Clemson University has backed off its plans to build a modern architecture center at Meeting and George streets - a project applauded at first but later bitterly fought by two neighborhoods and preservation groups.
Clemson announced its decision to change course on its $10 million Spaulding Paolozzi Center in the wake of a recent lawsuit filed challenging how the city's Board of Architectural Review handled its approval.
— postandcourier.com
97 Comments
ouch
Jay Williams of the Charles Towne Neighborhood Association said "... The reason that Charleston is so historically significant is because the neighborhood fabric is not broken up by modern buildings. You can look around and feel the colonial era or 19th-century atmosphere."
You mean the time when women and blacks were property?
Victory for Charleston. The design was preposterous at this location.
What do you mean by "preposterous", Matt4e? Do you use a smartphone when you could just send a letter via Pony Express? That's preposterous!
Have you been to Charleston? Have you seen the location of this proposed building and its surroundings? To try to answer your second question, I send a letter when appropriate and an email when appropriate.
Matt4e,
You may not understand how some people view this kind of issue. There's no harmonizing with a historical context becasue that time is gone, in the past. They've bought into the modernist view of history where there's a clear time line in history with every era having it's own accepted method of dress. As much as they might champion diversity and inclusivness, it's only with-in this ideologically circumscribed framework.
Take Donna's point about the 19th century atmosphere being defined by the worst aspects of society at that time. Now take that model and flip it to the 20th-21st century. Attribute the worst aspects of our society to modernism becasue they where concurrent. This kind of determinism works neatly into a cliched analysis of casue and effect, but snuffs out the complex reality of the human condition.
Since you use a smart phone, you should live in a concrete bunker or a glass cube. Right. I'm glad that Charlseton said no to this building and stood up for Charleston's unique character. If one submitted a traditional Greek Revival design for this building, the howls from this crowd would be deafening, yet Charleston's character is an agglomeration of several centuries that somehow add up to a coherant whole. Now we are supposed to believe that this is a big stage set that can't be added to unless it disregards the context? That view point isn't preposterous, it's pathetic.
This is exactly the kind of oppressive contextualism that the architecture community needs to stand against. Allied Works is an extremely competent firm and its very likely that this building would be one of the best in the neighborhood. Take a look around on street view, check out the Courtyard Marriot just down the street or the Citizen's Bank with its generous parking and drive thru. Notice all the new buildings with odd conciliatory arches and EIFS cornices.
"Notice all the new buildings with odd conciliatory arches and EIFS cornices. "
Now imagine if those buildings where designed by archtiects who where actually allowed to study history. Wonder why people flock to all those historic cities in Europe? Oppressive contextualism indeed. How can you stand it? I'm part of this architectural community you speak of and the only thing oppressive about it is those who slam every attempt to be contextual, without the faintest understanding of why so many of these historical places are so beloved. Empirical evidence, it's quite modern when you think about it.
A functionless styrofoam cornice attached to a courtyard marriot isn't harmonizing with anything. Its an absurdity. A colonial styled drive-thru is an absurdity.
Donna is absolutely right to bring up current technology to remind us that it is 2014. Nostalgists like Thayer claim to appreciate history, but they're blind to the history of their own time. It would be fine if they wanted to live out their fantasy in private isolation, like Celebration, FL or M.Night Shyamalan's The Village, but they're imposing their irrational design sensibility on American cities.
The history of my own time? According to you (and Donna) American cities are nothing more than a series of "irrational designs" like Grand Central Station with it's French Classicism or just about any other historical revival building in America or Europe for that matter.
Your logic makes no sense in the modern world, it's a medeaval mind set that says one can't appropriate history for modern uses. One can't think of the world as other than flat becasue it's been deemed so by the wise men. Imagine this kind of thinking in music or literature, or for that matter science. Even modernism is a revival style of a Europe from between the wars. I'd suggest looking at beauty in any style rather than worrying about it's appropriatness or its place in history.
Serious question: Where is the line in history from which one can't borrow? Five minutes ago, five years ago, 50 years ago? History isn't segmented and compartmentalised as you imagine, unless that's the way your mind works. In which case, I'd recommend opening it up.
Thayer-D,
What are you talking about? Are you ignoring all the contemporary architecture of Europe? Or are you suggesting that European architects are also ignoring European history??
