smharch

The Competition Entries
The first entry received was from Leers Weinzapfel and Associates. I remember opening the site model box to check for damage and being delighted to see such a dynamic form emerge from the cardboard-the only model with color on the building. A graceful sweep of the crescent arching across the upper story of the site boded well for the hope that we would be seeing new and different ideas for built forms on our campus. LW followed the precepts of the master plan and located their building on the South edge of the available site while making physical connections to the two neighboring buildings, the Telecom Center and School of Law. Using the Executive Conference Center to bridge that physical and professional void was indeed risky business. In the end, the combined buildings all lost some of their integrity in this crossed disciplinary action. In segregating the first floor groupings of Distance Learning and Flexible Teaching Learning Space by purpose and with color, an admirable clarity was expressed. The double-loaded corridors of the upper floors contained the Resource Centers, distinct yet distant and from the body of the School, and place the faculty offices beautifully out of reach. Openings and passages through the glazed walls of first floor were penetrations clad in a native building stone, Sioux Falls Quartzite, similar to that appearing in many of the older building on the South campus. These portals severed with distinction, their contribution to the greater circulation pattern of the district was less than successful in integrating the landscape as an essential element in the solution. The undulating carpet of a swilled parterre would soon fall victim to the more transitory nature of student traffic already suffered by the School of Law's building violation of the shortest distance rules. The link along the East face of the Telecom building, ending with a noble material gesture housing the program's auditorium space, attempts to ally the adjacent buildings and make a built presence on the Northwest corner of the campus.

Closing the gap between Telecom and the School of Law with a future feature while adding the School of Law to the complex, may have linked the buildings with form and in function, but lost an opportunity to enjoy a new School of Business as an entity in its own right. A gap is also a frame. As the upper floors start to circumvent the site and breach out over a parking lot and confront an extant broadcast tower; perhaps this was too daring or too close. This was a bold formula with a palette whose presence would have been undeniable. One wonders what would have evolved in that spirit, had it been a solo flight.

It is almost uncanny how the designs of Julie Snow Architects and Leers Weinzapfel were so different formally, yet so kindred in solution. Again the direction of the master plan was followed, albeit, with a vision extending well beyond the projected site. The articulate nature of this concept was almost cerebral in its clarity of purpose and content. An expression of functions as accessible as an algorithm. The main bodies of the School of Business were again located on the south edge of the site with a system of highways and low ways to connect and identify components of the competition program requirements. There was an apparent, if not deliberate, connection between the orthogonal organization of the concept with the neighboring link between the Coyote Student Center and I D Weeks library, locally known as the link lab. Are these parallel lines of communication valid beyond the library? There is a rigor in this rhythm that is counter to tradition or lack thereof. The auditorium in a shell, sited similarly to that of lW, is the only element of the concept that is outside the box, so to speak. Recalling the masonry of its adopted neighbors, it too closes the gap and asks if it is indeed a cornerstone or a prism of program. This trabeated playground of box and bay is satisfying to the eye, yet the dynamics of these forms are already available on campus. This complex has a second sense of being more of a connector building, poised to continue linking, rather than focusing on issues of presence. There are seasonal aspects of this routinely intemperate climate that would appreciate such a gesture and some institutions in similar environments have adopted them, above and below ground. As systems application, it is more of a considerate upgrade than a new program or statement of the arts. The "scenes" inside the building help belay the fears of dead end corridors and are filled with the joy of reflected light. As the reflective nature of the building envelope was exposed the question of what is there to reflect upon arises. Should not the building itself be the object of reflection. It is easier to see this building alone and enjoying distant vistas than it is to be nested in the eclectic mix of the west campus, unable to speak for itself and lost in the crowd. The empirical nature of service canyons an off-set curtain wall system spoke of a deep concern for the practical and the necessary. This building could work here and now. This was well crafted, believable and a buildable response to programmatic needs. Stronger in plan than in concept, perhaps the shimmering gem, but does it have enough carats?

