the term “final” has been replaced by “stage 1″,
which will put the addition of the “stage 2″ work in context,
once we get the go ahead from .mil

i also added some light to “tines view” and “tendrils” in the stage 1 images,
undermining the true representation of what was actually in the stage 1 submissions..

if you can think of better image titles than the ones used,
let a.m. know

upon viewing a large rendered cad plan, it seems like there are some discrepancies between your plan and mine, re:tine fold, side walk leading to conch ramp. hopefully general riley and crew won”t give as much of a shit about this piece as one or more of us do.

shading from spires on plan look tight. does the plan of pool clearly represent water?

minor issues…please send me our awards + accolades.

This is an artifact/artifice constructed by Americans to mark, without specifying the trajectory or singularizing the impact of the deeds of others/outsiders. At the Pentagon, as opposed to the conditions of other terrorist incursions, the consecration of the site is not a monument to heroism; it is an acknowledgment of an act of malice and a senseless loss of life. Existing U.S. monuments serve the purpose of tribute/summary to a cause or an undertaking; particularly exemplary specimens of this function are the icons of Vietnam war, Iwo Jima, and Lincoln. At this site, however, there is no underlying theme or moral for Americans to concretize for the benefit of posterity. This is no place for the gaudy celebration of ourselves or our accomplishments. It would be an affront to the future memory of the event to ascribe, as a nation, a history and a direction to the 184 individuals who died at the Pentagon.

The mourning of the family and friends should be allowed on this spot, as many of the victims may otherwise have no traditional ‘resting place’ where their survivors may visit them in peace. However, the mourners should be able to visit this site and pay their respects in peace, without having their moments of grief intertwined with those who were not so intimately connected with the event, who may visit out of curiosity rather than catharsis. There is air between the private and the collective, the visible and the tangible, there need not be a perpetual sealing.

The need for a variegated interactive experience and the desire to enact something more poetic than symbolic, more affective than provocative, leads to a constructed landscape that can facilitate both public and private uses. This is manifest in a sort of hollow rolling knoll in the landscape. Both surface and void are occupiable toward different ends. The visitor to the site has two possible narrative sequences when engaging the memorial. The knoll may be ascended as a public, open, visible act. This great sloping grass expanse is punctuated by a field of 184 slender spires that pierce the surface and glimmer against the sky but are not rigidly connected to the earth. These spires may be rotated and leaned by visitors as they ascend the knoll, leaving a trace of their trip behind them. Rather than weigh in the loss of life as a weighty monolith inscribed with list of names, the 184 spires stand as commemorative and connective markers for the individuality of the victim and the individual sensation of the visitor. At the crest of the knoll visitors descend into a series of tine-like corridors that slip beneath the grassy surface. From here the public visitor gets a new perspective on the knoll as they see the feature slope back down away from them over the eye-level walls, the spires breaking through to be read as spindly legs, shifting from above and glimmering with the light from the surface.

The more private and reflective experience begins from the same point at the foot of the knoll where a ramp leads down past the rising turf. The surface is quickly below grade and the sparkling undersurface of the knoll arcs forward overhead through a dense field of spires. Once even with the crest of the knoll a series of tendril-like corridors open and pass beneath the knoll. These spaces wind through the spires as they are turned gently from above and cool shade is cast from the swooping landscape. At the ceasing of the space the reflective visitor mounts a ramp back to grade level and finds themselves in a anthropomorphic saucer-like pad amidst a forest of whispering spires and an expanse of water that had just unknowingly been traversed. Here the survivor, mourner, dreamer can rest back in the curve of the pad, gazing up at the darkened solid firmament shimmering and descending to meet the earth beyond. Their experience is wholly separate from the public visitor, yet engaged and reliant upon them, through the spires and sunlight, for vitalization.

for fux sake

i have sunken low, listening to downpour “no lie can live forever” on jawk records, will be leaving for msme in 6.5-7 hours, w/ or w/o a clue

tags: pentagon jawk msme fun

retaining 1 quart of coffee + soy in my bladder, listening to manes “under ein blodraud maane”, and hatching 184 grods

i am listening to debussy and tilting 184 capstones.

please peep out the section “_knoll/version beverly_”. after doing so, please let me know:

