Sunday, June 15, 2008

Collaboration between Architect, Carmelites, City & Forest Theater Foundation Key to the Success of Forest Theater Design

ABSTRACT: Internet research yielded information about the design process; specifically the sequential steps in the design process and a brief description of each step. In general terms, the design process consists of Scoping, Feasibility, PROGRAMMING, SCHEMATIC DESIGN, DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS and CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. The generic design process information is presented as a guide to the design process used by Richard F. McCann for the Forest Theater. Informational and opinion COMMMENTS are presented.

SYNOPSIS OF DESIGN PROCESS:
PROGRAMMING: GATHERING INFORMATION
Architecture is collaboration between architects, clients, sites and materials; yet long after the architect departs, the client, site and new structure remain. In order to ensure our buildings are successful expressions of our client's desires, we begin each project by learning as much as possible about you and the elements that will contribute to the project.

We generally begin by interviewing you; listening to you describe your needs, dreams, and patterns of living. You may be asked to convey moods you are looking to capture, materials and textures you like, and may find it helpful to provide us with drawings or photographs of spaces or houses you admire.

At the end of the programming stage, we will prepare a list of intentions and rough sketches of spatial adjacencies specifically derived from you and your site.


SCHEMATIC DESIGN: EXPANDING IDEAS
During schematic design, we formulate a concept -- a theme -- which turns our written description and adjacent diagram into spatial definition. This theme, much like the topic sentence in a paragraph, directs our design work. We now begin to create rough drawings that explore scale, appearance, and adjacencies. The form and extent of the project emerges from these studies.

Schematic design is perhaps the most important time we spend interacting with clients. At this stage, we have frequent meetings in order to keep clients abreast of our work and direction. During these meetings, we present drawings that describe design ideas with respect to your budget. In addition to plans, elevations and sections -- drawings used to communicate among design professionals and contractors -- we prepare perspective drawings and models which we find to be more useful for visual communication with clients. These drawings are intended to convey potential room locations, placement of doors and windows, as well as new furniture arrangements.

We provide several options for organizing space to meet your functional needs, highlighting advantages and disadvantages of each. We also introduce you to new construction methods, materials, and alternative uses of space. Throughout schematic design we expand your design options as well as challenge your and our own assumptions to ensure that the project design is exactly what you want.


DESIGN DEVELOPMENT: EDITING IDEAS
After reviewing the options completed in schematic design, we all work together to choose a future design direction. In most cases, we find that the chosen direction is a compilation of several ideas from the schematic design phase. At this point, we continue to define -- through plans, elevations and sections -- the size of rooms, types of materials, and exact placement of the building. In addition, we begin perspective sketches of details, as well as more refined perspectives of the project as a whole.

During this phase, we study the whole building as a system, including specific construction issues which may affect the final project. Just as the intangibles of architecture are important to you -- your favorite place where the sun streams in during February -- the tangibles are just as crucial. What is the most appropriate heating system? What is the best roofing in this climate?

We ask and answer these questions with you. During this phase, a fairly accurate cost of construction may be obtained from the drawings we prepare.


CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONTRACTOR
In order to convey all of the discussions, decisions and drawings that result from programming, schematic design, and design development as precisely as possible, a set of detailed documents are prepared. This set informs the builder of the appearance and construction detail of the trim, built-ins, doors, and surface elements. These documents outline the expected level of performance and quality, both in written and drawn format.

Construction documents ensure the final product matches the product you ultimately envisioned after working through the design process. They also ensure the bids you receive from contractors reflect the details and quality you expect. In addition to securing design decisions made by you and the architect, construction documents also minimize change orders and stressful snap-judgments made on the job site.

At the end of this stage, we continue to work with you, as your advocate, to select a contractor (when necessary) and/or sub-contractors.


CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: THE ARCHITECT AS ADVOCATE
During this stage we operate as our clients' advocate to ensure work is performed to the standards and quality described in the contractual documents we prepared. As part of our role, we answer contractors' questions, communicate details when requested and make regular job site visits. Since the actual construction is often a busy and stressful time for our clients, our presence during construction is usually appreciated.
(Source: LOCUS ARCHITECTURE, http://www.locusarchitecture.com/)

COMMENTS:
Generally speaking, prior to the SCHEMATIC DESIGN, PROGRAMMING: GATHERING INFORMATION is accomplished. PROGRAMMING: GATHERING INFORMATION means not only the architect listening to his clients concerns, et cetera, but the beginning of collaboration between the architect and his clients towards a successful conclusion.

