Tap, Track, Eyelet, Weld

Gary Plant Tubular Steel Corporation - photo by M. Marshall

My sculptures will be a permanent integrated part of the reading terrace fence at the ElectraC. Doren library. But how to integrate them?

Beyond the practical aspect, ensuring that the attachment is secure, I had two additional goals: aesthetics and reuse.

Aesthetics: My design is to replace the section of fence railings between posts with my sculptural metal panels. The pieces will be permanently integrated into the fencing supports as part of the fence, not as an attachment or overlay. This is done so that sunlight will puncture through the cutouts giving them shape and background without the added patterns of vertical fence railings confusing the image.

Reuse: I wanted to make the panel attachments something that would not stand in the way of future use. Twenty years from now when the library reading terrace gets remodeled I want the library to have the option to take the sculptures out of the fence and attach them to a window to let light through, to a wall, or to mount in some other free-standing place.

My thoughts were to use attachment methods I had used in the past. I suggested screw taps, slotted tracks, or even eyelets that could act as a locking hook mechanism. All of these could be anticipated in the design and built into the sculpture itself as an integral part of the metal during fabrication.

At the time of the proposal I did not know the actual fencing and post support system that will be used. I planned to work with the architects and the fence fabricators to determine the best way to install the sculptural panels. And I needed to resolve this before the panels were designed because the attachment method might impact the visible area of the panel, or what structural shapes I could do or not do.

After discussing these options with the architects and fence fabricators they had two different and insightful concerns: safety and resistance to tampering.

Safety: To ensure that the attachment mechanism will hold up to extended normal use the fabricator suggested welding the panels into the fence instead of an attachment mechanism that can be undone. This would still meet my aesthetic goals because we can place the railing mountings and secure the welding inside the fence components where it can't be seen. It makes reuse somewhat more difficult. Twenty years from now the library will only have to disassemble the fence and cut it at the welds which won't interfere with the sculpture itself, and they may not even need to do that if the welded components can be part of the new installation.

Resistance: I had thought about making the metal I used unattractive to those who may want to steal it for scrap metal; that's why I thought of steel and now of aluminum. But I didn't think about making the attachment mechanism undesirable to deal with. By welding the sculpture in place it makes it more trouble than it is worth to remove the sculpture. If someone could inspect the fence and see screw taps they might invest the time to try to remove it, but if they see welds they'll know that it will take a lot more work to remove.

So welds it is. Welds meets my goals and the goals of my project partners. 

Measure twice, (three times, four times,) cut once: Sculpture size decisions

Measuring tape - photo by Sarahluv

The sculptures in my commission for the Electra C. Doren library will be integrated into the fence of the new reading terrace. The fence will surround the terrace which will have raised landscaping and plantings, a sitting wall, and a view from inside the library through large new windows.

The terrace wasn't built at the time of my sculpture proposal. Even the architectural drawings for the terrace were not in their final state. Yet I had to propose a size for the sculpture panels.

I was given two sets of rendering/drawings for the fence that differed in the length and position of the fence, and different post-to-post distances. All these factors would make a big difference in the size of the panels I would propose. At the time I didn't know if there could be other dependent factors I wasn't aware of.

Knowing that my proposal was due before the decisions would be made to finalize the architectural design I had to either propose two different designs, one for each rendering of the terrace fence, or choose one and design for that proposing that it could be adapted if the decision went a different way.

Since the time from the RFP announcement date to the proposal submission date was extremely short for this first of the ReImagining Works RFPs, I decided to go with one proposal and suggest adjustments for changes to the design. It saved me time by not doing double designs but still showed that my proposal was adaptive and not dependent on just the fence design I selected.

I chose the fence design that did not have any sloping fence (going down a ramp). To help me with the size decision I did sketches of the terrace based on the architectural elevation illustration and put rough images of what my sculptures would look like at various sizes.  In some sketches I didn't use the whole post-to-post distance but left some of the fence railing space on either side of the sculpture. The balance of sculptural space and fence space seemed "right".

I proposed that each sculptural piece will be approximately two and a half feet high, and approximately four feet wide. The size of panels was approximate, based on the architectural drawings and I planned to adjust them as needed.

After I got the commission the fence plans kept changing. Even after one of the two sets of renderings became the plan of record there were more changes. The fence plan of record had 20 equal sized post-to-post sections of fence. I chose 8 of these positions for my sculptures. Then there was value engineering (See my post "Numbers, reuse, and value engineering") and the fence sections were redesigned and wound up not being equal. In this latest design there were only 10 potential equal sized post-to-post sections that were possible for my sculptures. I eliminated two of these because they were abutting each other in a corner. I eliminated two more because they were right next to other potential sections because I wanted the sculptures spaced out. That left 6 panels distributed around the terrace. Doing site specific public art requires project management of decisions like this and calling out the dependencies of the artwork on the rest of the architectural, construction, and fabrication decisions. 

Even with this change in the fence I was told I wouldn't really know the final size available to me until there were final shop drawings and field measurements agreed upon by architects, fence installers, and other stakeholders. This  meant I wouldn't know the size I had to work with until the wall was built. I collaborated with all these parties to uncover dependencies before I start designing my sculptures. I don't want to design something for one size only to find out that it changes and forces me to redesign. I want to work all this out before I start designing the final pieces. If I don't, then I could be doing a lot of work only to be surprised later and have to redo it. I'd rather invest the time up front. 

