This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://graemesharpe.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://graemesharpe.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Iconic Structures of Indiana: Hinkle Fieldhouse

Butler University is located to the north of downtown Indianapolis.  Butler University is a great institution and is well known for its basketball team (currently ranked 11th in the nation).  The strength of the current team stems from the strong basketball traditions of Indiana and the investment that the citizens have made in this sport.  Hinkle Fieldhouse is evidence of this support, which was built with money donated by local businessmen. 

The Fieldhouse is a massive building built specifically to showcase basketball

 
More information can be found at the website hosted by Butler University, or at the Hinkle Fieldhouse Wikipedia entry.   The structure is named after Tony Hinkle, a former coach who created the orange basketball and developed the dribbling action of the game.

  

The building was renamed after former coach Hinkle in 1966

The structure was built in 1928, and is notable as one of the first "fieldhouse" college gymnasiums.  Almost factory-like in its simplicity, it has guided basketball arena designs such as Conseco Fieldhouse and it was the basis for the fieldhouse styling of Lucas Oil Stadium. 

Structurally, it is composed of a brick masonry facade with steel framing supporting most of the walls and the internal structures.  The roof is a barrel vault of trussed steel 3-pin arches. 

 

The exterior has windows in key locations to catch natural light

The end walls are quite tall and require steel girts to brace them against wind

The massive building is oriented roughly east-west, and originally the court was as well.  However, a few years after its construction the court was reoriented north-south.  This gave more spectactors a "half-court" seat and is generally a better arrangement.  This goes to show how early this building was built, as the sport was still developing and gaining in popularity around the nation, whereas Indiana already had built the "basketball cathedral" that was the largest collegiate fieldhouse for many years.

 

Many features were upgraded in a 1989 renovation

The roof trusses are exposed and are well integrated into the interior design.  The spectator seating allows access to many of the trusses, so that people can see the rivets and handiwork involved with the steelwork of that age.  Each truss has three pin hinges, so that it can accommodate movement and settlement without inducing large forces in the steel members near the center. 

The base of each truss is easily accessible from the spectator seating area

A modern scoreboard is suspended from the trusses that span over the court 

 The central pin is visible at the midpoint of each truss, providing an ideal hinge

Hinkle fieldhouse is a great piece of history.  It has many quirky features that show how the designers were willing to experiment with basketball and how to accommodate the spectators.  The structure has changed alongside the game that is now popular around the world.  

The spirit of place and legacy comes alive in a structure like this.  For Hinkle fieldhouse to remain so popular and useful after so many years is testament to the original investment over 80 years ago.  Few structures represent a state as well as Hinkle Fieldhouse represents Indiana.

Action on the court is some of the best in the world

An Engineer's View of the Carbon Tax Proposal

Very soon, the US political system will be involved in a serious debate regarding the merits of a tax on carbon emissions.  The main debate will center on two issues:

1. Should the US put a price on carbon emissions?
2. What should that price be, both now and in the future?

Fossil fuels have long powered the Indianapolis economy

The typical tool used in a debate of this type is the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). This type of study weighs all of the costs associated with an action against all of the benefits.  Any project with a net benefit is considered worthwhile, but trying to figure out how to distribute costs and benefits is always a difficult political problem, and especially so with something as large and pervasive as a carbon tax.

A fun, graphic explanation of this CBA is found in The Cartoon Guide to the Environment (which is a good source of conceptual information for anyone needing a crash course in environmental economics, the history of environmental regulation, or human interaction with ecology):  

As the illustration above points out, there is a large amount of uncertainty involved with assessing the risks and costs of a warming world.  However, the atmospheric models that scientists have developed thus far all point in the same direction.  Without some sort of comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions, the biosphere will warm by a small but significant amount and this will have deleterious effects on ecological systems around the world.

ASCE, along with other engineering societies, has identified climate change as a key issue and pledged to work to lower the risk and mitigate the consequences. 

One of several Indianapolis Power and Light Coal plants (Harding St Generating Station)

The US policy on carbon pricing must consider the context of our political system and the need for action.  In the past, the US has managed pollution either by cap and trade markets (see 1990 Acid Rain Program), direct taxes, or by regulations.  There is no reason to believe the US cannot establish or manage a carbon pricing scheme successfully in the future.

The debate on question #1, should we do it, is yet to be settled.  There are many in this debate who have argued for us to do nothing.  A popular argument is one presented in The American Scene "Why I Oppose A Carbon Tax".  You can summarize his argument from the first line:

I oppose a carbon tax for a very simple reason: I do not believe its benefits justify its costs.

Another such article was published in the Wall Street Jounal entitled "Time for Inaction on Global Warming".  A summary of the article is given in the subtitle:

Congress should consider the costs before passing "cap and trade."

After reading these articles, I think these authors are deliberately confusing question #1 and question #2.  The decision to set a price and the level the price is set at are two independent topics.  We can set the costs of the pricing scheme at whatever level we want, once the system is in place.  There is no reason for anyone to fear a carbon tax, because we will never put in place a system we can't afford. 

Clearly, these authors are willing to sell their future for a lower price than a Greenpeace advocate.  But what are the values of society in general?  We already know that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will lead to greater energy independence, cleaner air, better transportation systems, and a chance to become producers rather than consumers of the green revolution.  Are US citizens willing to throw away rational and effective strategies to reduce carbon emissions, even when the benefits are so great?

Indy's inefficient transportation system is another big source of emissions (Indy MPO)

I believe there are more important things in life than money.  The US must have policies that balance our need for economic activity and our need to manage our resources carefully.  We should not squander our natural capital in search of greater financial wealth.  Community health and ecological integrity deserve priority over personal wealth.

The Covanta incinerator and cogeneration plant (Resource Recovery Facility)

So the choice we all face, but especially those who write public policy and design our built environment, is whether or not we should take action.  We know that inaction because of political expediency or high costs will be a shameful legacy for future Americans.  We know that the costs of doing nothing will begin to accrue immediately.  We know that any environmental costs of global warming will be borne by those most unable to cope with the changes.

I find inaction to be unacceptable. Engineers are ethically bound to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public.  In my opinion, a mistake is made when any engineer argues that the costs, while small, justify the destruction of our environment and an impending human crisis.  At that point a line has been crossed.  That is no longer the argument of a civil engineer, but something else entirely.