I noticed a front page picture on the Sun's web site which since unlabeled
led me to look for more information which I found here:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept06/Milstein_design.dea.html
(http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept06/Milstein_pano.jpg)
Hunh. Not as bad as another redering I saw.
While I'm glad to see that the building at least "cohabitates" with the surrounding architecture, I wonder why, exactly, there needs to be that little jobby that "adds" itself to the end of Sibley, as if saying, "Look at me! I got part of my building on the Arts Quad." Would it have been so bad to just occupy the space between Rand and Sibley without curling around the end?
Building entrance "plazas" under floors supported by concrete stilts? To me that just screams unsuccessful Miesian knockoff. (Lookin' at you, Clark Hall.) How long until they start parking cars under there for another horrible building project? In the cold Ithaca winters, the "plazas" will just become dingy, concrete smokers' wastelands.
And then there's the "cars through buildings" thing on the backside:
(http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept06/Milstein_projection.jpg)
Which looks suspiciously like the front of Clark. Surely a vision of the future, or even a "Futurama." Will we ever get past the 1939 World's Fair?
Assuredly, it will be built with crappy materials (that will still end up costing a fortune) and thousands of little flaws that will only make it look uglier over time. With rusting and attendant structural problems, I'm sure Milstein, in a fraction of the life of one of the original Arts Quad buildings, will soon require a costly rehabilitation.
Whee. Another ugly box clutters up the campus. Bring back Boardman!
I know I should remember, but what's there now?
[quote French Rage]I know I should remember, but what's there now?[/quote]
Nevermind, I was mis-dintinguishing (??) what was part of the new building, I remember what that looked like now, used to cut between those buildings to get to the suspension bridge.
I thought they were planning to demolish Rand. Or did I just imagine that?
[quote jtwcornell91]I thought they were planning to demolish Rand. Or did I just imagine that?[/quote]
I think that was the original plan. But if they can keep it and add studio space (the major reason why they wanted to rebuild it, I believe), why not?
I think it looks less like a monstrosity than the original design, which had what looked like a giant piece of corrugated metal down the front. I'll reserve final judgement, though, til I see more complete plans.
[quote Liz '05][quote jtwcornell91]I thought they were planning to demolish Rand. Or did I just imagine that?[/quote]
I think that was the original plan. But if they can keep it and add studio space (the major reason why they wanted to rebuild it, I believe), why not?[/quote]
I figured they just wanted to demolish it on general principle. But then I guess they'd start with Uris.
[quote jtwcornell91][quote Liz '05][quote jtwcornell91]I thought they were planning to demolish Rand. Or did I just imagine that?[/quote]
I think that was the original plan. But if they can keep it and add studio space (the major reason why they wanted to rebuild it, I believe), why not?[/quote]
I figured they just wanted to demolish it on general principle. But then I guess they'd start with Uris.[/quote]
Or 70% of the Eng quad.
As a card-carrying BANANA, I'm not happy with any reduction in the campus' natural space. The University Ave underpass is obviously an aesthetic disaster; "a little bit of SUNY Albany in our own backyard -- how nice". And if you attach a modernist structure to Sibley, even by corridor, you've got a wretched PoMo stew.
But still, it's not nearly as awful as one would expect, so, wait and see. Not like we can do anything about the ongoing rape of what was once the country's most beautiful campus, anyway. :-(
It's official; I'm calling my next band "Unsuccessful Miesian Knockoff."