Both the LW and JS schemes showed the audience the complexities of attempting to make physical as well as programmatic links between a new School of Business and its neighbors, the School of Law and the Telecom Building. Too much was lost or compromised in the translation. While neither the School of Law or the Telecom building are distinguished context makers (Telecom has an attractive entry to the west/street-side, otherwise, its the backside of the building to campus-part of the renovation strategy is to give a facelift to the campus side facade. Their absorption into a larger edifice was too much to forgive and forget. However, this knowledge was well worth the price of admission. We had arranged the models and vision boards along the walls of a conference room in the School of Law. One submission to a wall with the models out front on tables. The next morning we found the Thompson and Rose and Smith-Miller + Hawkinson boards and models pulled over into one corner of the room circled by the jury's chairs. Thompson and Rose and the one proposed by Smith-Miller + Hawkinson were the two finalists-both for the jury as well as the building committee. The jury stayed till midnight on the day of the competition to deliberate over these two. T&R lead off on the morning of the competition with a show stopper that effectively eliminated the LW and JS proposals, not for being ill planned, but for being ill situated.

Their site model was captivating, foliated expanses of court and lot flourished in an Ivy Leagued yard. Their declaration that the campus is composed of free standing buildings and should remain so was reinforced by a modeling coup that exposed the tragic flaw in the master plan's suggestion of a new home for the School of Business on the south side of the site. That opportunity to create and frame a new formal open space on campus had been wasted on a parking lot frontage. Charles Rose lead us down a new garden path to believe that the new School of Business could not only create a courtyard, but would also provide a finished edge to the paved expanse of the main university parking lot connections to the School of Law and Telecom were made by incorporating them into a visual dialogue rather than a direct physical one. This reorientation was pursued to the extent of suggesting that future building efforts and sites be directed to extending the new court south to develop a latent pedestrian circulation system free from vehicular pressures:

-A walking campus from the potentially grand allee north of Old Main around to the old south campus precinct returning north via the new courts of Law in the Business world.

-A cogent and convincing argument that established a new groundwork for evaluation of the other concepts.

-A declaration of independence with the war yet to come. Relying on a significant upgrade to the main University parking lot, this scheme follows through with its site planning manifesto and aligns itself with its counterparts in Law and Communications via a series of cleavage intersecting the new Business School.

These extend to the east as well, fostering new routes to the library and student union in a new pedestrian friendly parking arena. The full venture capital of this proposal is to create, formally and informally, a landscaped court not facing the main parking lot, it will instead face the second largest parking lots to the south with the spiked outline of the School of Law as a slightly menacing exedra to their north. This can not be fully realized unless the lots are vanquished and the suggested, future building sites made part of a revised master plan to flank this alternate allee. What remained to be seen was how did they organize the Business School program in the space they have divined for it. T&R was able to accommodate all the space requirements of the program and yet there was a feeling that while this was certainly possible in a three-and-a-half-story building, the energy of the siting prospect was not as evident in the plan presented. It was undeniably contemporary and most of the programmatic issues were satisfied. Polished, pleasant and ready to be finished, any way we wanted it. The diagonal excesses of the existing School of Law appear to be drawn out and corrected with the Business School's restrained articulation. It's as if the Business School is akimbo trying to reconcile the School of Law's opposing geometry and bring it back in line with the rest of campus. T&R's programmatic distributions are subject to the inherent limitations of their siting decisions. These constraints are axial and forced a tiering of programmatic elements, which like LW puts some distances between resources and the communities being served-the in-house and outreach programs that are part of the School's mission. They are all there, but an indiscernible hierarchy exits.

Smith-Miller + Hawkinson can still remember the stunned silence and almost audible gasps from some of the the assembled as SM+H unveiled their vision boards and a very new School of Business emerged on the campus. Whether it landed in South Dakota or was a holograph transported via the internet waiting to be downloaded, the effect was the same. When you either love or hate an object, especially a built one, the fact that the object evokes a response is an indication of its power and presence. Henry Smith-Miller and Laurie Hawkinson then proceeded to take the audience back in time with them to share in their voyage of discovery. SM+H had also made the decision to pursue a freestanding structure. Not unlike T&R, who stressed the same legacy, they felt that interfering with the School of Law and Telecom was unwarranted and unwise. The campus should maintain its building legacy and the plans for the renovation of the Telecom building was accorded its chance to rejoin the campus on its own terms. SM+H searched for an answer to the challenge of the vision statement posted by the School of Business. Their quest took them not just into the campus jungle, but deep into a new world of pedagogy. As we watched and listened, the shock of the new was replaced by the recognition of the unknown. The hard numbers of total program were dealt with in a methodical process of elimination, not design by default, but by opportunity. Our guides then took us with them to the front doors of their building. Their dialogue was as unrehearsed as T&R's was by rote. More than a business partnership was in operation here. They were both still deeply involved with making our building and the enthusiasm was contagious. A work in progress, a vision taking form. By the end of their presentation, jury members, advisory and building committee alike were down on the floor, examining the model with Henry and Laurie, joining in the experience they were sharing. SM+H proposed a model for the new School of Business based on the 'Agora: a gathering place, the marketplace of Ancient Greece.

