« Movies and DVDs: Better and Worse |
Main
| University of Notre Dame
School of Architecture »
Monday, May 30, 2005
Architecture School Buildings
Have you noticed how many architecture schools are in one of the worst buildings on campus?
I had the misfortune of studying in U.C. Berkeley's Wurster Hall (a Brutalist concrete building that that was unpleasant to be in but that we were supposed to think was wonderful), Harvard's Carpenter Center (a Brutalist concrete sculpture that was unpleasant to be in but that was Le Corbusier's only building in America), and the Meyerson building at the University of Pennsylvania (a Brutalist concrete structure with brick panels that was just as unpleasant to work in as the other two). The fact that architects were designing for themselves but still put theory (concrete and Brutalism) over experience, comfort and beauty shows how blinded by ideology architects can be.
Notre Dame's Bond Hall is a notable exception to the rule. The former university library, it was renovated by department chairman Thomas Gordon Smith in the 1990s, and it's a gracious presence on campus and a good place to work or study. Columbia University's Avery Hall (McKim, Mead & White, 1911) is not great MM&W, but it's still a good building, with an elegant library that has the best architecture collection in America. The University of Illinois, a large school with 700 students, has an old building by Charles Platt and a new building by Ralph Johnson, both among America's better architects.
May 30, 2005 in Architecture, Education, New Urbanism, Urbanism | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bff5053ef00d8347cfecb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Architecture School Buildings:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Your feelings for the building aside, the Carpenter Center is not the home of the architecture department at Harvard; it's for the fine arts. Architecture is housed in Gund Hall designed by John Andrews.
Posted by: bryanboyer at Jun 1, 2005 8:18:13 PM
Carpenter Center is the home of the Department of Visual and Environmental Studies (http://www.ves.fas.harvard.edu/). It's the undergraduate department set up to be a pre-architecture major, a semi-film school and a semi-art school when Harvard decided an undergraduate architecture degree was too professional for Harvard College. It's the department I was in.
VisStud was never called Fine Arts. When I was there, the History of Art & Architecture Department was called "Fine Arts," and it was next door at the Fogg. That's why the library is still called the Fine Arts Library. But there was some unfortunate intra-departmental squabbling, and the department changed its name and moved to the Sackler.
For more than one reason, Carpenter Center was an unpleasant place to work, and I ended up spending more of my time at the Fogg. There are worse buildings at Harvard. The Crimson recently said that honor belongs to One Western Avenue, designed by the Chairman of the Urban Design Department at the HSD. Before that most people thought it was Peabody Terrace, designed by the former Dean of the GSD / HSD. A few people would nominate Gund Hall, although it also has its admirers. It was finished right before the first oil crisis, and eats oil drums for breakfast.
Posted by: john massengale at Jun 1, 2005 9:57:07 PM
The modernist Mies-ian building I studied at was a glass box, elegant, and neo-classical in the best sense. The (yes, dogmatic) openess of the floor plan was perfect for students to inhabit the space as they liked while the public gathering spaces were comfortable and beautifully finished. Though there are continuing technical issues with the facade, the school was a very positive place to study in.
I suspect you are finding what you wantto see, allowing the dogma to wag your tail just in the same manner as you complain of. Sure some modernist buildings are poorly designed, but so are a lot of neo-classical buildings. In fact I am working in a horrible bit of beaux arts planning right now. The very closed and very "proper" architecture forces isolation of studio and of students that is sadly counterproductive. In this case the dogma of symmetry and graphic order is as poorly conceived as LeCorbusier's work at Harvard. The problem is not modernism per se, but instead just the old opiate, dogma; modernist or neo-classical, the decision to allow pre-packaged solutions to govern a design is always a handicap.
Posted by: will at Jun 10, 2005 10:44:54 AM
The average third-rate building of 100 years ago is better than all but the best buildings of today.
What's the horrible bit of beaux arts planning you're working in now?
Posted by: john massengale at Jun 11, 2005 10:54:53 AM
doing phd at university of tokyo. the buildings on campus are mostly the original meiji-era western style things, designed (I am guessing here) by Josiah Conder or one of his japanese students. The Mies-box from my architecture school back in Canada was/is much better, both functionally and socially. And aesthetically as well, though that is a subjective point.
I disagree that the junk buildings of old are better than all but the best today. far too sweeping a generalisation, and frankly too dogmatic to take seriously. there are amazing buildings remaining from every age, and lots of plain old spam as well if we are being honest with ourselves. I enjoy both actually, depending on my frame of mind. But then I am not one of those who believe architects have a mission to impose style or lifestyle on the masses ;-).
Posted by: will at Jun 12, 2005 10:44:36 AM
I agree with M.'s opinion that most old stuff is better than the new. I walk around my town, travel around my country, and indeed the more esthetically appealing buildings and urban areas are the older ones, pre-WW2. Judging by the alterations people around here make on their homes, they agree too.
We have a massive and severe problem at the architecture schools with regards to taste and style. I've looked at the online portfolios at several Ivies and at some local schools, and everything looks the same -dreadful- and tends to be "justified" with tons of weird, mind-numbing verbosity. A bunch of warped boxes with no ornament, no soul. I am irate every time I see some good-for-nothing architect mess us up with his ghoulish trash. Where is the Venustas? Whatever happened to Beauty? Whetever happened to adding to your town's beauty rather than ruining it? I have not seen whatever it is they did at UVa, but the wailing of the architecture teachers about it sounds pretty risible.
I am sooooooo sick and tired of Modernists of every stripe. I despise their work. Their explanations of what they THINK they are up to leave me cold and completely unsympathetic. I was looking at Rem Koolhas' S, M, L, XL and I hated all of it, except the line, buried in the middle of hundreds upon hundreds of pages of vomit, where he says, "I feel like a charlatan".
At least his feelings are where they ought to be. Why he is so enshrined in fame and people shell out money for his books is beyond me.
I don't know what is going to happen to us all and our beloved architectural traditions when peak oil, which is already here, demolishes this civilization. I can only hope that what is best endures.
Posted by: anonymous at Aug 18, 2007 6:28:43 PM
Right on, Anonymous!
After spending a lot of time trying to discover rules for creating humanistic architecture that can be learned easily by today's students, I always come back to the question: "Why does this phenomenon continue?" The answer lies outside architecture, because it is a socio-cultural effect, deeply rooted in mass psychology (see my books for an extended discussion).
Bye the way, on what page does Rem make his interesting admission? I cannot bring myself to wade through SMLXL to find it, even though it's tempting.
Best wishes
Nikos
Posted by: Nikos Salingaros at Aug 19, 2007 11:08:29 PM
You've got to be pretty far out on a limb to call Rem Koolhaas a Modernist.
Also, Corbusier did several buildings in the United States, including the UN Headquarters in NYC.
Posted by: david bowman at Jul 30, 2008 10:51:25 PM
You've got to be pretty far out on a limb to call Rem Koolhaas a Modernist
Anyone who says that is either an architecture student or a recent grad.
What do you call Koolhaas if not a Modernist?
Two: The UN is not considered to be a building by Corb, who was one of 10 'advisory architects" who worked under the direction of Nelson Rockefeller's architect, Wallace K. Harrison.
Google "only building in america by le corbusier" and see what you find.
Posted by: john massengale at Jul 31, 2008 12:14:37 AM
