Wash U's Prince Hall faces demolition (Demolished)

jefferson · PostApr 23, 2006#12006-04-23T15:13+00:00

Battle brews over demolition plan

By Margaret Gillerman

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

04/23/2006

After 105 years on Washington University's historic Hilltop Campus, storied Prince Hall is slated to be torn down this summer.

The former dormitory will be replaced by an underground garage with about 500 spaces and a new university center.

Washington University's plan to demolish the building, which is part of a National Historic Landmark District, has ignited opposition from preservationists.

The Hilltop Campus Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979 and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1987. The outcry against demolition has been led by the St. Louis County Historic Buildings Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

In a letter to university Chancellor Mark Wrighton, Jane Gleason, who heads St. Louis County's Historic Buildings Commission, wrote, "This would be an act of vandalism on a national scale that would damage the reputation not just of the university but of the whole region."

The university has invested considerably more than $50 million in recent times to restore and refurbish various buildings on the Hilltop Campus.

M. Fredric Volkmann, vice chancellor for public affairs, said, "Our efforts have been highly successful, with one significant exception - Prince Hall."

The effort to save Prince Hall has been led by Esley Hamilton, historian for St. Louis County's Department of Parks and Recreation. Hamilton says the Hilltop Campus buildings are probably the largest surviving group of buildings from any world's fair. They are also prime examples of the architectural work of Cope & Stewardson and helped to define the Collegiate Gothic style, he said.

The buildings are modeled after those at Oxford and Cambridge in England but made of Missouri red granite with Bedford limestone trim.

Prince Hall began as Liggett Hall and was used first as housing for public school administrators attending the World's Fair of 1904. Washington University used it as a dormitory into the late 1950s. For the last 20 years, it has been used for administrative and student organization offices and classrooms.

Volkmann said a major renovation would be impractical. The university tried for years to find appropriate uses for Prince Hall, Volkmann said, but the structure has proved to be ill-suited for renovation or reuse. Its tiny rooms, multi-level floors and unwieldy design make it ill-equipped for use for a university center, classrooms or a modern dormitory.

The university plans to start building the garage this summer and the university center in about two years. The new center would a focal point for students, faculty and the community, the university said. The Mallinckrodt center and Edison Theater would remain. The university also plans a new building for law and social science students to be built on existing surface parking lots; the spaces will be replaced by the new parking garage, Volkmann said.

The new university center would be built in Collegiate Gothic architectural style - the same as the original building, Volkmann said. The design would "respect and honor the work and vision of the campus' first architects."

Link

topeka_bobby · PostApr 24, 2006#22006-04-24T20:46+00:00

The new center would be a focal point? Why cant the old building be a focal point. There are plenty of creative ways to reuse historic spaces in this day in age. It truly sounds like they want the ground for that lot and are choosing not to reuse it. I have notice in my line of work when large institutions have several historic buildings on a campus they plan these things out years in advance. They tend to pcik and choose buildings to "not have viable uses" quite often. I would like to see what efforts were actually put into finding alternative uses. I hope Gleason and Hamilton can rally some WashU Allum with deep pockets to help put a stop to this.

What cracks me up is the last line of the article..The design would "respect and honor the work and vision of the campus' first architects."

here is a better idea for respect....leave it in place and reuse it. As much as people in STL love the Worlds Fair you would think any little tie to it would cause a stir..I hope it does.[/u][/i]

jcity · PostApr 25, 2006#32006-04-25T02:04+00:00

This is such BS. I'm not all about preserving every single historic structure, but tearing this building down is ridiculous. It can easily be transformed into some type of housing. If the entire hilltop campus is on the national register, ALL of the buildings that are part of that group need to be preserved. If the college is that adamant about tearing it down, then remove the hilltop campus from the National Register of Historic Places. Just pull the whole campus from the list. How embarrassing, I thought Wash U was smarter than this.

tbspqr · PostApr 25, 2006#42006-04-25T21:10+00:00

Until someone says something more about the Master Plan of the Hill Top Campus - I can't make a judgment about this building. If this is part of more than just a university center and 500 parking spots.... then its not so one sided. The campus dynamic has changed so much in the past 100 + years - sometimes this "progress" is needed in order to keep a true WORLD CLASS institution in our back yard. They have saved SO many buildings and have made continual commitment to keep those saved ones viable and up to date - I see no real foul here. If one cool historic building needs to be sacrificed to keep the university on what ever track the university deems necessary to be as highly ranked as they are as an institution - then so be it.

jcity · PostApr 26, 2006#52006-04-26T02:45+00:00

I'm sorry. I diagree. Obviously the well-being of the insitution itself is the most important part. But, by making this building into some type of housing, which is probably the most likely scenario, in no way infringes upon the university's status. I think the major reason why many people are preservationists is that buildings from that period are quite honestly the best that were ever built. Yes, you have modern/ contemporary, etc.. But to tear down the very building the university is now working overboard to copy in its designs today is ridiculous. Those buildings will NEVER be built again. The new ones are EXTREMELY impressive, but are no match of the originals. I just don't buy that it's "obsolete". That argument just doesn't hold.

