participants includes the two extremes of casual outsiders and frequenting residents, whereby the three-dimensional “architecture” of the Acropolis is appropriated in a careful calibration of visual and spatial boundaries. The former comprises both local and global tourists, and the latter includes drug traffic lookouts, men cruising for sex, and a Drummer’s Circle – made up mostly of African and Latino residents from the surrounding community. Each group can be roughly characterized by different visual and physical occupations of the site: flâneurs and visitors move through the system periodically and randomly, spatially pushing and pulling on the more established user groups. Lookouts are stationary and constant, using precise visual alleys of desired height and length that determine their favorite spots. Cruisers use self-designated areas as well as ad-hoc semi-protected areas at different times. What is remarkable about the Acropolis is not that all of these users inhabit this vertical section but that they do so at the same time and with undetermined, ever-evolving relationships to one another. This informal in-the-round urbanism is reminiscent of earlier twentieth century avant-garde imaginings such as Hans Hollein’s Uberbauung ‘sculpture cities’ – abstract collages of floating urban megastructures that resemble geological features in scale and formal character. Conceived as architectural “manifestos” against Modernism, these conceptual formations could support activities and behavior outside the range of those found in the “functionalist” city. The New York City parks derived from extreme topography constitute a set of latent figures of resistance, embedded anti-theses to the Manhattan grid. The anomalous topography and diversity of park spaces lend themselves to spatial appropriation of a different kind. A critique of grid-based urbanism, which has long been dominant in America, is that it absorbs difference and passively normalizes heterogeneity. In the topographic space of an environment like Marcus Garvey Park (that which is organized by differentiation in slope) rather than striated space (that which is organized by a metric overlay) one notices that a political space is re-instantiated, where individuals and groups are introduced into mutual awareness and negotiation. Becoming more sophisticated in spatial vocabularies like those found on the Acropolis could allow for the concerns of the marginalized to be more intentionally synthesized into the mainstream when designing public space.

1 The Harlem Fire Watchtower, b. 1 5 , removed in 2015 and currently under restoration by the NYC Parks epartment. In 2015, a team including the author installed a temporary pavilion titled caesura on the acropolis in response to the Tower’s absence. 2 see: Hans Hollein, Manhattan Superstructure (collage, 1963), and Uberbauung Salzburg (collage, 1962)

THE FIRE WATCHTOWER I Site History DPR Capital & Thornton Tomasetti

Tap Cap, Storefront IDEAS CITY Festival, New York (street fair proposal 2013), with K Brandt Knapp Tap Cap proposes a replicable, re-designed column, which is arrayed and “ganged” together to form an elegant, repeated A-frame bar for its longitudinal elevation and a barrel vault transverse elevation with a spatially rich interior. The basic unit is designed as two variations (solid and open) of a simple column, constructed using thick, honeycomb cardboard slats as an egg-crate structure. The basic column has been modified: beginning with an extra-thick zone for spatial carving created by amodified “capital” and realized by various constraints - structural, formal, replicabi-ity, budget and fabrication. The basic vault is 9’ high in the interior with a “skylight” reaching 10’ in height. The interior width ranges from 8’ to 10’ and deletion of spe-cific modules would accommodate larger gatherings.

2’ REMOVAL FOR 2’ REMOVAL OPENING FOR AND OPENING AND TO FIT ON 4’X8’TO SHEET FIT ON 4’X8’ SHEET

1’ MINIMUM STRUCTURAL 1’ MINIMUM THICKNESS STRUCTURAL THICKNESS

INTERIOR PROFILE INTERIOR - SPATIAL PROFILE CARVING - SPATIAL CARVING SIDE PROFILE SIDE PROFILE CREATE STREET CREATE FACADE STREET FACADE 4X8 STANDARD PANEL

COLUMN CREATION DIAGRAM

4X8 STANDARD PANEL

INTERIOR LOF TO CREATE RE

Fielded (proposal), Sweet Briar College, VA (Finalist, 1 of 3, 2013) with K Brandt Knapp What defines a territory? As architects, we are concerned with this question today more and more. Architects are often seen as object or monument makers. However, one of the most essential tasks performed by architecture has to do with place-making and “framing” a site. The ideal piece on the Sweet Briar campus, in our minds would engage existing latent “territories” of the site, mark, and establish a new “micro territory” on the campus. A place to study; a place to congregate, and discuss in real space and time. By placing a differentiated “field” and incorporating a designed, “radial” grid, we envision a site-specific work which will perform as a spatial architectural environment and an abstract communicator of the evolving aspirations, uses, and identity of Sweet Briar College. We are interested in utilizing the field as a device, however, the unique boundary defined between the sculptural comSweet Briar Original Campus Plan, Ralph Adams Cram

ponents will possess an “object-hood”, constituting a multi-layered figure on the campus.