For example I got a version of the shop drawings that I was told were final. Then I had physical mock-ups made. When I compared the mock-ups to the shop drawing I noticed they were different by almost 3 inches in width. The mock-ups used an attachment method which preserved the open space on either side that I liked. The drawings had the sculpture attached directly to the posts with no space and a different connector method. If I had done my final artwork based on the shop drawings without the mock-up, I would be doing the final artwork over. 

The fence fabricator and I took the outside dimensions from the original shop drawing. We then calculated the space on the mock-up taken from the real connectors and mounting methods. We left the open space on either side and calculated the available space. Then we got everyone else to agree that this was the final size for all the sculptures.  If further dependencies show up then the fabricators, assemblers, and installers will adjust their work to that size and make it work. 

Numbers, reuse, and value engineering

Value - photo by Cassidy Curtis

I learned a new term: Value engineering.  And I learned how doing value engineering would impact my design decisions on the sculptures I'm doing for the Electra C. Doren library as part of my ReImagining Works commission.

My metal sculptures are going to be embedded into the fence. That means that my designs are dependent on the fence design. And the fence design had to be settled before my sculpture design or I would have to change the design of my sculptures with every change to the fence design. Before I started designing I let the architects and the art board know that I needed the final design decisions of the fence for the reading terrace to be settled. Good thing I did - because there were value engineering changes to the fence design. 

I was prepared for the impacts of one decision: the fence door on the back of the reading terrace was changed into an emergency only exit. This made sense: the function of the fence door changed and there were a cascade of changes to my design because of this change in purpose. But some of the other changes were not as obvious. One of these changes impacted my sculpture design. Rather than the post-to-post distance being the same all the way around the fence, as it was in the original drawings, now the post-to-post distances would be irregular. Some would be around 4 feet and some around 6 feet with a few at unique distances; in all there would now be 6 different post-to-post distances. I couldn't figure the reason for these changes.

Value Engineering: I was told that they were the result of "value engineering". The description that followed sounded like "cost reduction", something I’m familiar with from technology product design. But value engineering is different. Everything in a project is evaluated for potential cost savings but value engineering calls for  preserving the desired level of function in the process. Only if function is not impacted can a cost savings be acceptably realized.

The fence would serve the same functional goals whether there were posts every 4 feet or every 2 feet or in the unequal pattern that was actually chosen. The difference was that if the distances could be maximized without sacrificing the fence's function and goals then the project could save costs. Fewer posts means fewer pieces to fabricate, fewer to install, and it means that the fence panels could be ordered at a larger size and cut.

Numbers: When I planned the sculptures from the original architectural drawings I chose to make eight sculptural panels. This was based on the equal spacing of panels in the drawing and wanting to have an acceptable panel to open fence ratio. I planned on three sculptural panels on the north terrace fence railing, three panels on the south terrace fence railing, and two panels on the west terrace fence railing. But I knew the fence design was in flux so I built flexibility on the number of panels into my proposal.

With the newly arranged posts I had a decision to make about what post-to-post distances made the most sense for the sculptures and how many of them worked in the new arrangement of fence sections. I chose to use the 4 foot sections because if I had chosen the 6 foot sections the resulting sculptures would have been visually overwhelming. Even though they would be of the same number, they would occupy much more of the visual space. I also chose to make 6 panels not 8 panels. Because of the pattern of posts if I made 8 panels it would mean that two 4-foot panels would be side by side in a corner. That would not be a good pattern, it would bring two panels too close, and whatever corner I put it in would make the images look cluttered. Instead the pattern works out to three panels on the north, two on the south, and one on the west wall. I negotiated to have the order of unequal fence sections rearranged on the north wall so that the three sculptures would be closer to the building and more part of the terrace space than if they were closer to the exit.

Reuse: My second concern with value engineering was anticipated early in my proposal phase. Value engineering is often associated with planned obsolescence. If the functional life of something is only expected to be 20 years then you do not need to invest the cost to make something durable enough to last 70 years. This is a wise investment because if you paid more for 70-year quality and only got 20 years before your use became obsolete, you'd have been overpaying. A fence and a reading terrace, will likely have a limited lifespan before it is time to replace it. For example 20 years from now the library may need to be remodeled because the pattern of library usage may have changed. If people no longer want to read on a terrace at the library, the library system will remove the terrace and construct something that meets the needs of those future library users. However, I want to design my artwork to last as long as possible - well more than 20 years. I don't want my sculptures to be obsolete.

I purposefully designed my sculptural concept for reuse. I conceived of the design so that the sculpture panels can easily be disassembled from the fence and put to other uses. For example, they can be mounted flat against an appropriate colored wall inside or outside a building where their images can be viewed. They can also as easily be mounted into the structure of a window to allow sunlight to come through the cutouts revealing their silhouettes. Or they can be separately mounted on supports to become freestanding separate panels for a sculpture garden or room use separator. 

While value engineering had an impact on the design process I think we mitigated the impacts on the actual sculpture. The sculptural panels are fewer in number but approximately the same size as before. They have new positions around the terrace, but ones that I think will work with the space. The fence has a 30-year warranty and may have a purposeful life expectancy of 20 years, but my sculptures can be reused.