http://www.builtstlouis.net/princehall03.html
It's coming down as we speak. Not much left as of today.
It's coming down as we speak. Not much left as of today.
Wow, that was quicker than I expected. I guess they wanted to get it down before any real opposition could organize.
I had no idea it was planned to come down that fast. Wow. Rest In Peace Prince Hall, we hardly knew ye.
Someone high up at Wash U must have seen our posts and been afraid we would orginize a sit in - as well as notify the "mainstream" media. They made a call that to bring it down quick was the best way to avoid this....
tbspqr wrote:They made a call that to bring it down quick was the best way to avoid this....
I doubt it's anything that sinister. They probably want the messiest part of construction -- demolition and excavation -- to happen over the summer, when there's not thousands of students swarming all around. The timeframe's probably been mapped out for months.
If it seems sudden, it's because all the plans were kept fairly quiet till late April; prior to that, I can only find one fleeting mention of it in the archives of The Record -- nothing at all in the Post-Dispatch, Student Life, or anywhere else. That is the sinister part. By the time it attracted widespread notice, contracts were probably signed and the lumbering jugernaught of the construction process was already getting geard up.
Washington University: Campus architectural plans are produced by copy machine
By David Bonetti
POST-DISPATCH VISUAL ARTS CRITIC
08/13/2006
In 2004, Washington University erected a bronze statue of George Washington in front of the recently renovated Olin Library. The nation's first president is, of course, the university's namesake, and there was no other statue of him on campus.
The original marble statue was made by French sculptor Jean-Antoine Houdon in 1788 and installed in the rotunda of the Virginia Capitol in 1796. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had recommended him to the state Legislature as "the best sculptor in the world."
The university's version is a copy, cast in 2003 from a mold of the original.
Sculptures often are cast in edition. But you don't have to be Walter Benjamin - a German theorist who wrote about how a work of art's aura is eroded by reproduction - to understand how endless reproduction devalues the original.
The university could have commemorated Washington in other ways. It could have commissioned a new work. Because Washington exists in our consciousness more as an idea than as a man, it could have represented his ideas rather than his appearance.
But maybe Washington University prefers the copy.
The university's recent demolition of Prince Hall and its policy of commissioning historicist structures on its Hilltop campus for the past 30 years strengthen that suspicion. Prince Hall was one of the first six buildings erected on its new campus; the cornerstone was laid in 1901. The campus was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1987 on the basis of those six buildings.
The university understands the value that the stylistically uniform campus presents. Fred Volkmann, vice chancellor for public affairs, said much of its success in attracting top students is because they see it as the campus ideal.
The university has spent considerable money renovating the other five original buildings, built from 1900 to 1904, and other pre-World War I structures such as Graham Chapel. But Prince Hall proved, in the university's estimation, difficult to adapt, especially as a student union, which is what it wanted on the site.
So why not replace it with a facsimile, a 2007 Collegiate Gothic-style building so suavely constructed that no entering freshman would notice anything wrong? The idea is so Baudrillardian, or hyperreal, it makes your head swim.
At the same time, the university needs parking and wants to get rid of surface lots, which ruin the image of cloistered Anglo-Saxon academia. So it is building a 530-car garage under the new University Center, an engineering feat that would have been impossible if Prince Hall had remained. Volkmann said the underground garage idea came after the decision to demolish Prince Hall.
But how can the university tear down an original - one of six buildings responsible for its image and appeal - replace it with a copy and have no one notice, except a couple of architecture professors and antiquarian cranks?
It's because the university has gotten away with that before. The Hilltop campus might represent an ideal, but many of its structures are ersatz copies of what was built at the turn of the last century.
Back to Jean Baudrillard, one of the late-20th-century French cultural theorists who profoundly affected how we look at and think about the world. He wrote about how the copy replaces the original, a highly fictionalized existence he termed hyperreality.
So, Disneyland's Main Street better represents Main Street than Main Street itself; Las Vegas casinos better represent Paris, New York or Venice than those cities; the new Times Square better represents the idea of Times Square than the real Times Square that was destroyed.
Read More...
By David Bonetti
POST-DISPATCH VISUAL ARTS CRITIC
08/13/2006
In 2004, Washington University erected a bronze statue of George Washington in front of the recently renovated Olin Library. The nation's first president is, of course, the university's namesake, and there was no other statue of him on campus.
The original marble statue was made by French sculptor Jean-Antoine Houdon in 1788 and installed in the rotunda of the Virginia Capitol in 1796. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had recommended him to the state Legislature as "the best sculptor in the world."
The university's version is a copy, cast in 2003 from a mold of the original.
Sculptures often are cast in edition. But you don't have to be Walter Benjamin - a German theorist who wrote about how a work of art's aura is eroded by reproduction - to understand how endless reproduction devalues the original.
