GUIDING PRINCIPLE: Designing a front fence encapsulates the fundamental question of what it means to be a Jew in America today. Consequently, such a design process has unique potential to engage (or to alienate) Mishkon’s members.
This post describes the tentative plan for a design process that I have developed with input from committee member Marcy Drexler. (She deserves credit for having read many background reports, and having interviewed the city’s preservation architect, representatives of neighborhood stakeholder organizations, and a local ironworker/welder.)
The board has not yet received, reviewed, or accepted this plan. It is a draft — and thus subject to revision.
BACKGROUND. On January 19, the board directed the Building & Grounds Committee (“B&G”) to provide a Plan of Action for a fence at the Main Street property boundary: “The design and decision process should be conducted with an eye toward building community and engagement among Mishkon’s members [and] ultimately, the design should…express what Mishkon stands for.” Coincidentally, on January 24, our president was notified that Mishkon was being awarded a state security grant that presumably includes funding for an 8′-high wrought-iron picket fence, which reportedly was part of the grant application.
FUNDING PROSPECTS. Interest has already been expressed by certain members in donating to fund the outcome of an inclusive design process. In addition, if the resulting design is compatible with the state’s conditions on its security grant funding, then it may cover most or all of the cost of the fence itself.
Action Steps
The Building & Grounds Committee (“B&G”) will manage the design process in cooperation with the Membership Committee and the Rabbi. Synagogue members will be invited to participate at three junctures: values clarification; suggestion of motifs; and expressed preference for candidate designs.
Values Clarification. Fence design needs to reconcile competing goals: aesthetics, cleanliness, inspiration, pride of ownership, security, welcoming, and more. How do our members weigh these considerations? In order to build community, we will host two congregational forums (one in-person and one online) regarding the design of a front fence along Main Street. These forums give interested members an opportunity to share ideas, communicate concerns, and—most of all—hear what the concept of a front fence means to their fellow members.
Outreach for these forums will state that a fence is planned. It will ask the membership to consider design issues within a set of initial parameters and constraints (see below). The goal of these forums is not only to converge on a design but also to increase the sense of community and overall commitment to the common good.
Participants will receive a survey that probes various value trade-offs. It will show a variety of sample designs (Photoshopped “artist renditions”) and ask for responses. It will plumb not only what members prefer, but also what they could live with. B&G will then translate the results of the survey into more refined structural and material specs.
Starting point. We will present initial parameters that include dimensions (a range: 4–8′ high); location (e.g., along the property line); preferred material (metal, with a low-maintenance finish); and color (black, for low maintenance and visual modesty).
Constraints include safety requirements, such as a pedestrian swing gate in front of the doors to the Social Hall (as an emergency exit), and security requirements, such as a protective screen around that gate’s inside latch, to prevent its being opened from the outside by someone who reaches around or through.
Architectural compatibility translates to avoiding visual conflict, with regard to the façade characteristics and the scale of both the building and the streetscape. We note that the repeated horizontal flagstone steps, and the imposing vertical columns above them, already command the eye’s attention. Hence any ornamentation that is positioned directly in front of the steps risks being perceived as distracting. In contrast, the relatively blank walls of the patio, and its very spaciousness, offer a more suitable backdrop for artistic expression. Hence we suggest that the fence’s main (fixed) portion, as well as sliding gates in front of the steps, employ relatively modest (repeating) ornamental motifs, whereas the swing gate can feature an attractive, free-form, custom design.
Design elements suggested by the Mishkon community. The above considerations will be presented to the congregation, with an invitation to suggest imagery for inclusion in the ornamental aspects of the structure. Such iconographic input could take the form of visual references to Judaism, Mishkon’s history, the life of surrounding community, the physical environment of Venice, the artistic character of Venice, etc. Featured in this discussion is the philosophical/spiritual question of how “a Jewish way of being” engages the larger world. The results of this discussion will be included in a proposal submitted to potential creators of the fence and gate as guidelines.
Selection of artist. A competitive design process will produce the most attractive gate and fence. Therefore artists will be invited to submit proposals in the form of drawings or models, regarding design of the pedestrian gate, and of more modest ornamental motifs elsewhere. A reward will be offered for the winning design. Members of the congregation will be invited to weigh in on the submitted designs. Then B&G will select the winner.
Ratification. The board of directors will be asked to ratify the winning design.
City Gov’t. If the Planning Dept. needs to approve the fence design and placement, we ask it to do so at this point. (A fence up to 8′ high does not require a building permit.)
Construction. A fabricator and installer will be engaged by competitive bidding.
Notifying others. In general, Venice stakeholders seem to value and respect the artistic/architectural freedom of local property owners. Therefore we won’t seek design input from local organizations. Yet we will keep them posted on developments as a courtesy.
DESIGN BUDGET. The principal costs of this process itself are: (a) the reward for the winning design ($1000?), and (b) the graphic artistry to produce varied Photoshopped “artist’s renditions” of suggested designs, so that members of the congregation can better imagine how each one would look when actually installed ($200).
TIMING. Funds provided by the state security grant program are available for a limited time only. Thus our design process needs to be completed timely, to ascertain whether or not the security-grant conditions are appropriate for our purposes.
CONCLUSION. This path promises to bring a fence into being in a manner that not only builds community and engagement among our members, but also expresses the best of what Mishkon stands for.
No comments:
Post a Comment