Generally speaking, SCHEMATIC DESIGN is “perhaps the most important time” spent interacting with clients. “At this stage, we have frequent meetings in order to keep clients abreast of our work and direction.”

In the “Understanding Design” section of R.F. McCann & Company Architects website, it states, “Design work doesn’t begin until we are confident we understand the parameters of the task and develop a clear understanding of client priorities.”

In the “Firm Profile” section of R.F. McCann & Company Architects website, it states “R. F. McCann & Company Architects is successful for two reasons - superior design and superior client relations. Design as we practice it is evolutionary, benefiting from continuous participation with the client, consultation with interest groups, and preemptive involvement with jurisdictional agencies.”

Thus far in the process, the perception created by the Forest Theater Foundation and Theatre Architect Richard F. McCann, based on their public interactions with Carmelites, is that the “client” for the Forest Theater is the Forest Theater Foundation when in actuality Richard F. McCann’s “clients” are Carmelites, the City which owns the property in trust for Carmelites and the Forest Theater Foundation. In other words, the design process has not been characterized as of yet as a collaboration between Richard F. McCann, Carmelites, the City and the Forest Theater Foundation. Furthermore, for any Forest Theatre project to be successful there must be a collaborative process whereupon all parties understand the process, know their concerns are being addressed in the design and feel the final outcome is derived from consensual agreement on all the design issues.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I recently heard that the Foundation wanted several community meetings, some as early as last year, but the city would not let them happen. Can that be true?

Anonymous said...

Isn't PacRep starting a capital campaign for the Golden Bough? Is the city considering them at all? Or are they just going to do what ever they want, and to hell with everyone else?

Anonymous said...

Usually money is the determinant; contributions of $30,000 from Forest Theater Foundation for the Pre-Design and $65,000 from Carmel taxpayers for the Schematic Design with the implied promise from the city of more monies to come. By this measure, Carmelites should be the dominant “client” and determine what kind of project is acceptable and doable for the Forest Theater.

Anonymous said...

Assume the Forest Theater Foundation wanted and asked for several community meetings on their McCann Design and the “City” refused to place it on agendas.
To give the Forest Theater Foundation the benefit of the doubt, we would also have to assume the Foundation asked the “City” (aka mayor) to make their May 2007 McCann Pre-Design Study available to the public around May 2007. O.K. Déjà vu. What is happening here with the Foundation and the Forest Theater is too similar to the process Mayor Sue McCloud used to get the SCC installed without community consent and support. And why wouldn’t Sue try it again, she has just been elected for the fifth time. The silver lining maybe she overreached this time as she did with Robert Leidig and his Carmel Convalescent Hospital redevelopment project. There, public dissent really did have an impact and was heard and heeded by Mayor Sue McCloud. Which way will it go, the SCC way or the Leidig way?

Anonymous said...

I agree, collaboration is essential for success. Unfortunately, nothing Sue McCloud has championed could be remotely described as collaborative. It’s her way or no way. The tragedy is too many council men/women and residents have gone along with her to our detriment.

Anonymous said...

Well educated and tolerant people know people can witness the same event and some people will invariably characterize what they saw one way and other people will characterize what they saw another way, according to their respective frames of references. Only a simpleton or someone with an agenda would characterize the aforementioned as proof of lying on the part of one person or a group of people.
Besides, the relevant facts are these:
1. The city council, led by Mayor Sue McCloud, failed to make the Forest Theater Master Plan by Brian Congleton a reality, beginning in 2001.
2. Mayor Sue McCloud later oversaw the dissolution of the Community & Cultural Commission-the C & C C had exclusive advisory authority for hearing Forest Theater matters.
3. Without a C & C C, Mayor Sue McCloud has now substituted the council for the C & C C eliminating any possibility of public input before an advisory body made up of “experts.”
Bottom Line: Sue McCloud was in a position to distribute the Congleton Plan, put the Congleton Plan on C & C C and council agendas for the purpose of getting public input and moving forward with the Congleton Plan 8 years ago. She failed to do so, a failure of leadership, for sure. I might add the Congleton Plan was important enough to the city for the city to make sure Richard McCann got a copy of it and it did not generate opposition like the McCann Plan has-the $64,000 question is why didn’t the city have Brian Congleton update the Forest Theater Master Plan, a plan more in line with what Carmelites expect and want for their Forest Theater?