1) any clear mistakes, like “i can see through a hole in the conch”
2) any representation thoughts like “the spires are too thin”
3) your “favorite views”
4) any other views you would like to see.

re: saucers

as of yet, i do not know how to work out the best access/use. actually, i do know the best use, and that is place oneself prone within the dish. i guess the question is how to enforce this use. for now, i say that our images have peeps lounging in them, or, at the most. sitting on the lip. no one gives you a choice about how to ride in a plane or peep movies in the plexoriums. they just put the seats there and expect you to sit (clothed); we will put the saucer there and expect them to sit (naked).

the access seems treacherous at this point, if one has to walk up some steps then hop into the saucer w/ no handles or railings. however, this issue may be what solves the problem with how to get people to lie in the dish, as i imagine that there is an access that will end up with people automatically assuming the prone position.

re: siting

i was thinking that the knoll covers the entire available site, at least from north to south. it does not have to have that bulge on the west, if you think that an orthogonal plan is the way to go.
“i am the champion of the orthogonal” -rnt, 1998

as far as the “no load bearing” area goes, i would say that the knoll poses no problem here, as it spans that space. with regards to the lake, i would assume that the technology exists to disperse the weight of our pool on to the two load bearing sides. if the pool is only 6ft/7ft deep, we would still have room (i hope, as we don”t know what is under that no load area) to construct a span. we may have to contact yt about her rooftop glass lap pool. i think that we need as much of the length of the site as possible, if we are going to herd these cattle into the pool.

i tend to wonder whether we might be overdesigning? as i draw the plan i am thinking whether i am regressing to making things look cool on paper rather than shaping powerful experiences, i am thinking less of the tines, which i think would be a strong experience, and more voicing a concern about the tentacles or piers, i”m not sure how far they are going to acheiving the private experiences that we initially desired, in fact, the tines seem to be doing that!,,, maybe your conch idea would help this concern.

if so:

perhaps the mourner descends to the level of the floor of the lagoon
as she walks along the pool,
then ends up in a buried conch from which the tendrils reach into the crypt

this would draw attention away from the pentagon facade,
in as much as the person feels the descent,
and is therefore focused on what is ahead…

maybe a partition rises up on the right (pool is on left)

also:

scrims on each side of the arc?
some fine lace or lattice to obscure outside,
but still leaving the sense of being “outdoors”
ie, grotto = nature

presentation:

thinking of the rabble who will be on the jury,
i think that pictorial representations + plan will be the most accessible to them

i don”t think that elevations or sections will be very successful,

though sections are necessary…ie, showing shafts + dichotomy of use

pursuing the variegated circulation system (the sloping up of the ascending ground plane begins this, perhaps smaller descending turf or material tines comb through it to the private space) and access points (start->high end->low : start->low end->high, slipping under, lapping, flashing over), also, the strengths and weaknesses of the bridge concept are apparent and could perhaps be solved by spaces (tendrils) involved with the plinth/counterweight could begin to engage the reservoir, or there could be pier like elements opposite the plinth or related to the mourning gentry circulation (tines)…

under the knoll, at the north end of the pool, i planned on some type of viewing area for peeping out the crypt. this should have a place for public milling and private sitting(standing), but i am not sure about a group of segmented rooms. perhaps the private areas could raised be on a plinth, or sunken onto islands (more like peninsulas) of differing materials. this could serve the purpose you mentioned of visitors finding a space in which they are most comfortable (cherry vs. fiberglass) and also to inform the general rabble of a distinction of use.

upon viewing section perspective 3, i wonder if the connection between the two planes could be made with some chamber/void that crosses them both. a ‘box’ on the knoll is tactilely accessible, and people may deposit their trinkets into it. in the crypt, there is another ‘box’ which corresponds physically and spatially with the one above it. this one, however is a shadow box, as it is sealed and inaccessible. the shadow box is perhaps it is filled with items donated from the family, which would likely be similar to the type of detritus left in the knoll_box, but the items in the crypt_box would remain permanently, while the bears + crosses in the knoll_box would be hauled to the dumb with high frequency.