Expat · PostApr 26, 2006#62006-04-26T02:50+00:00

I disagree, too. They haven't convinced me that this building needs to be torn down to keep the university on track.

stlouishills74 · PostApr 26, 2006#72006-04-26T03:00+00:00

I work at Wash U and have been in Prince Hall numerous times. It *IS* an obsolete building and I can tell you first hand that Wash U has tried and tried to find a use for the building to no avail. They even looked at taking the building down to its shell and starting over on the inside, but the shell just didn't lend itself to modern uses. And the building has all sorts of problems. Some have suggested residential. Unfortunately, as most of you know, all the student housing is clustered in two areas on campus and it simply wouldn't get used by students. Some buildings just can't be saved.

framer · PostApr 26, 2006#82006-04-26T03:35+00:00

^I don't buy it. If they can save that awful old Bixby Hall down by Skinker and integrate it into a new, modern Visual Arts Campus, then they can save and re-use Prince Hall.

jcity · PostMay 02, 2006#92006-05-02T01:35+00:00

The "obsolete, can't be used" argument doesn't hold water. People have said this for years about numerous buildings. Old Post Office (saved), Century (demo.), Buder (demo.), Title Guarany (demo.), all of the buildings on Wash ave. were supposdely "obsolete". You can't tell me that there's NO way that they could turn that building into professors offices or meeting rooms. And if the argument is "the space could be better used" then tear down all the historic buildings and double the size of all of them.. I'm sure Wash U could use the space. Again, a good majority of the hilltop campus is historic. don't need to tear down one of the more attractive buildings that is an integral part to the campus. It's on the National Historic Register for a reason. If they tear it down then the whole campus should be pulled from the list.

dallenjohn · PostMay 02, 2006#102006-05-02T15:52+00:00

JCity wrote:It's on the National Historic Register for a reason. If they tear it down then the whole campus should be pulled from the list.

Absolutely.

marmar · PostMay 03, 2006#112006-05-03T00:37+00:00

Obsolete means they're looking at it as it was originally built to function without any creative thought in today's terms. IOW, they can't or don't want to bother with new approaches for reusage through rehab. A very, VERY outdated stance. Shockingly odd, for such an institution.

jcity · PostMay 03, 2006#122006-05-03T03:08+00:00

Excerpt from a 1900's tour magazine describing Wash U's campus (see Urban Living section for full article on St. Louis):

Another building saved from the World's Fair is the superb central hall of Washington University, a red granite structure in the English collegiate style, designed by Cope & Stewardson. The dozen or more buildings of this university are very fine in their harmony, and are pronounced by Baedeker "certainly the most successful and appropriate group of collegiate buildings in the New World."

And 100 years later the same university wants to tear down one in the group of the most successful and appropraite collegiate buildingS...

swuss · PostMay 03, 2006#132006-05-03T21:32+00:00

As a student at WashU, I've heard plenty of rationalizations for its demolition. I've been in it only a few times but it is immediately apparent how abysmal the design is. In order to renovate it into anything relatively usable, the building would need to be totally gutted and rebuilt. Wilson Hall, another poorly designed 1904-ish building is currently undergoing that treatment. However, I've heard several times from people that Wilson's shell is self-supporting and Prince's is not. Maybe so. It's also one of WashU's least visible buildings and certainly no architectural landmark like the Century was. It is, however, a pure manifestation of the original architecture of the campus and all of the new buildings built in the imitative style stick out immediately and lack the vast majority of the detailing that makes some of older campus buildings so special. But it's right in the way of a huge parking lot that would solve a lot of WashU's expansive parking lot problems and clear the way for a better student center and future development on other surface lots. They promise the new center will be ornate. But after Whitaker (the first building on the northeast parking lot), I don't believe that for a second.