Thayer-D,
Do you ever try to create something new or are you only borrowing?
Do you have any idea how much contextual archtiecture actually goes up in Europe? Just becasue it isn't profiled on sites like this one dosen't mean it isn't going up, but again, when you live in a fantasy world of your own creation with its own arbitrary rules...
As for borrowing vs. creating something new. Do you know what the difference is? Are you going to tell me (like FLW tried to) that you are 100% origilan, that you birthed all your work in splendid isolation of everything around him? That's simply not possible as observing any child learning to navigate this world. It's truly amazing that this is a novel idea for you.
I am really enjoying Thayer's take down of the fools in this thread.
Nobody can be truly original, so why bother trying to create something new. Everyone borrows something, so why not borrow everything. Thats what I'm gathering from your response.
"Do you have any idea how much contextual archtiecture actually goes up in Europe?"
Have you been to Europe in the last ten years? Contemporary architecture isn't an internet mirage.
Thayer-D, to say that I'm not a contextualist is false. I actually think I care more about context than you do. I'm looking at the buildings near the site of this proposed building and discussing their materials while you're talking about European antiquity.
There I was thinking about applying to that professor position at Clemson from the jobs boards.
Screw that.
Matt4e, yes I have been to Charleston. I've also been to many of ThayerD's beloved European capitals, where significant historic architecture and gorgeous contemporary architecture are allowed to co-exist and the cities feel more cosmopolitan because of it.
This building looks gorgeous, and Allied Works is a respected practitioner. If Charleston wants to wallow in faux history, fine - those EIFS arches and cornices that davvid mentions - you can see them in the rendering, FFS! - perfectly represent the South's inability to move forward with their eyes open.
Donna - we certainly do have plenty of problems down this way but having lived in Boston long enough, there's certainly plenty of people who would howl if this building were placed in the middle of Beacon Hill.
Hearing firsthand from some of the people opposing this, it sounds like the school was caught a little flatfooted by the opposition. Which is almost strange but it appears Clemson really didn't expect this kind of reaction, especially the lawsuit. And, even though Mr. Cloepfil has done some very nice work, don't we have a responsibility to judge each project on it's own merits? It seems like, strategically, Clemson relied too much on his reputation to carry the day. I certainly don't agree with the notion it has to mimic it's surroundings or that it has to be classical/traditional, but is it really a great building? Did it really engage in a serious conversation with the surrounding neighborhood? I don't know that it did, at least not in the same way as something like the Zumthor Kolumba project does.
Would this community have supported a building like the Kolumba Museum?
Good point about Boston, Gregory, but seriously Charleston is so much more pearl-clutchy than they are. I mean Charleston is nice, but it veers into Disney, IMO, and that will never ever change. Not that this building would have made that change happen.
I'm looking for more images of the proposal at it appears to be trying very hard to respect its context in terms of building heights, scale, massing, color, relationship to the street etc. If it were built, I think it would've gone unnoticed by most people pass through that intersection.
I hate fascistic contextualism more than I hate pictures of hipsters sipping lattes on their fixies. Rigid, fascistic contextualism makes me want to kick your babies. I'm even beginning to fall into the fuck preservation camp, especially rigidly adhered to preservationists. Time always has the last laugh.
The Kolumba Museum is awful. Mausoleum is more like it.
Only in the south, again, and probably not the last. Too conservative down there.
Fuck Charleston with all its ultra-white gentry. I have been there several times. There was once when we decided to go on a stupid touristy horse carriage, in which the tourguide almost spew out the N word a few times while going through the "Slave Lane", and then proceeded to expound on the virtues of staying south of the Maxon-Dixon line. All the other patrons seemed to like his bullshit banter.
Charleston has some great food, though. But its them losing what could have been a great addition to the city by Allied Works and not the other way around.
^respekt.
"Good point about Boston, Gregory,"... but not... because Charlestonians are "pearl-clutchy".
Nice. Charleston is Disney but Beacon Hill, Back Bay, the North End aren't. Are all beautiful cities like Amsterdam disney? Maybe intellectuals prefer Soho the West Village becasue Co-op city isn't disney enough. Fascinating. What a strange way to navigate all the wonderful places humans built. Can't learn from them but nice place to take a walk.
