This page is referenced by:

• 1 2020-05-01T00:10:18+00:00 Event at the Mary Brown Center 53 On February 25, 1971 the designers of the Old Man River and community members from East St. Louis gathered at the Mary Brown Center to discuss the projected idea of a domed city. plain 2020-05-09T04:26:33+00:00 Buckminster Fuller's utopian vision of the Old Man River's City Project collided with the pragmatic realism of the East St. Louis community at the Mary Brown Center on February 25, 1971. The Mary Brown Center, located in East St. Louis, is one of Fuller’s many successful geodesic domes. Residents and concerned citizens of the community gathered to
  
  observe the unveiling of the proposed housing solution which included a panel presentation, photos, drawings and models of the innovative design developed by Fuller and Fitzgibbon, assisted by several students and faculty members at Washington University. 
   The presentation panel started with Fuller speaking to the community regarding the background and aspirations of the project. 
  
  “Frankly speaking I think it’s a good idea.”-East St Louis Citizen* 
  
  
  He then answered questions from the residents of the city. Various community members voiced concerns with the project as they perceived the design of the dome as prison-like.
  
  
  “I don’t want to see the whole city in a dome but i[t] would make a good tourist attraction to boost the ESL economy. Perhaps recreational facilities, cultural, and historical facilities could be built or moved into this dome."- East St. Louis Citizen*  
  
  Many citizens of East St. Louis at the event were anxious that if the project moved forward, they would lose their homes.
   
  “Whatever we come up with must be unique to draw people back into E. St. Louis. Then too I’m concerned about what the dome will hold, how far will it extend? Here's hoping it or whatever that’s built will take in downtown area. For a population as large as ours, Our shopping district looks terrible. I also believe by building the dome we will attract enough visitors and industry to come back into East St. Louis”-East St. Louis Citizen*
  
  According to interviews with some of the students and faculty who were present at the event, the project’s ambitious concepts did not represent the solution the community felt were needed.
  
  “Mr. Fuller will probably get the same reaction that Eads got when he started building the bridge across the river.”-East St. Louis Citizen* 
  
  In retrospect, the domed city was an overarching answer that did not correspond to a more focused question. The city required dedicated funds from the state to help rebuild and restructure from the ground up, not encompass the community in a dome. The event at the Mary Brown Center stood as a test for the ideas of the Old Man River's City project, the feedback the designer team received forced them to make drastic design changes to the model.
   “My feeling is that land ownership is and has been the prime source of wealth for a nation or a people. I see no way that the residents of the city will profit from living in “old man river”. The Jews in Germany thought they were taking showers instead they were gassed. Take the top of[f] the[n] there is no need to feel paranoid. The residents can develop a dependency syndrome unless able to step outside and make the amount of money I am sure it would take in order to be a resident. Upon the building of this, who will own the land? Where will many of the inhabitants work? I hear that this is a 50,000,0000 dollar project. Have you heard of the city the N.A.A.C.P is building outside of Chicago? Why not develop an idea of this type for E. St. Louis... I can’t give my approval until the above questions have been answered.”-East St. Louis Citizen*
  
   
  
  One of those design changes was to raise the dome off the ground, thus negating the desired use of the dome as an energy-efficient means of sustaining the community. The event was an example of what happens when idealism and theory meet real-world problems.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  a
  *All of the East St. Louis citizens quoted on this page were present at the initial meeting held at the Mary Brown Center, February 25, 1971. Their comments were hand written and passed on to Buckminster Fuller by Wyvetter Younge. The quotes have been deciphered to the best of our ability. 
  
  
  < Buckminster Fuller and his Utopian Vision                                           The Design Pathway >
   
• 1 2020-04-27T23:08:06+00:00 Interview with the Old Man River's City Designers 28 David Thompson sat down to talk to four individuals involved in the design work of the Old Man River's City project. Thank you to Tom Thomson, Bill Wischmeye, Carl Safe, and Dennis Cope for taking time out of their schedules to answer these questions and being candid about their opinions on the project itself. plain 2020-05-08T13:44:47+00:00 We had the opportunity to consult with a few individuals who were a part of the Old Man River's City project during their time at Washington University as either students or faculty. Carl Safe, Bill Wischmeyer, Dennis Cope, and Tom Thomson each spent about 30 minutes with us on the phone answering questions designed to focus on the significant events surrounding the early stages of the Old Man River's City project. We inferred some responses from the desinger's replies to the questions throughout the interview.
  
  How were you involved in the Old Man River's City project?     
     