The university could have commemorated Washington in other ways. It could have commissioned a new work. Because Washington exists in our consciousness more as an idea than as a man, it could have represented his ideas rather than his appearance.
But maybe Washington University prefers the copy.
The university's recent demolition of Prince Hall and its policy of commissioning historicist structures on its Hilltop campus for the past 30 years strengthen that suspicion. Prince Hall was one of the first six buildings erected on its new campus; the cornerstone was laid in 1901. The campus was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1987 on the basis of those six buildings.
The university understands the value that the stylistically uniform campus presents. Fred Volkmann, vice chancellor for public affairs, said much of its success in attracting top students is because they see it as the campus ideal.
The university has spent considerable money renovating the other five original buildings, built from 1900 to 1904, and other pre-World War I structures such as Graham Chapel. But Prince Hall proved, in the university's estimation, difficult to adapt, especially as a student union, which is what it wanted on the site.
So why not replace it with a facsimile, a 2007 Collegiate Gothic-style building so suavely constructed that no entering freshman would notice anything wrong? The idea is so Baudrillardian, or hyperreal, it makes your head swim.
At the same time, the university needs parking and wants to get rid of surface lots, which ruin the image of cloistered Anglo-Saxon academia. So it is building a 530-car garage under the new University Center, an engineering feat that would have been impossible if Prince Hall had remained. Volkmann said the underground garage idea came after the decision to demolish Prince Hall.
But how can the university tear down an original - one of six buildings responsible for its image and appeal - replace it with a copy and have no one notice, except a couple of architecture professors and antiquarian cranks?
It's because the university has gotten away with that before. The Hilltop campus might represent an ideal, but many of its structures are ersatz copies of what was built at the turn of the last century.
Back to Jean Baudrillard, one of the late-20th-century French cultural theorists who profoundly affected how we look at and think about the world. He wrote about how the copy replaces the original, a highly fictionalized existence he termed hyperreality.
So, Disneyland's Main Street better represents Main Street than Main Street itself; Las Vegas casinos better represent Paris, New York or Venice than those cities; the new Times Square better represents the idea of Times Square than the real Times Square that was destroyed.
Read More...
^ If this guy wants to be the big architecture buff that he tries to mascerade as in the piece above, maybe he should learn some history of the profession. Architects borrows heavily from their predecessors. Does this guy whine about the architecture in Florence, Italy (or any city with architecture built during the Renaissance?)? I mean, geez, don't these tourists know that Brunelleschi copied from the Pantheon for the Duomo. All of these artists were frauds who stole from the Classical architects in Rome and Greece! Maybe they should put gates up and call it Disney World Italy. It's all fake!
Then you have idiot tourists going to see the Houses of Parliament in London. The original structure burned in the 19th century. What you are seeing is a copy of the original style. It is a fake! It's so depressing that they didn't have the courage to rebuild in a more modern style. Now we're stuck with a bunch of phoniness.
Maybe they felt that modern architecture did not have much in common with a place of higher education. Sure, Sullivan could have designed the campus, and it could have looked great, but it probably would not have fit in with the liberal arts tradition.
A liberal arts education looks to (or used to) educate the student in all areas. It is supposed to stimulate the mind and focus on the great achievements of civilization. The classical and gothic styles inspire awe and provide a connection with the past (which the students are studying). Perhaps the builders of the hilltop campus wanted that deeper but subtle connection with those thinkers that proceeded them opposed to shunning the past and building ultra modern buildings that would most likely become outdated within a decade or two.
Wow, I feel so misled! All this time I thought those were residences built for gregorian monks and knights.
Honestly, I felt like I was reading an article from Washington University's student newspaper rather than the Post-Dispatch...
Then you have idiot tourists going to see the Houses of Parliament in London. The original structure burned in the 19th century. What you are seeing is a copy of the original style. It is a fake! It's so depressing that they didn't have the courage to rebuild in a more modern style. Now we're stuck with a bunch of phoniness.
The firms had one thing in common: All were practitioners of Beaux-Arts historicism. They might use steel framing but, stylistically, they all looked to the past: the Italian Renaissance; French or English Gothic; Roman classicism.
The university could have invited the protomodernist Louis Sullivan, but didn't. He had designed the Wainwright Building in downtown St. Louis. Sullivan, however, looked to the future.
Maybe they felt that modern architecture did not have much in common with a place of higher education. Sure, Sullivan could have designed the campus, and it could have looked great, but it probably would not have fit in with the liberal arts tradition.