Their proposal would be I much more than a lexicon, it would be an academic exercise, that would coalesce and I become an organizing principle I for this community of business interests. Their site model's wintry landscape was not as easy to warm up to as T&R's; but then we do have long and sometimes bitter winters and the trees will blossom again. Their well-crafted building model was able to open and let the audience explore their vision- a journey we could not take in any of the other models and images. Enter the world of the agora through one of several doorways that will have brought you there from the places you see as you leave. The marketplace is open to the business public and offers the basic services of any edifice that caters to a public, restrooms, lockers and first strike classroom/meeting rooms with outreach program accommodation.

Also included and central to the building and concept of is a cafe and exhibition area, a large kiosk offering refuge and refreshment. Light cascades from the lateral skylights into the atrium as ever changing shadows and shade mark the passage of time and season. From here you can get your bearings as you read the floor plan of the programs above you in the suspended shapes of their volumes expressed as a landscape of ceiling planes. These objects are patently accessed from central escalators that deliver you to the upper floors where bridges help make the journey that others would take along vacant corridors. There in a state of suspended animation, the journey to and from class or office or center is made along bridges and balconies. Moments in movement to pause, to wait, to enjoy being in a built environment. Programmed requirements are vested in these upper floors with places that have purpose and are provided with connections to spaces above and below- common, shared or privileged. With offices to the north perimeter, their reflected light and views would be welcome both as a retreat and a forum. Everything was there, maybe not in its final place; but the concept is not frozen either and has the capacity to regroup within its splayed pylon framework. Their building stood respectfully and prominently alone, ready to take possession of the west campus, not by force, but by stature. The corner siting relieves the pressure of service needs for Telecom and the Business School and maintains the parking which others have altered without apparent compensation. The existing open spaces of campus seem to harmonize with this strategy of location and the creation of new intervening spaces is valid. This School of Business is open and does not close the book on its neighbors.

Next the rendered image of the conceptual envelope had to be digested. This alien form, to campus, at least, did not settle well. The scheme was even described in terms of the regional vernacular: pole barn, the local lumber yard's metal siding, etc. The words "Business Barn," could ultimately become as proprietary and endearing as "Old Main," the (University's feature building. "Could the envelope change?" they were asked as had also been asked of T&R. "Yes's" all around. What is that they want to see or is it that they can't. Out of context or in? The site offers no immutable guidelines or benchmarks of significance; otherwise, a signature building would not be necessary, maybe not even possible.

Postscript
On the morning of January 4, 2001, the jury recommended the scheme of Smith-Miller + Hawkinson. Sometime on February 1, 2001, the Building Committee, in the silenced motions of a conference call, selected Thompson and Rose to be the architects of the New School of Business at the University of South Dakota. The selection of Thompson and Rose as project architects will be formally announced during a Business School banquet to beheld in late April. Smith-Miller + Hawkinson won the competition, but lost the commission.

Agoraphobia or just fear of the unknown. The risk involved and the signature that went with it were more than the University was willing, and perhaps able, to take. As the selection decision waxed and waned within the circles of building and advisory committees, the Dean of the Business School said that he wished we had never used the words "signature building" anywhere in the competition language. During those weeks of flux, we asked both SM+H and T&R to provide us with more examples of their work and contacted project references. All to the good, as would be expected. What emerged in this exercise was a concern on parts of the larger committee about the apparent "style" of SM+H. The "Techno" label was in print and the question of "Were they flexible?" was a background echo in the dialogue. Here is the signature issue again: SM+H got to where they are by developing a language of form and place that does carry a signature, a mark. Their work is recognizable.

Thompson and Rose has a different vocabulary, multilingual-a history of successful site planning inhabited by a range of building styles. There is little to identify a T&R building as T&R buildings. One of the client contacts for T&R said he felt one of their strong points was their ability to draw the brightest talent out of the top schools in their area. Whose signature will be on this building? Will it sell in South Dakota? Thompson and Rose offered a handsome solution and the prospect of a working relationship that would let the building evolve in a boardroom climate. A more comfortable fit on many levels. Perhaps more of a working relationship. Business as usual.

Tom Reasoner, AlA, University Architect at the University of South Dakota, was the Project Coordinator for the University of South Dakota Business School Competition.