<p>PG, “striking” doesn’t have to mean “pleasing.” It’s hard to ignore the adjacent-ness, though many people agree with you that it’s jarring or even downright weird. Personally, I like it because it’s just so “UDub” and it’s part of what makes Red Square what it is, the heart of a gigantic campus. Those two buildings form bookends of UW’s history. Suzzallo says, “This great university is old (for the West coast) and grounded in the history of the Pacific Northwest.” Kane says, “This great university is modern and powerful and important.” The buildings, the entire space, the relationship of the buildings to each other, have to be on a heroic scale, and together with the square itself – which is more than just the space around which the buildings are collected – they embody UW more than anything else. Except maybe Husky Stadium. :)</p>
<p>Part of my fondness for the placement of those two buildings is a personal association. I used to walk in that space between them every day, going to and from my dorm. </p>
<p>circuitrider: thanks for this thread and thanks to everyone posting links. One of my emptynesting hobbies is attempting to become more educated about architecture, so I am really enjoying this!</p>
<p>I am fortunate to have some architect friends. One of them designed a small addition for my “pure” mid-19th c house. We needed a kitchen and baths and closets for a house that had never had those features. There was an adjacent kitchen house. This is not my first old house and my inclination has been to duplicate/recreate “what they would have done.” I discovered my friends think the better way is to create a strong division between old and new and an authentic present-day addition, not a recreation of an earlier time, if I am understanding this correctly. They can’t stand to look at any sort of “revival” though they try to be kind. My friend designed what I wanted and the interior is all 19th c salvage, and I’m sure it looks like Disney to him, though he’s very kind about it. He did get really into the project and helping me realize my vision. and he gets a kick out of folks sometimes arguing with me that the addition has “always been there” that they “are positive it’s original” and that helps me further understand where the architects are coming from. The spaces they have created for themselves are wonderful. And sometimes a fascinating juxtaposition of antique buildings and new structures… the domestic equivalent of the campuses described here.</p>
<p>This thread is a real treat for me, too. I went to a school that was strong in architecture, and sometimes I wished I had applied in that major. I enjoyed taking drafting as an elective in high schooI and prided myself on my lettering. The wood toy I designed for the mass production assignment was cute but too difficult for me to know how to make. Too many curves, sort of like a caterpillar. Others did make their toy, but I still got a good grade, as I recall, lol.</p>
<p>What can architects do to tie disparate elements together in a harmonious design?</p>
<p>Connecticut’s Wesleyan University has a rich architectural legacy with everything from antebellum mansions to the “potted brutalism” of its Center for the Arts vying for first in show. Pulling it all together takes constant attention to scale, placement and a certain amount of ingenuity. For its Suzanne T. Lemberg University Center (2007) the problem was how to reconcile at least three different architecural periods: the English Country Gothic of Wesleyan’s historic Brownstone Row; the Richardsonian-style Fayerweather Hall (1894) which would flank it on the left and the red-brick Olin Library directly facing it across Andrus Field. In the end, I’m not sure the designers didn’t end up inventing a completely unique hybrid:
<a href=“http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2013/08/andrus_field_2012.jpg”>http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2013/08/andrus_field_2012.jpg</a></p>
<p>Wesleyan sounds like an interesting place to study. Architecture sure reveals a lot about society. History isn’t always pretty, but maybe we need to learn from it. </p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article about art museums opening on campuses recently, or in the planning stages (notice how Renzo piano attached a contemporary structure to the original brick facade of the Fogg at Harvard):</p>
<p>One nice touch at Wesleyan is the way the terrazzo floors in the new building recall the beautiful ones in the old building across the street. </p>
<p>I went to Yale. An example of yuck is Becton, an applied science building. An example of sheer freaking genius is Beinecke Rare Book Library. The marble walls are translucent and literally glow inside on a sunny day. And then there’s the cube, the giant glass stack of books in the center, a stunning temple that can take your breath away. You can sit in the dark areas near the floor with the walls glowing and the glass tower of books rising above you. Astonishing space. The sculpture garden below is lovely when you’re working in the materials room. It was so cool: you could request most things, so you could get Keats’ letters and sit with them (gloves on). I had some friends who’d just sit and look at cool things for hours. </p>
<p>^^^Just got back from visiting the new Piano building at Harvard–Harvard Art Museums. The new building’s impressive. The Boston Globe review below:</p>
<p>I can see there’ve been a lot of changes at Wes since my D graduated in 04. For the record, I believe the Art Center was often referred to as Legoland.</p>
The wood toy I designed for the mass production assignment was cute but too difficult for me to know how to make. Too many curves, sort of like a caterpillar. Others did make their toy, but I still got a good grade, as I recall, lol.</p>