  Carl Safe and Tom Thomson were faculty who assisted James Fitzgibbon with the project. Safe was a new member of the teaching staff at Washington University. He remarked that he was involved in the displayed drawing and model at the Mary Brown Center event in February 1971. Thomson was more familiar with Buckminster Fuller's work and had worked in East St. Louis to design possible housing solutions. Thomson worked on a small model of the terraced apartments to provide detail of the interior of the dome.
  Bill Wischmeyer and Dennis Cope were students in the architecture department who volunteered their time to assist Fitzgibbon. Wischmeyer worked in the first design process during the Spring semester of 1971, helping to build the model built for the Mary Brown Center per the request of Fitzgibbon. Wischmeyer relayed that one of his first assignments was to find a model of the Gateway Arch to provide a degree of scale to the diorama. Cope joined the project to take advantage of a chance to work with a hero of his, Fitzgibbon. Cope helped design the umbrella-top dome model based on the critique from the community. Cope was able to shift his work on the project into an independent study course for credit. A considerable amount of his contributions made its way into the design of the model of the Old Man River's City project.
  
  While working on the Old Man River's City project, were you given artistic freedom to design a model under your ideas?
  
  All the individuals we interviewed made it clear that the design was the result of the conceptual framework of Buckminster Fuller and the practical execution of James Fitzgibbon and his development team. The designs in the display models had to look aesthetically pleasing while simultaneously being efficient for the community. Dennis Cope was the only individual who indicated that they had some ability to communicate artistic freedom in their work, and that was within the context of their independent study.
  
  Were you advised of any budgetary restrictions with design to the project?
  
  The unanimous answer to the question of budgetary restrictions was a resounding no. The projected amounts of material provided the loosely estimated cost reported to the community and media. The designers were primarily concerned with proving that the dome could be physically built. The students seemed to believe the given price was not close to the actual cost of the construction of such a structure.
  
  Were you present at the event at the Mary Brown Center? If so, what did you perceive as the reaction from the community?  
  
  Of the interviewees, only Dennis Cope was absent from the first Mary Brown Center event held in February 1971. Interestingly, each person focused on different aspects of the event around them. Carl Safe mentioned the difficulty Fuller had with his introduction of the project to the community. Fuller was a captivating speaker; however, the message Fuller had for the East St. Louis community seemed to be too ambitious and out of the realm of reality. Safe advised it appeared to be a clash of cultures. Tom Thomson noticed this disconnect as well. Thomson recalled a quote that stuck with him form the community where one individual mentioned the social question of "who gets to be inside and left outside of the dome." He also focused on the presence Wyvetter Younge seemed to have in the room. She drew herself up and spoke with a sureness that displayed to Thomson that she truely cared for the city. Bill Wischmeyer concentrated on the community members present at the event. Wischmeyer described the politics of East St. Louis in the late 1960s and early 70s as being primarily run by non-governmental agents. Wischmeyer described a famous story of the event where a man in a vibrant purple hat spoke up and voiced a common opinion of the community that the dome seemed to represent a prison for the Black American community of East St. Louis.
  
  Did community feedback reach you while you were working on the project?
  
  The general sense extrapolated from the designers' comments is that much of the design was experimental and progressed organically. However, they did take into account the community's response form the Mary Brown Center Event. We know that after the first event at the Mary Brown Center, the design was significantly changed in both interior and exterior. The most substantial effect community response had was that the dome itself was lifted hundreds of feet in the air (in scale).
  
  What was your opinion of the Old Man River's City project during and after your time working on it?
  
  The sheer magnitude of the project was alluring to the interviewees. All participants voiced that the project was a challenge they enjoyed attempting to solve. The students and faculty members alike discussed the coveted opportunity to work closely with Fitzgibbon. Dennis Cope advised that he agreed to work on the Old Man River's City project to get the chance to collaborate with Fitzgibbon, whose work he greatly admired. Again, in a unanimous response, each individual expressed the belief that the project seemed unlikely to come to fruition.
  We discussed that the lifted design of the dome disregarded the efficient construction and climate questions Fuller's original design answered. The umbrella-like dome was just that, a surface to keep precipitation off the enclosed buildings.
  
  What were the most significant obstacles preventing the success of this project?
  
  According to the designers we talked to, the primary factor against the project was its seemingly impossible concept. It seemed that some members of the community were unable to comprehend the project but were acutely aware of the need for assistance. In that frame, it appeared that there were cheaper methods that many members of the government and community wanted to examine first. The dome was counterproductive to East St. Louis's needs, as it was an overarching answer to a more focused question.
  
  Miscellaneous Comments:
  
  While the interviews took place, the designers provided exciting stories of their experiences with Fitzgibbon and Fuller. Safe and Thomson recounted their times sitting in Fitzgibbon's house, listening to Fuller tell stories. Both described Fuller as a great orator. Safe reminisced about how Fuller would interrupt his own storytelling to turn off his hearing aids and doze off for a few minutes and then wake up and pick the story up from where he left off. Safe also mentioned an amusing anecdote of how Fuller was searching for a solution to the math of circles that would not include the use of the number Pi to avoid the use of irrational numbers. Thomson shared a story of the time he asked Fuller how he was able to both discuss a topic for 24 to 48 hours in a lecture and give a quick one-sentence description of the same issue. Fuller responded by saying that "when you know what you are talking about, you can talk about that subject at any length." That simple explanation stuck with Thomson through these years.
  
  
  < Media about Old Man River                                                         When Hope and Skepticism Collide >