Donna, I took the liberty to see some of your work while a partner at MW Harris Architecture Interiors Design. Nice work if you don't mind my saying. Don't know if you did this but I especially like the harmonious infill home in downtown Indianapolis.
"The design goal was to create a house that reinterprets historic residential details, materials, and references with a contemporary slant while still fitting within the historic neighborhood and street elevation."
Nice design goal.
It should be noted that the Board of Architectural Review initially approved the plan - it was overwhelming public opposition that scuttled it. I understand the dangers of NIMBYism, but also believe that lay people should have a say in how their cities are developed. Professionals, honestly, don't have the best track record - and the proposed design is pretty bland - certainly nothing worth fighting for. Clemson obviously has some money to spend; they didn't have to choose between faux foam cornices and trendy parametric ridiculousness - they could have built a well crafted, attractive building that was sympathetic to its context.
The building would have been a major change in the character of the street. Yes, there are some bad buildings in the neighborhood, but past mistakes aren't a justification for making new ones.
The neighbor to the NE, which would have been severely impacted by a large structure very close to it:
its a pity this one was shut down this way. It seems pretty contextual all things considered.
have never been to charleston. Have been to a lot of cool cities in europe. Except for london they do all feel like disneyland, at least a bit. There is nothing particularly contextual about a mcdonalds in freiburg that inhabits a 200 year old stone building with rather grotesque caryatids at its entrance. Whatever made that building of its time (and perhaps explained those awful caryatids) has long since gone and now it looks really and truthfully about as legitimate as the stage-like streets of harry potter at universal studios. Its nice, but still nothing more than a decorated mcdonalds shed.
Venice is awesome. It has an amazing character. What saddens me is there is no room for another Scarpa there today. How ironically cruel is that? Even a master is not welcome in his own home because the limits of what is acceptable have become so narrow. I guess some would say that is a good thing, but I am not convinced. London is a messy and incomplete beast of a city but it's amazingly comfortable (and uncomfortable) and lively, that gives it a kind of strength and character that is profoundly attractive. Certainly it is as attractive as any preserved (or canned) city anywhere in the world. All the people moving there is at least indication of something interesting going on. Im not anti-classical, but then again neither is this project. Which is more the point. It is a real pity the community does not see themselves in this building. It is most certainly there. Or it could be, if they were a bit more open and could see it.
There are really bad bits of architecture happening every day out there. This is not one of them.
^Not bad, just not so good that its construction is worth potentially damaging the character of the neighborhood.
We have to accept that memory of place and the perceived identity of place are powerful forces in shaping the built environment. I do believe that this design would have added positive values to the community, but I wonder what values and how those values were expressed.
As a global style continues to sweep across this country and others, we should accept that not every place feels global. It always seems to be a conflict between localist identity and globalist design.
I think about Barcelona in contrast. Yes, it is connected to a wider European context, but the work of say EMBT seems to fold the city's identity back onto itself. Wang Shu's Ningbo History Museum also explicates that there is design continuity as a city and region progress.
Identity of place builds upon itself and the built environment needs to follow. Not every city or site should be approached the same way. A critical regional approach would have softened this conflict. This building could be anywhere.
I will add I am a native South Carolinian practicing in SF, and I am also a Clemson Architecture graduate. It's unfortunate that Clemson and Allied Works would not push to build on a Contemporary Southern identity and default upon a more global one. That seems to be a more exciting conversation within Charleston.
Needless to say I think this is good news for Charleston. This building would have been a big mistake for the neighborhood. In these instances, when building in or near a historic district, I don't think we have to make a choice between avant-garde modernism and cheesy foam cornices. That's a false choice, a canard that's trotted to try to diminish contemporary traditional architecture. There are many thoughtful architects, doing well detailed, nuanced work, who would have been excellent choices to design a building on this site, within the language of the neighborhood.
Will- I couldn't disagree more with you, when you describe old cities as "Disneyland". When I walk trough an old city core, in Florence, or Siena, or Venice, and I see a Nokia cellular store in a space on the ground floor of a 16th century building, a space that might have been a blacksmith or a butcher shop in the past, I don't see it as anachronistic, or "fake". I see it as yet another human endeavor being accommodated within buildings designed to last hundreds of years, buildings built using a language that people love. We are human beings. We are most definitely not our technology.
i personally believe that the "where" of buildings is much, much more important that the "when".
