ATTACHMENT 3
Memo
To: Public Art Review Committee, Community Center Wall
From: David Finn, commissioned artist, Community Center Wall
Re: Phase 1 Design requirements.
The Phase 1 Design requirements call for the following:
1, 2, 3. Please see attached plans, and sections. Material samples will be presented.
4. Preliminary specifications. The following specifications for the project are preliminary, based on conversations with Emily Cameron (Public Works), Harold Harris (Engineering), Bill Webster (Parks and Recreation), Steve Wright, (Public Arts), as well as Daniel Matthews (Chryso, Inc.) and Chad Harrell ((Precast Solutions). More detailed specifications such as mix formula, 3-D models of each block, and exact placement of the wall, for example, await phases 2 and 3.
a) Wall materials and finishes- The wall will be cast in 27 sections in open face molds using 3000 psi strength concrete. The concrete will be made with white Portland cement, local sand, and an aggregate that will provide interesting contrast to the matrix (see samples). The molded pieces will be carved and ground to a smooth finish using a 40 grit grinding wheel. Lower portions of the blocks will be a rougher sand finish. Upon completion the blocks will be treated with a sealant to provide stain resistance. The wall blocks will be designed with two channels in the base to allow for lifting and drainage when in place. Each section will have a key to enable sections to fit together into a continuous wall. The blocks will vary in dimensions, but follow the general height of the hill grade. No block will extend above 32 inches high (see drawing for details). All blocks will weigh more than 500 lbs to prevent easy movement.
b) Site preparation- Installation site, staging area and trees in the area will be surrounded by tree protection fencing. The existing timbers will be removed (saved) and the site for the wall excavated to a depth of 11-12 “.Excavated topsoil may be saved and placed back on top of backfill; excess soil and refuse will be taken to the landfill for disposal, and if smells persist, a layer of soil will be placed over the fresh excavation. 8” of river stone will be placed and flattened as a base for the wall, and sand will be packed on it to provide a smooth surface for installation of the blocks. Blocks will be set 3-4 inches below the playground grade (which is very close to level).
c) Installation: Sidewalk will be properly prepared for crossing of machinery (using plywood or sand). The playground will not be closed, but the red playground slide facing the wall should be removed for site work; if impossible then the slide entrance will be sealed. A dump truck and back hoe will be provided by the Town for installation, along with skilled back hoe operator for placing and setting the wall pieces. Protective materials will be used to cushion the blocks during installation. The wall will be backfilled with 6” of wash stone for drainage. 4’ or 5’-wide filter fabric will be wrapped over the top and front of the wash stone and then covered with top soil. A 1’ wide strip of mulch will be placed between the back of the wall and the hill’s grass to keep moving equipment away from the wall. New timbers and mulch will be installed as needed to restore the playground.
d) Design features- The wall sections have been redesigned from the competition presentation to respond to concerns raised about the height of the wall, and the need for adult seating. There are now fewer big protrusions, and the remaining ‘humps’ are not as steep or tall. There are no parts higher than 32” anywhere on the wall. I have increased the available adult seating from an estimated 12 to around 20 prime places.
5. Review of plans with public constituents. I met on two occasions with community members who have a direct interest in the wall. The first occasion was an informal canvas of playground users made at the site from 10-2pm on February 25, 2009. The second was to attend a meeting of the Chapel Hill Mothers Association on the evening of March 4. In both instances I presented the revised model of the wall, along with a full size styrofoam mock up of one of the wall sections that could be tested as an adult seat. I explained the key aesthetic and functional concepts for the work, and responded to questions. At both meetings I asked for participation via a one page questionnaire with the following questions:
Do you have children that use the playground? If so what are their ages?
How often do you visit the playground?
Do you think your child will use the new wall, and if so how?
Do you have any concerns for your child’s safety on the wall as it is designed?
Do you feel that the wall will be a comfortable place to sit?
I also asked for overall opinions on the new wall design.
I received 19 responses from the 2 sessions. All of the respondents used the playground on a regular basis, and had children, with all but two having toddler age children, all but two were female. All of the parents polled believed their child(ren) would use the wall. Climbing was most often mentioned, along with sitting, walking the wall, jumping and eating! Most parents felt the wall would be safe, and they were eager to touch sample of the surface to see how smooth it would be. Several asked about heat build up during the summer, and several remarked that the absence of splinters would be an important improvement. Everyone who answered the questionnaire thought that the new wall would make for improved seating—and several people stressed the need for adult seating during peak times.
The overall responses to the wall design were very positive. Here are a few samples:
“ Very nice! I’d like to make sure there are ledges for younger children to walk the wall.”
“Love the idea of useable art – would love to see a sign explaining the project.”
“I am happy the town is replacing the wall The new design looks very nice.”
“Organic and fits in with the environment.”
“I really like the artistic quality (subtle, but interesting-relaxed look) Great that it has utility features as well (sitting, playing).”
I was pleased to get such a good response from park users, for whom the playground is an important part of children’s lives. People I interviewed were very quick to understand the advantages of combining utility and aesthetics, and I detected no negative attitudes toward the project.
6. List of Consultants
The following businesses and individuals are working with me or have agreed to work on the project.
Precast Solutions 47 Choctaw Ct., Browns Summit, NC 27214 (336) 837-7164
Chad Harrell
Precast Solutions fabricates precast concrete channels, utility boxes, and pipe. I will be using their yard as a site to cast and carve in, and we will contract for labor to cast the works, as well as move materials and finished product. They will provide engineering advice for forms.
Mr. Daniel Matthews Chryso, Inc., (336) 451-0888
Mr. Matthews represents Chryso, Inc., a company that formulates concrete admixtures. He has 30 years experience formulating concrete mix designs for large projects, including work with retaining walls and decorative concrete. I will be using him to formulate the mix design for white concrete with exposed aggregate that can be carved and finished a day after pouring.
I am in contact with several concrete ready mix companies, but have not decided on one as yet.
Please see following sheet for revised cost estimates. There have been a few small additional costs to the project, but the largest change was that previous accounting did not reflect the $1500 in kind materials and services that could be applied to the installation costs. According to the site meeting notes written by Steve Wright:
“Finances: Outside of the $45,000 Percent For Art project fund, approximately $1,500 is available for Town labor and/or installation materials (stone, soil, fabric, plywood, fencing). Once this $1,500 is exhausted, labor and installation materials will need to be covered by the project fund. Town equipment such as back hoe and dump truck can be provided free of charge. Town labor is expected to cost $20 per hour. A process for reimbursing Town labor costs from the $45,000 project fund should be arranged as soon as possible.”
(from the site meeting notes 2/25/09)
The new budget reflects the use of these funds for installation costs.