Fielded (proposal), Conceptual collages, proposed sites #1 & #2.

Fielded (proposal), layered historic property lines drawing (above left), proposed sites (1-3) for site-specitic sculpture (above right), Excerpts from conceptual research component (below)

Be it elaborate site plans and elevations featuring the sprawling monumentality of the Beaux Arts, or the analytic drawings which work hand in hand to produce the conceptual and abstract forms of Modernism. More and more, we find ourselves mediated through our devices. Technology, though rapidly changing, has begun to incorporate some new “perspectives” from the past. Even satellite imagery has begun to shift from a conventional “plan” view to more “immersive” aerial views taken at a 45 degree angle from above, changing the culture of how the territory is viewed once again. Being historically minded, we are interested in engaging this discourse further. The formal concept of the piece can be calibrated to “perform” from a contemporary vantage point (the web) but analogous in representation to analog processes of hot-air-balloon survey for example, which in previous centuries were utilized to draw maps and record. Thus, we ask ourselves, what if the site specific piece were to align with the satellite or Google Earth, “preferred” view of our age. A visual and design strategy which conflates an orthogonal geometric appearance with perspective is rich with possibility on a landscape such as Sweet Briar.

critical transformative layer which could be conceptually ‘excavated’ to enrich the project. We have a vested interest in the relationship between territory and built form, and have pursued the idea of territory and frame for a conceptual project in Venice, Italy. The proposal attempted to create a building as a series of frames, one which interrogated the idea of architecture by not only looking at frames as literal spaces, but also established or “framed” an image of the city that can be viewed within the mind of its inhabitants (see images 21-25). In our process, we examined the “territory” of enice and the surrounding mainland through mapping landscape characteristics while conceptually diagramming the historical land/ building forms (see images 22 & 23). This layered understanding of the frame and territory is something we are interested in exploring in our project for Sweet Briar. We would like to engage the community of Sweet Briar, including as many students as possible, in a design process with the richness and conceptual depth appropriate for such a significant intervention on the grounds. ur approach to this site specific piece, which we anticipate to enrich and evolve through the design process with Sweet Briar, is to activate the project and its constituent “fielded” parts to be in dialogue with and thus reinforce Cram’s original plan. The axial foci and compositional strategy are strong elements in the landscape that beg to be foiled upon or negated from within a playful framework or game. ‘ ther’ than composition and form, the experiential qualities persist and the human as well as mediated (computer or smart phone) view of campus can be considered rivals and friends of the Beaux Arts design. The main buildings, originally laid out by Cram, set up a formal axis which is, at present, approached at an angle from the main entrance road. By siting our proposal on or near this confluence, we feel it is possible to formalize the fielded proposition, to (literally or conceptually) offer an alternative “mirror” of the main axis. The focus at the far end of this axis is the chapel, however the placement from the 25 plot plan suggests a ghosted “mirror” to this focal point. A similar “game” plays out at a different scale in the transformation process of our second folly, arting. A single frontage is first spliced about the diagonal, and then mirrored to re-route an existing passage (see images 10-14).

Aerial drawing of Sweet Briar : Conceptual process diagrams

jwh-kbk _ Sweet Briar Letter of Interest

In much the same way as Cram, our design language brings together multiple references, simultaneously evoking Modernist Architecture as well as Landforms and Topography. The beautiful and the sublime become operative in our work. For example, we have paired a visually driven site strategy, similar to English gardens, with a more abstract formal approach reminiscent of renaissance or high modernist thinking in the same project (see images 1 through 9). In the case of this folly, Curtain, a privileged view was given a proscenium, or façade, to reinforce the entry to the park, whereas the geometry of the piece was based on the interaction between a 4 square, square, and 25 square grid. In all these cases, concerns of habitation and ‘play’ are made to act on the form, eroding and transforming an otherwise more hermetic system into something entirely new. The Beaux Arts School is most recognized by lasting works which invent upon classical, architectural form. However, In addition to form, representation itself including drawing style and paradigms of ‘viewing’ the built environment were part of this very robust design pedagogy. We are similarly invested in representation and its overt influence on the actual design process. ur folly project, Curtain, was conceived of as a line drawing manifested in real space. Our goal in the project was to have the different materials, i.e. chain and wood, read as varying line weights (see image 6). Historically, design approaches correspond with the prevailing modes of representation, or viewing - the zeitgeist.