Architects are not unconscious builders. We are intellectuals and disciplined professionals. When we romanticize the past and act in ways that are uncritical and nostalgic we are being irresponsible and unprofessional. In what other profession today would such delusions of nostalgia be accepted? In what other profession today would the intentional obfuscation of history be accepted? We work on the public's behalf. That does not mean that we must be a channel of their more base desires.
I found some interesting photos of a full scale mock up that was made of a portion of the George Street facade.
++davvid
Those mockups are lovely. And anyone who can't see the relationship between their openness/screen and those plantation shutters on the building behind are just being willfully close-minded.
Yes, Donna, they are both ways of regulating light.
Davvid, no one is talking about obfuscating history or being uncritically nostalgic. As for being a "channel for their more base desires"-what you're saying is just another version of the "We're design professionals, so we know better than you what you really need, silly human" bullshit that makes so many of us such jackasses. If Charleston doesn't want a not-all-that-interesting trendy box, it shouldn't have one forced on it. Democracy in action.
Davvid, where you go wrong is in the presumption that to design in the long standing tradition of a beloved place is, ipso facto, to engage in nostalgia. Nostalgia should have nothing to do with it.
The linguistic metaphor is really important. When you move to a new place, you learn the language and you speak it, if you want to be welcomed and loved by the people there. Languages are not essentially temporal. They are much more about "where" than about "when". Sure, languages evolve over time, but that evolution is slow and is consensus-based. Human communication is not possible if your ethics demand that you invent a new language when ever personal whim moves you to do so.
Regarding the mock ups. Sure there is a connection, but the connection is abstract and superficial. No cultural connection at all. It is more aligned conceptually with Swiss cheese than it is to plantation shutters. That building would have quickly been called the Swiss Cheese Building, in the same manner as the Gherkin or the Walkie Talkie. Such is the inevitable result when you fail to make a cultural connection to building type.
So true, anon.
Speaking as someone who went to Clemson's architecture program and as someone who has spent the majority of my (rather short) life in Charleston, I think the opposition to the building was perhaps merited, but ultimately short-sighted and narrow-minded. I attended the second to last Board of Architectural Review meeting for the Allied Works building and one of the board members made a comment along the lines of "nothing of any architectural significance has been built in Charleston for at least 100 years".
I don't know if anyone commenting opposing this building has taken the time to see the architecture that the Charleston public "democratically" approves, but it is a collection of (if you allow me to make an...impassioned generalization) bland, watered down, style-less, context-less, genus-loci-less, boxes filled with nothing.
To me, the debate should be about whether or not buildings of ARCHITECTURAL EXCELLENCE should be built in Charleston any longer. It's okay if the general public of Charleston wants to preserve the character of the city and build faithful tributes to the historical architectural styles of the historic district. It's okay if Charleston architects want to adopt the styles of the past, as long as they attempt to create places that further the character of the cities existing architectural beauty.
However, this should bring up a few questions. Was the historic district built in a single architectural style? No, the historic district exhibits a wide variety of architectural styles...there is no single, unified "Charleston-style". This should then lead us to think about what the nature of "style" is. And the nature of what "architecture" is.
Architecture is more than a stage set, a city is more than a collection of facades. Architecture is not solely about form, it is not solely about facades. Architectural styles have always had the ability to express something about periods in time, about zeitgeist, about specific moments. Further, when done correctly, they can exemplify a place in time, and, as in the work and writing of Aldo Rossi, speak to the entire history of a city.
I think before Charleston's architects and public decide that a building is a success or failure purely based on the fact that they like or dislike it's aesthetics they should thoughtfully look at how each building manages to fit into the architectural discourse of the city. It's okay for a city to build some background buildings that quietly blend into the urban fabric, but it should be equally as okay for a city to build certain armature buildings that actively add to the character and sense of place of the city.
And both the fabric and evocative buildings should be well-designed, rather than overly polite to the point of becoming a melting pot of nothingness.
Anyway, I hope it's clear that I am not trying to prove whether or not this building is right or wrong for the city (though I'm sure you can read between the lines), I just sincerely wish the architectural conversation of Charleston regarding style was a bit less...shallow.
Also, it's worth noting that, as far as I know, the same neighborhood groups that opposed this building opposed the very faithfully Classical, yet massive, Gaillard auditorium construction just down the street.