A liberal arts education looks to (or used to) educate the student in all areas. It is supposed to stimulate the mind and focus on the great achievements of civilization. The classical and gothic styles inspire awe and provide a connection with the past (which the students are studying). Perhaps the builders of the hilltop campus wanted that deeper but subtle connection with those thinkers that proceeded them opposed to shunning the past and building ultra modern buildings that would most likely become outdated within a decade or two.
The absurdity is that the phony Gothic building, built in 2002, houses modern science labs. So much for truth in packaging.
Wow, I feel so misled! All this time I thought those were residences built for gregorian monks and knights.
Honestly, I felt like I was reading an article from Washington University's student newspaper rather than the Post-Dispatch...
"It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action." - LvM
^
Hey, I think the Wash U Studen Paper probably has more integrity to be dragged down to the level of the Post. I think you should issue an apology to Wash U.
Hey, I think the Wash U Studen Paper probably has more integrity to be dragged down to the level of the Post. I think you should issue an apology to Wash U.
there is a large picture of the new Student Center in front of the construction site. Not too much detail but you can see how large the building will be.
Whoops, I didn't mean to insult the Wash U newspaper staff.
530 parking spots is a lot. Does this mean that all of the surface lots on Skinker are going to be green lawns now? If so, I like this new student center, so long as it is up to par with all of the other new construction, and I'm sure it will be.
530 parking spots is a lot. Does this mean that all of the surface lots on Skinker are going to be green lawns now? If so, I like this new student center, so long as it is up to par with all of the other new construction, and I'm sure it will be.
"It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action." - LvM
- 6,775
Bastiat wrote:Whoops, I didn't mean to insult the Wash U newspaper staff.
530 parking spots is a lot. Does this mean that all of the surface lots on Skinker are going to be green lawns now? If so, I like this new student center, so long as it is up to par with all of the other new construction, and I'm sure it will be.
I read somewhere (don't recall where) that WashU's long term goal is to get rid of surface lots.
^ Get rid of surface lots, yes, as long as they can find somewhere else to put the parking spaces; underground or aboveground, it doesn't matter where, as long as they find somewhere to put them.
^^ And as far as the huge surface lot still remaining in WU's NE corner along Skinker, I believe that's the location of WU's future engineering campus. Whitaker Hall for the Biomedical Engineering is simply the first of 5 buildings. You can see the layout of the buildings by downloading the pdf at the bottom of this page here. I've heard that the holdup on contruction of the remaining 4 buildings is money: the BioMed department had lots of it, the other departments barely break even.
^^ And as far as the huge surface lot still remaining in WU's NE corner along Skinker, I believe that's the location of WU's future engineering campus. Whitaker Hall for the Biomedical Engineering is simply the first of 5 buildings. You can see the layout of the buildings by downloading the pdf at the bottom of this page here. I've heard that the holdup on contruction of the remaining 4 buildings is money: the BioMed department had lots of it, the other departments barely break even.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Bastiat wrote:Whoops, I didn't mean to insult the Wash U newspaper staff.
530 parking spots is a lot. Does this mean that all of the surface lots on Skinker are going to be green lawns now? If so, I like this new student center, so long as it is up to par with all of the other new construction, and I'm sure it will be.
I read somewhere (don't recall where) that WashU's long term goal is to get rid of surface lots.
I hope that this is true, and I know I've heard/read that before, too. Here's a page that lists (w/ map pdfs) some of the things under de/con-struction:
link
A few new parking garages (some temporary) and a few buildings.
That cluster of (future) engineering buildings looks interesting, Mill. Can't wait 'till they go up. But I think that map may be out-of-date, as Prince Hall is still shown, and the new Arts Complex isn't on there at all.
Here is a slideshow with very detailed renderings of the new center. Construction is coming along nicely. I hope they include the trees because the campus needs more of that. It feels too sparse at times...maybe it's just because of all the damn construction and mud that has covered the campus for the past few years and will continue for at least another 2.5 years with the construction/renovation of the new Simon Hall.
http://duc.wustl.edu/ppt/DUC-revised3-18-08.ppt.htm
http://duc.wustl.edu/ppt/DUC-revised3-18-08.ppt.htm
- 11K
For the record, the new Danforth University Center is a fantastic building. It's very large, but doesn't appear massive from any single angle. It's a functional building and has some green features. I had the opportunity to meet the primary architect on the project - a specialist in collegiate gothic and though I was a bit dismissive of the style, speaking with this person was fascinating. He very well understands the origin and function of gothic architecture and its history in higher-education. Just one example, the stone walls of the building are load-bearing and not just a thin veneer over steel. The building is reinforced, but the stone supports itself. He could (and did) describe it better, but I came away knowing that the building was done as well as a building of this type could be done. It's a great asset to the campus. There are some great pics on flickr if you want to check it out.
A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, but one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.
donations
Support urbanSTL by making a donation.
Display mode
Font Size