this seems like an issue that could easily be hashed out if we were at the desks in the same trailer/hut with white/buff trace + lead holders. however, i am wrestling with the reconciliation of the public and private processions. should there be a single narrative that the visitor follows from the entry of the field to the view of the crypt? or should there be a number of entries into the memorial, depending on how each visitor is intending to visit? while i would like for the uses/processions to intertwine, i am concerned about how contemplative a visit would be for the mourner peering out onto a pool being traversed by texans in cutoff red sweatpants.

so, i am thinking of two planes. one is earth [the field], pierced by bronze spires, traversed by the masses. they are encouraged to move or play with the spires, forming a connection with individual vitality. the second [the crypt] is water, pierced by shafts of light, contemplated by the individual. they are removed from the shafts, forming a connection with communal spirituality.

how do these uses interact?

1) public plane flows down into a plinth at the north end of the pool. from here, the masses can look out onto the pool. there are a few discreet chambres for private sitting, differentiated from the plinth by a few steps or small partitions of varying material. (see grassy_knoll_e)

2)public plane does not intersect with private plane. past the crest of the knoll, there is a small reacharound, and the masses are able to enter onto a mezzanine over the pool. below the mezzanine are the private chambres, which are entered from the north wall. (see doodle here)

3) public plane ends at the north wall, then the masses have to descend some slope or stairs to reach the private plane they then have the option to enter the crypt through opening in north wall. (see doodle here)

4)there is a small “bridge” that carries visitors across the pool. this can be the main entry for the private users, or it can be a supplementary entrance to the north wall gaps/slope. while i think it may be a decent experience to walk through the “shafts of light”, it may take some of the punch out of the view-from-the-plinth experience.

grassy knoll.

public – field:

field of public circulation marked with 184 dynamic goldenrods. each post travels through a hole in the �earth� that is slightly larger in diameter than the section of the post. through this, the visitor is able to peer into the “crypt” below, seeing obscured movement in the reflections from the water and post below.

private – crypt:

chambres are delineated by changes in material. while there is no complete enclosure, it is understood that when 1 person/family is in a chambre, the rabble must politely move on to an uninhabited space. chambres serve as a vista towards the where the posts are transformed into stars/shafts of light.

whole:

two zones of entry: the public enter the field as it rises from the south, then they can enter the crypt from the top of the knoll. the crypt is entered by passages in northwestern wall (or by possible channel see option 1).

naturally, any type of rabble may visit any part of the memorial, but certain pieces are able to guide the behaviour. large groups would not try to congregate in the crypt; a widower would not kneel and weep on the knoll.

options:

1) channel pierces knoll and serves as a bridge over the pool in the �crypt�

2) circumference of holes can be treated w/ a variety of materials: copper, lucite, shale, greenwood, etc.

3) capstone inscribed with a line (quote/message) from a family � no name.

4) name of victim inscribed on post, but beneath the rim of hole, where it may not be read.

5) instead of the spire, the posts follow phallocratic proportions?

im very interested in your grassy knoll scheme, i would like to develop a more narrative circulation approach that could be integrated with that idea, ie.. separation of rabble calibres… ascent descent, light quality, perhaps the poser rabblers (non mourning gentry) access the site from a different side (although in looking at your overhead view it appears that you may have already done this,,, ) i like the simplicity and the manner of interaction between the levels, it makes the direction i was taking appear decidedly more heroic, which is imho a detestable quality (in this situation)… what are your thoughts

*184 unprescribed tombs
*difficulty of access (no parking/public transit only) may reduce the number of casual tourists
*as time passes, the use of “private” area diminishes, as fewer living people remember the victims, reducing the necessity of private tombs
*at some point, the memorial will become a signifier of an abstract situation, no longer a tribute to 180 individuals. in the year 2525: “who are these 184 people?…what is this thing about?”
* 184 markers that everyone can peep, then a set of chapels/confessionals for private grief/contemplation/channeling
* no place to sit?
* how is a national form aestheticized when cause or statement is removed from it?

we choose to avoid the monolith. we keep the focus on the human scale. individual spaces are dedicated to each victim; their names are not gruesomely tallied on a somber slab od rock. we choose to erect (temples) to each life, not check off the names on some perverse, lifeless scorecard.