Not sure if that is 100% true, but it is interesting that part of the debate isn't just about style, but also about the residents not wanting dramatic public buildings placed in their 'hood.
This building wouldn't fit in Nantucket, Marthas Vineyard, Cape Cod, or Boston's historical district, why should it fit in Charleston, SC? Haven't enough places in the US been damaged by architects with no sense of place, time, history, or use of appropriate materials? See the new Aspen Art Museum for exhibit #1. This is like buying a lot in a New England town full of beautifully maintained old classical residences and building a glass box- just because you can.
Will,
You bring up some points that deserve unpacking if just to illustrate the underlying assumptions that make it seem like we're talking past eashother.
"Have been to a lot of cool cities in europe. Except for london they do all feel like disneyland, at least a bit. "
Ever wonder why"Disneyland" cities attracts people?
"There is nothing particularly contextual about a mcdonalds in freiburg that inhabits a 200 year old stone building with rather grotesque caryatids at its entrance."
It dosen't have to be contextual. It's a new function in an old building.
"Whatever made that building of its time (and perhaps explained those awful caryatids) has long since gone and now it looks really and truthfully about as legitimate as the stage-like streets of harry potter at universal studios."
It's not trying to look letitimate becasue only modernists care about a building's "legitimacy", if infact there is such a thing.
"Its nice, but still nothing more than a decorated mcdonalds shed."
And that's all most people will think of it if that. That's all it needs to be, unless you're god.
"Even a master is not welcome in his own home because the limits of what is acceptable have become so narrow. I guess some would say that is a good thing...not convinced."
Historically, 'masters' have had to contend with all sorts of parameters that rather than inhibit their genius, gave them opportunities for genius. The Campidoglio etc. It's modernism's legacy of no compromise with history that we can attribute this additude.
Nice point Kehl. And EKE, of course, lovely points and eminently logical
"We're design professionals, so we know better than you what you really need, silly human" bullshit that makes so many of us such jackasses. If Charleston doesn't want a not-all-that-interesting trendy box, it shouldn't have one forced on it. Democracy in action."
+++Bing, bang, boom! It's as if the most obvious points are the hardest to understand.
"Those mockups are lovely. And anyone who can't see the relationship between their openness/screen and those plantation shutters on the building behind are just being willfully close-minded."
Proof that anything can be justified in the lala land of theoretical discussions.
arifj,
I would like to challenge some of the assumptions (please correct me if I'm wrong) inherent in your analysis that might make understanding eachother's points easier.
"nothing of any architectural significance has been built in Charleston for at least 100 years".
Many wonderful places are filled with buildings that will never be significant in the way architects are taught buildings ought to be. And that's why our schooling needs reform.
"I don't know if anyone commenting opposing this building has taken the time to see the architecture that the Charleston public "democratically" approves, but it is a collection of (if you allow me to make an...impassioned generalization) bland, watered down, style-less, context-less, genus-loci-less, boxes filled with nothing."
We are all familiar with the styrophome go-to punching bags of modernists and the retort is always the same. Imagine those buildings being designed by architects schooled in the styles and compositional techniques of traditional architecture. The materials could be used in trad or modern styles, but the eye is something that needs training.
"It's okay if Charleston architects want to adopt the styles of the past, as long as they attempt to create places that further the character of the cities existing architectural beauty."
Modernists and traditionalists both adopt styles of the past, unless your definition of "the past" comes with an expiration date. The past is prologue.
"Was the historic district built in a single architectural style? No, the historic district exhibits a wide variety of architectural styles...there is no single, unified "Charleston-style". This should then lead us to think about what the nature of "style" is."
Then why do so many of those styles harmonize with eachother in a way that this dosen't?
"Architecture is more than a stage set, a city is more than a collection of facades. Architecture is not solely about form, it is not solely about facades."
Just becasue we are talking about the facades dosen't mean that there is nothing about this building beyond the facade. We are simply talking about the public face.
"Architectural styles have always had the ability to express something about periods in time, about zeitgeist, about specific moments. "
But the more unconcious the more sincere. Obsessing about it from the start is what makes the difference between a style with life and a portrait of a stylistic period. Encourage experimentation but with in the parameters of the context. Like personal behavior, it's not suppressing one's character when one tries to get along.