Aerial view of Sweet Briar : Conceptual Process Diagram

When conceiving of a fielded proposal, we feel the relationships of the parts to the whole is of primary concern. The constituent “pieces” which make up the overall form are flexible in number, but the “points” of the radial grid we imagine, will begin as Columns, Walls, and other Forms. They will possess a similar design vocabulary, and thus be visual relatives. However, because this proposal is viewed from multiple perspectives, what could appear to be a ‘whole’ from one point of view, is a partial figure from another. In the synthesizing sprit, Cram cleverly used vastly different ends of the classical spectrum when addressing the difference found at Sweet Briar, which allowed him to create various architectural typologies within relative language. His pursuit being the parts will add up to equal the whole: “Even the most utilitarian structures on the campus belonged to the same design family. A similar classical order was maintained [for the Power Plant], but as befits industrial buildings, it spoke more of Roman monumentality rather than Renaissance elegance”. (Liang, Dreams and Reality, pg. 22) We are interested in deriving two structural “principles” which we feel apply nicely to this project, one “lighter” in sensibility, the other a more “heavy” massing. In previous work, we have been developing a digitally customized structural system based on an “egg-crate” logic, which can take the form of steel plates and produce inventive structures that are sound and produce little waste. (see images 15 - 20). For example, in our proposal for a Street Fair, Tap Cap, we utilized a version of this tectonic system resulting in a ghosting, where an arcade of “columns” achieve a contemporary rendering with articulated “capitals” driven by digital software. In contrast, we aim to juxtapose a relatively ephemeral system with the use of more traditional, “heavy” architectural materials of sitecast concrete and/or masonry block. However, part of our design intent for such materials is to articulate more ‘massive’ moments in such a way that they take on an abstract, surreal quality- such as ‘floating’ above the landscape, or engaging the site in a way that plays with the ground. The permanence or temporal nature of the structure(s) is flexible and open.

Conceptual diagrams : radial grids

We welcome the opportunity to further these ideas with the Friends of Art and Sweet Briar College. We are impressed by the legacy of the Friends of Art and respect their on-going commitment to continuing its development. It would be an honor to engage with such rich lineage in the arts and the supporters. Thank you for considering us. Sincerely, Jerome W Haferd & K Brandt Knapp

jwh-kbk _ Sweet Briar Letter of Interest

erest

Piazzalle Roma : Civic Center, Venice, Italy (project, Peter Eisenman Advanced Studio, Fall 2009) with K Brandt Knapp The student project – Piazzale Roma, pursued the idea of frame for a Transit Hub in Venice Italy. Under Professor Peter Eisenman, the studio looked to Guy Debord and the situationalists for the concept of detournement as well as the work of Alvise Cornaro who had visions for Venice during the Renaissance. This theoretical proposal attempted to create a building as a series of frames, one which interrogated the idea of architecture by not only looking at the frames as literal space, but also established or “framed” an image of the city within the mind of its inhabitants. In our process for this project we examined the “territory” of Venice and the surrounding mainland through mapping formal characteristics of the landscape while conceptually diagramming the historical land/building forms. The project abstracted and collapsed motifs, figures, and forms of the city and re-presented them in a microcosm of framed spaces and walls made from partial figures stacked upon each other.

Image 25 39

CANAREGGIO - DOUBLED/STRETCHED

Image 23 jwh-kbk _ Sweet Briar Letter of Interest PIAZALLE ROMA - NINE-SQUARE

STAZIONE MARITIMA - FOURSQUARE/ IMPLIED

BACINO- VISUAL TRIANGLE

ABOVE: Analytic Map of the Veneto, beginning with the outer from of the Venetian figure, like characteristics are connected to create unfolding frames until no relationships can be drawn.

LATENT ORDERS: VENICEfrom the medieval RIGHT: Latent grids extracted mess and broken down into grammatical orders.

Harvard Allston Plan (student project, 2007)

Smart Car Dealership (student project, 2007)

DA LOFT, Jersey City, NJ, (built, 2015-2016) with K Brandt Knapp Located in a former factory building, this project included gut-renovating the entire double-height volume of the living spaces and kitchen. The design concept centered around exposing and celebrating the tectonic “shell” of the factory building’s structural columns and concrete slabs. This “shell” was maintained by creating a continuity of the now-exposed and polished concrete floor, the large original columns and juxtaposing minimal surfaces of corian and metal. The kitchen area is linked to the upper level by a three-dimensional play of black surfaces which make up the movement from entrance-living area- upper level loft. The kitchen volume becomes a three dimensional insertion into the living space and participates with the stair, upper balustrade as a figure in the space. A figural bench was custom designed for the living “hearth” using the same materials and architectural vocabulary. Other elements were made to be flexible and moveable in order to maximize open area when not in use.