Perhaps the building's shell isn't self-supporting, but it isn't about to crumble anytime soon. Wilson used extensive bracing inside during the process, so why can't Prince? Look at projects like Chicago's Heritage at Millenium Park which incorporates the facades of 5-6 story historical buildings into its base while, during construction, the facades stood supported by bracing for months before the base was incorporated. Go to Sydney, Australia where thousands of preserved historical facades have been incorporated into new developments using similar methods. The University's claim that it would be impossible to keep the building up is charged more by the desire to grow than simple condemnation of the building. But at this point, I think's it's pretty much set to come down. Such a shame.

jefferson · PostMay 04, 2006#142006-05-04T00:15+00:00

^ if a new building is put up in this spot, what would you think about the idea of going modern instead of imitating the old style? I'd almost rather see the contrast between old and new rather than a faux-old building that sticks out. I realize that they've pretty much made the decision to go with the "collegiate gothic style", but just hypothetically...

swuss · PostMay 04, 2006#152006-05-04T02:27+00:00

Hypothetically, I think WashU is very, very hesitant to break away from its mold of imitative gothic architecture. The few examples that exist, Eliot Hall was cutting edge at the time of its construction but is a horrible, poorly functioning eyesore and is the next building to go. The old law school was built in a similar style and was disposed of several years ago with the not unattractive new Law School. The psychology building is too tall and contains too much space to take down but isn't really a bad place either as its bottom is totally open. It's hidden well by the large new psychology building and, as recently as I've heard, down the road WashU wants to do to it what it did to the library which looks fantastic and is a phenomenal space to study in. The new Sam Fox center and 70's Steinberg Hall are both down far away from the cluster of gothic buildings and I'll be damned if any one of us architects would let them con us with one of the fakey imitations. However, with the success of the library and the Sam Fox center, WashU has found it isn't totally averse to more modern design. But the new, large University Center will definitely not be modern. It would be facing campus square on and I think the school likes the look of the subtle, flat library as the lone modern thing on Hilltop Campus. However, the 60s Mallinckrodt Center whose functions the U Center will replace is supposedly the next experiment the University has in modern design. It's away from the quad and definitely needs a new face. Don't expect any bizarre MIT Gehry pieces though; probably just more steel and glass which , frankly, I really like.

But to answer your question, for the new U. Center, no. I think this is a good chance to expand on the Law School and new Psychology Building as steps in the right direction toward succesfully imitating the gothic architecture if it's what they want. Mallinckrodt will prove a great canvas for modern design ten or so years down the road when it is necessary.

jcity · PostMay 04, 2006#162006-05-04T15:19+00:00

All I have to say is if they tear it down, then they need to remove themselves or be removed from the National Historic Register. If they valued having that distinction, they wouldn't tear that building down.

jefferson · PostMay 17, 2006#172006-05-17T03:15+00:00

Op-ed in the P-D today...

Prince Hall could be saved

By Royce A. Yeater

05/16/2006

In 1899, when Washington University asked the Olmsted brothers to revise the site plan and Cope & Stewardson to design the buildings for the new campus at Skinker and Forsyth, they chose the best in the business, and the masterful ensemble that resulted has shaped the university's public image for a century.

The National Park Service recognized this achievement when it designated Washington University's hilltop campus a National Historic Landmark, its highest honor.

Although many buildings and districts throughout the country are significant on a local level, only those places that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States are recognized as National Historic Landmarks. They are regarded as essential and irreplaceable building blocks of America's shared cultural identity.

It is hard to understand, then, how Washington University could consider demolishing one of its historic campus structures to create space for more parking and a new building.

Prince Hall is one of the nine surviving buildings on campus used during the 1904 World's Fair. The university claims it is not feasible to reuse or adapt Prince Hall, but it has yet to produce a feasibility study that explores such options, and it has rebuffed our attempts to discuss alternatives.

The university's current rehabilitation work on the east portion of Umrath Hall, which is similar in design and date of construction to Prince Hall, suggests that a creative approach to adaptation and continued use is feasible.

All across the country, the National Trust has found that historic campus buildings can be adapted successfully to meet the needs of 21st century students without sacrificing the historic character of the buidlings and the character of the campus as a whole. Indeed, the unique sense of place created by historic campuses often is a significant factor in attracting new students and ensuring the continued involvement of alumni who form strong connections to the university's built environment during their student years.

We urge Washington University to rethink the demolition of Prince Hall. Its investment in the historic structure, including the significant amount of money spent over the past several years on repair and maintenance, will amount to nothing if the building is demolished. The university could benefit from the creation of a campus planning board, including representatives of the architecture and history faculties as well as students and alumni, that would provide guidance as the campus continues to grow and change.

Development of a campus preservation plan would also help guide future decisions. National organizations such as the Getty Foundation recognize the importance of historic universities and often provide financial assistance for preservation-based campus planning efforts. St. Louis County also could help by enacting a historic preservation ordinance that would provide protection for historic structures situated in unincorporated areas.

By chipping away at its nationally significant historic district through demolition, Washington University is endangering the campus's historic character and irreplaceable sense of place. The university -- and its students -- would be better served by focusing its resources on a future that respects the legacy of the past.

