 |
|
Architect Carol Ross Barney brings sensitivity and security to Oklahoma City's new federal building.
By Brian Libby
The Metropolis Observed
May 2002
 |
 |
|
 |
Photos: Left, Laura Saviano; Right, courtesy Ross Barney + Jankowski
|
When Chicago architect Carol Ross Barney was selected to design a new federal
campus to replace Oklahoma City's terrorist-destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building, she knew the project would reflect both a culture of loss
and the hope of renewal. What Ross Barney didn't know then, of course, was
that the terrorist attacks on September 11 would cause her building to be
judged in an entirely different light from the one in which it was designed.
That said, it's a task for which Ross Barney seemingly was born. Her firm,
Ross Barney + Jankowski Architects, is devoted largely to public buildings,
and her methods are well suited to the sensitive site. "In Oklahoma
City you need a building that's strong but also welcoming," says Chicago
Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin. "She's the right person
for the job. She's a strong designer with strong ideas, but she doesn't
willfully force them onto her clients, and that's the key."
Situated across the street from the Murrah site, Ross Barney's new U.S.
Federal Campus in Oklahoma City uses a striking colonnade to separate an
elliptical glass-enclosed courtyard from a nearby street, communicating
openness while maintaining both physical and emotional security. There's
also an adjacent greenspace, which emphasizes the area as a gathering place:
a direct challenge to the scare-and-scatter tactics of terrorism. Recently
she spoke with Metropolis contributor Brian Libby about the challenges
of securing both safety and good design.
Your firm is devoted almost exclusively to public buildings. What is
the special allure they hold for you?
I'm definitely a child of the sixties. There was this belief then that
architecture and city planning could have an effect on how society works.
I think that theme stayed with me. The other reason is much more selfish:
when I work in the public realm, I'm a little bolder. As a member of the
community, I feel it's my responsibility to make it the space it needs to
be, because it's my building too.
What do you feel is the biggest challenge in designing public buildings?
Architects, and most professionals, have problems telling professional services
from customer services. It's easy to think that if your customer feels happy,
then that's a good building. But that's not true. Good architecture doesn't
have any particular correlation to administrative comfort or ease. I think
it's my job to see that the man on the street is also getting a good building.
How has the federal campus in Oklahoma affected your approach to design?
Oklahoma was kind of a watershed because it was the first time we'd
ever worked outside of Illinois. I've always worked from a certain knowledge
base about the local history and culture here, because it's my home. So
I felt absolutely compelled to do a lot of research about Oklahoma. It's
changed my design method, because we've become tremendously dependent on
research. We always want to understand what makes a place what it is.
Your firm's buildings are known for reflecting the culture of
their inhabitants and the surrounding community. How did the Oklahoma City
project incorporate the culture of loss and the desire for emotional security
while still reflecting the area's more long-standing history and geography?
They all affected what went on in the design. For example, we've taken the
color of the concrete and made it a subtle reflection of the really
red dirt that's there. Our major space was somewhat inspired by the stomp
grounds that the Five Civilized Tribes built after they were transported
to Oklahoma: it curves inward for a kind of sacred intimacy.
And what about the people affected by the bombing?
All the time we've been working on it, right up through today, we've encountered
this community of people who are just tremendously impacted by anything
that goes on that site. In Oklahoma City everybody knows somebody who was
involved. We tried to get their opinions, which were very helpful. We're
guessing about 10 to 20 percent of the people who move in will be Murrah
survivors.
What did they say they wanted?
Obviously security was very important. For example, they wanted no law-enforcement
tenants, so they'd be able to get help in an emergency without the rescue
services being destroyed. And they wanted the building to be low-rise, so
it's four stories versus the ten or eleven in the original Murrah. But Ed
Feiner at the General Services Administration [GSA] kept pushing us not
to get overwhelmed by their security guidelines. He wanted the design to
be not just about this past incident but about the new building's purpose
and function. The answer is holistic. It's a building that will do its job.
Part of that job is being secure--but that's not the only part.
How has September 11 changed your experience with the Oklahoma City building?
Since September 11, I have been called many, many times. I can't think of
any newspaper that hasn't called me. Bryant Gumbel interviewed me, and he
was very aggressive. He wanted to know, "Will people be able to blow
up this building in the future?" A lot of people look at Oklahoma City
as a kind of premonition, as if it's a road map for the future of New York.
With everybody talking about security, I've been able to go back and see
if we passed the test.
Do you believe your building passed?
Yes. With the Oklahoma building we've looked at the things that we can do
technologically to prevent the Murrah bombing, such as thick concrete blast
walls in the entry, which double as a dramatic three-story entry. If the
same event happened at our new building, it wouldn't have the same disastrous
results. But it's not the building that's the problem. This is about bad
people doing bad things. You can only design so much protection into a building.
What should be built at the World Trade Center site?
I don't think it should be only a memorial. We're talking about a city that
has a much bigger history than one day, even though it was an unbelievable
one. It's some of the most valuable real estate in the world, with an economic
role and function that's as much a part of our society as anything else.
What advice can you pass on to the people who ultimately design and build
something there?
Time is really important. The GSA doesn't move very fast, which gave both
us and the people [of Oklahoma City] time to think about what was right.
When we started nobody wanted child care there, because of the memory of
what had happened. But when we were a few months into the design, people
started to imagine themselves actually working in the building and the types
of services needed to do their jobs, and they realized they wanted child
care. Time is the only thing that allows you to arrive at decisions like
that.
Do you see the pressure put on architects today regarding security as an
opportunity or an imposition?
I think good buildings come from complex questions. The idea of wanting
physical security isn't an imposition in any way. On the other hand, you
have to make sure you're asking the right questions. You can't make security
the only concern. That's the risk you run after something like September
11. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think security will be mixed
in with quality-of-life issues.
Do you think there's a cultural shift going on right now that architecture
is part of?
You can never fully tell a watershed moment until it's passed, but I think
a lot of interesting issues are being discussed now that have been put aside
for a long time, like the future of very tall buildings. Are they trophies,
or are they really useful to our economy? Or the idea of building codes
and safety and what we can hope to achieve. In a way the World Trade Center
performed exactly the way the profession designed it to. It was supposed
to last an hour during that kind of stress, and it did. Something like eight
out of nine people did get out of the building. At the same time, this causes
us to ask ourselves, Is that good enough? Can Americans expect a no-risk
society? We have to look at our system of values as much as at design itself.
|
|
|
BACK TO TOP