PROFESSIONAL WORK WITH BERNARD TSCHUMI ARCHITECTS (all images copyright Bernard Tschumi Architects, not for distribution)

Tour Monaco, (in development, 2016) with Bernard Tschumi Architects (senior designer) Monaco is a city of extremes. Between the extreme topography and the picturesque location, the city builds upward to take advantage of views and high property values. Within this context, we propose the Tour Honoria - a tower for the 21st century Monaco, its residents, visitors, and image. The concept of the tower looks ahead to a future which has already begun in Monaco and elsewhere – the public spaces of the city, the “events”, begin to rise up out of the urban fabric and into the sky. The result is not one tower, but three –by creating two spectacular cuts, or “sky decks” in the curved volume of the tower and splitting it into three distinct shapes: The podium at the base, which welcomes visitors into a luxurious lobby and public elevator, the middle garden skydeck, where the public park of Albert I will be re-located as well as the private pool and spa, and finally the upper skydeck restaurant, with panoramic social terrace and sweeping views over the city.

APPARTEMENTS PANORAMIQUES (TETE)

SKYDECK 2 RESTAURANT PANORAMIQUE

APPARTEMENTS LOGGIAS (MILIEU)

SKYDECK 1 JARDIN SUSPENDU MONUMENT ALBERT 1er SPA

BUREAUX ET COMMERCES (BASE)

ENTREE

PARKINGS AUTOMATIQUES

!"#$%&'(#)*%++,-.)/)01(#+2-#)3456

Tianjin Museum of Industry (under construction, 2013) with Bernard Tschumi Architects (senior designer) The Tianjin Binhai Museum of Industry is conceived of as an “exploratorium”, an interactive exhibition building showcasing artifacts of the region’s transition from industrial age to digital age manufacturing and industry. The current design evolved through three major iterations. The common denominator driving the spatial organization in all three manifestations of the museum were the precense of strong spatial figures organizing several large galleries from top to bottom of a regular container.

TBCC

Binhai Modern City & Industry Museum

View at entrance lobby

1:500

24 July 2015

The museum is organized around two large structural “cones” which intersect the volume, housing the temporary galleries and main atrium. Secondary cone volumes direct movement and enclose additional galleries while negative cones allow for a spectacular, glazed urban facade to face a galleria space to the north.

Bernard Tschumi : Concept & Notation, Centre Pompidou, Paris, France (built, 2014) I was part of the core design and concept team for this major exhibition of Bernard Tschumi’s work spanning several decades and a variety of media. I was primarily responsible for developing the scenographic concept and display strategy of the polyedres (“cages”) which held a majority of the exhibition content. “The exhibition—based on Bernard Tschumi’s work as an architect, educator, and writer—explores the making of architecture as a series of arguments, ideas, influences, and responses to the contemporary definition of architecture today. Tschumi’s major architectural projects are organized around two primary ideas and five themes. The exhibition is the most complete display of Tschumi’s work to date, including 45 projects with over 350 drawings, sketches, collages, and models, many of them never shown previously, and is the first large exhibition of its kind organized in Europe.”

CENTRE POMIPDOU - BTA EXHIBITION INITIAL MASSING STUDIES 03 MAI 2013

Chronomanifestes, 30 Ans du Frac Exhibition (built, Toulouse 2013, Orleans 2014) This project included both full exhibition (scenographie) design as well as the concept and curatorial component of a show celebrating the collection of the Frac Centre from 1950 to present day. The scenographic concept was based on an idea of booths or cages with a cladding like cages or a marketplace, allowing for connections and visual connectivity between the works to be made. The display system we came up with for this show was the starting point for the much more extensive retrospective of Tschumi’s own work at the Pompidou in 2014. “Organized chronologically, this classification is deliberately abstract, evading ideological groupings and geographical origins. Starting at the beginning of global communication in the fifties, many of the protagonists presented influenced each other either personally or through publications and magazines. The exhibition proposes the evolution of polemics and the emergence of a new discourse as illustrated by the selected projects.”

TEACHING / STUDENT WORK GSAPP Advanced Studio, Bernard Tschumi professor, 2013-2016

STUDENT WORK (COLUMBIA GSAPP ADVANCED STUDIO)

HAFERD

section AA’ 1:250 section aa’ 1:500

section BB’ 1:250

section CC’ 1:250

section bb’ 1:500

a ±0.00

B’

-6.76

C’ -9.76

-11.76

A’ -19.96

-27.16

-30.16

c’

b’

a’

section cc’ 1:250

STUDENT WORK (COLUMBIA GSAPP ADVANCED STUDIO)

gap_01/ accessibility/ VS

Morningside Heights

122

Harlem

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

112 (st)

111

STUDENT WORK (COLUMBIA GSAPP ADVANCED STUDIO)

Robert De La Rosa

Catherine Colford

Justo Arosemena Schwitter

Example of student work produced in the Yale undergraduate design and analysis course, The Analytic Model, led by professor Emmanuel Petit. All images from the text Analytic Models in Architecture (edited by Emmanuel Petit, 2016)