Royce A. Yeater, a member of the American Institute of Architects, directs the midwest office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Link

So let me get this straight...the NTHP is now against knocking down historic buildings for parking? Who knew?!

ostrich5 · PostMay 19, 2006#182006-05-19T14:48+00:00

Excerpt from an email to WashU students:

Prince Hall - demolition is scheduled for June 5. This date has changed several times, so don't be surprised if it changes again. The building will be taken down with a wrecking ball and the debris trucked away by the contractor.

melders · PostMay 23, 2006#192006-05-23T06:09+00:00

Washington University is not only on the National Register of Historic Places, but is a National Historic Landmark. This means that the campus is of national importance. Also, a demolition of such a historic building could jeopordize that status. It could be taken away, but that would still leave the campus on the National Register.

I believe that once a building is listed on the National Register that status can never be taken away. Even if the building is demolished it is still listed on the register.

repowers · PostMay 23, 2006#202006-05-23T13:24+00:00

So Wash U wants to tear down one of its original 1901 campus buildings:

http://www.builtstlouis.net/princehall01.html

I'm more than a little shocked, not the least by how it snuck by completely under my radar. Surprise surprise, the alumni magazine sure didn't say a word about it!

Is anyone else as upset about this as I am? I realize Wash U's a bit detached from the life of the city proper, but its campus is one of the finest spaces in St. Louis. A beautiful building is going to be destroyed, and a physically superb campus will be degraded.

Anybody know to whom I should be sending letters of disapproval?

(Just to be fair: I can't deny that 1) Wash U needs a better student center, and 2) Prince Hall's a tough sell. It's divided into 4 sections by fire walls which I assume are structural, and each section is served by a single stairwell. This puts it in violation of both fire codes and ADA. Making it accessible would probably involve something like cutting through each structural wall on each level, shoring it all up and installing a fire shutter above each opening, and linking it all to an elevator somewhere. But it could be done -- and that's assuming Wash U couldn't simply throw its considerable weight around to get a variance on the fire code, and demonstrate unreasonable hardship on the ADA matter.)

swuss · PostMay 24, 2006#212006-05-24T03:38+00:00

Well why don't we think of it this way. Prince Hall is taking one for the team. By sacrificing itself, there will be an enormous new underground, out-of-view parking garage which will allow WashU to elimate more and more of its surface lots. The master plan hinges on this new parking lot because it will allow both western campus surface lots (by the Athletic Center and Business School) to be built over with more greenspace and attractive architecture. WashU will only be strengthened by a new student center and the building is probably the smallest or one of the smallest campus buildings and one of the least interesting. And, as has been said many times before, the layout of the building is god-awful and rather than let it sit there for the Historic Register status, they'd rather do something useful with the space. You can't win them all and, granted St. Louis has lost too many blemishes on its preservation record, at least the building won't be replaced by a surface lot.

jcity · PostMay 25, 2006#222006-05-25T03:22+00:00

still inexcusable. I'm not someone who thinks that every last building should be saved, but this building was such an integral part of the original campus. This original campus layout is historic. It is bizarre to see how the new "old" buildings connect to the original campus. That is, they don't.. that well. Look at the new buildings in front of Brookings Hall on the north side of the former parking lots; while they are very attractive structures, some of the better ones in the world-I'd argue- they do not connect to the original historic part of campus. The one with the tower on Forsyth has the same problem. In any event, Prince is still an important part of the small original college, even if it "isn't that great" compared to the other ones. St. Louis, as a city, should be more architecturally more progressive in terms of preservation.

smsplanstu · PostMay 25, 2006#232006-05-25T03:28+00:00

Ouch

That hurts

Truth hurts too = any loose relation?

Swuss,

Valid point about this one being the best choice allowing other surface parking lots to become buildings (with underground parking as needed) and gardens maybe.

However, I would want to see such a plan that proves this point over the future usage of the surface lots, which are plenty, and other areas.

On-the-other hand without such a plan or even a dedication to recycling the facade for a future building I cannot support this. I do not think all alternative remedies have been exhausted.

repowers · PostMay 25, 2006#242006-05-25T16:23+00:00

Swuss wrote:By sacrificing itself, there will be an enormous new underground, out-of-view parking garage which will allow WashU to elimate more and more of its surface lots.

I point you to the aerial view:

http://www.builtstlouis.net/images/prin ... aerial.jpg

Prince Hall is diminutive and out-of-the-way, compared to the vast parking lots which stand next to it. A new student center and garage could be built right up to it (getting rid of the silly sunken plaza); in fact, at Emory University in Atlanta, they enclosed the exterior facade of an older building as part of their student center. You sit and eat lunch in a very modern space with a classical facade overlooking you -- quite impressive.

framer · PostMay 26, 2006#252006-05-26T01:29+00:00

repowers wrote:at Emory University in Atlanta, they enclosed the exterior facade of an older building as part of their student center. You sit and eat lunch in a very modern space with a classical facade overlooking you -- quite impressive.

Hey now, I like that idea! From what I can make out in the aerial, it could work here. Just build on that plaza thingy, and enclose Prince.