University of Cincinnati
This entry was clearly the most provocative design. As with most provocative designs, some regarded this as a plus ("a fearlessness about the design" "audacious") while others found it a detriment ("ÉIgnores the city and the other buildings"). Reaction to the building included a feeling that the building was a predatory force, even frightening. One summed it up this way, "It is exuberant, has a sophistication about it. On the other hand it is an irritant." Ironically, the "hanging" element that makes this entry so provocative was not viewed by the jurors as a key to the design's success. That is, they felt the hanging element could be manipulated back away from the edge and placed within the setbacks without taking away from the successful aspects of the design. This observation sparked a discussion about the merits of ignoring the requirements in any program. "Do we just bend the rules or break them?" was the first level of query; the subsequent question was "what is advanced in doing so?" The jurors also noted that the design does not appear to incorporate the mechanical equipment on the roof. What pleased the jury almost unanimously was that this entry had the most interesting internal spaces, a "spatial complexity," with repeated praise going to the violinist's practice room. This entry was also deemed effective as architecture albeit with questions of build-ability, "the intentions of the spaces are clear, whether or not you like the spaces" and "this entry clearly communicates how it sits on the building." Further, "it is not just fashionable architecture - it picks up on theatrics, music."