"Anyway, I hope it's clear that I am not trying to prove whether or not this building is right or wrong for the city (though I'm sure you can read between the lines), I just sincerely wish the architectural conversation of Charleston regarding style was a bit less...shallow. "
It's ok to like this building and also to be more experimental, or less nostalgic, or however you want to view the world. The issue here is (I think) that the public holds the character of their town dear. You must remember that just outside this town exists the same array of sprawlitecture. Buildings just like this but with a BMW logo or a tech company logo.
This may add to Charlstonians desire to keep their town special while they clutch their pearls in reactionary fear of the modern. And as they book a flight to their summer home in Seaside Florida on their I-phone and contemplate how to handle their divorce becase they came out of the closet, they might be excused that their understanding of thier home town is a bit shallow. Afterall, what do they know about their home town that our training dosen't know so much better?
it looks to me like this would end up being a pretty good building if they went forward with it.
if they don't, and end up building something else to solve the current functional requirements but address the historicism some here are concerned with, it would interesting to revisit this thread and see if it ends up being "architects, doing well detailed, nuanced work, who would have been excellent choices to design a building on this site, within the language of the neighborhood" or "cheesy foam cornices." if the latter, you would think we would agree that the distinction between modernist and cheesy is not a false comparison.
i think kahn was right when he said 'ask brick what brick wants to be.' someday the materials and methods we use to design and construct buildings will change again. maybe they will be all 3d printed plastic crap or something. at that time, there will be architects who learn all they can about the material properties of what they're working with and try to develop buildings that reflect the material and the time and the context they are working in. there will also be architects that try to force that shit into cheesy 3d printed plastic cornices. modernism will evolve, because it doesn't exist as a line where things can or cannot be copied. it's much simpler than that, and it's allowed to develop as it sees fit.
The fact that companies make foam and plastic cornices and whatnot does not mean that a classical (or any) self-respecting architect would be caught dead using them. it is a total red herring in this discussion.
The proposed building is a mish-mash of International Style and parametric turdism. That wavy-gravy shit on the side is just stupid. I'd prefer another term but don't want to piss off the P.C. crowd.
The most interesting thing about that facade mock up is its juxtaposition with the faux manor house behind it.
"Was the historic district built in a single architectural style? No, the historic district exhibits a wide variety of architectural styles...there is no single, unified "Charleston-style". This should then lead us to think about what the nature of "style" is."
Then why do so many of those styles harmonize with each other in a way that this doesn't?
Excellent point, Thayer-D.
"Davvid, where you go wrong is in the presumption that to design in the long standing tradition of a beloved place is, ipso facto, to engage in nostalgia. Nostalgia should have nothing to do with it."
Nearly all (maybe all) architects in the US, even the rebellious ones, work in ways that maintain common traditions and conventions in professional practice. We problem solve in similar ways. We refer to a similar understanding of history. We abide by similar regulations. We work with similar trades, materials and building systems.
An architect who specifies brick veneer, styrofoam cornices or other materials intended to disguise the true age of a building (but are the result of thoroughly contemporary engineering) is not working in a "long standing" tradition different from the one that the rest of us are part of. The only tradition you are maintaining is a roughly 50 year old tradition of postmodernism.
volunteer, that's why i said it would be interesting to see what gets built, if this design does not. if it is a foam cornice, then your suggestion that it's a red herring is off base.
i really don't see anything wrong with the aspen art museum either. replacing a baluster or whatever doesn't mean it was unsafe or a failed design. fixing punch list items after the CO is issued doesn't mean the design is a failure. it's fine if you don't like it, but your opinion carries no more weight than someone's opinion.
that's the same with this design. you can't see it from my backyard, so if the local residents don't want it, then let the government step in and say it can't be built. but when the local residents say they want foam cornices, you're going to have to give them foam cornices. either you listen to the residents or you don't right? you can't step in and say you'll listen to them when they say what you want, then you cut them off when they say something you don't want. of course there are options other than foam cornices, but let's be honest, those options don't get exercised all that often.
so, as matt says
Then why do so many of those styles harmonize with each other in a way that this doesn't?
the answer is obviously because this design does harmonize with it's environment, it's similar scale and fits with the massing of neighboring structures. it's just different and you don't like it. all that means is you have a different opinion than someone else, which is worth nothing more than someone's opinion.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.