So, this is a question that I often wonder about when I play the role of armchair architecture critic. Cornell has pontificated that “each new building should reflect the spirit of Cornell as a pioneering institution and should represent an awareness of its time and place”. Back in the day, that was symbolized by A. D. White’s passionate desire to develop the campus into a New Yorker’s version of Oxford, hence his well-documented derision of red-brick buildings such as Morse Hall and Lincoln Hall, as these were very un-Oxford-esque. Lincoln Hall was built while White was overseas as the U.S. ambassador to Germany (effectively, they sneaked it in when he wasn’t looking), and it’s been said that White smiled when he first heard Morse Hall was destroyed by fire back in 1916. I’m guessing he never counted his own house, but maybe he considered that to be tucked away from the main campus, which it was back in the early days.
Cornell’s architectural preference has evolved with the times. By the 1920s, the fashion was Collegiate Gothic, as seen in buildings like Willard Straight. By the 1950s and 1960s, function was deemed more important than form, and we eneded up with buildings like Clark Hall, and Hollister et al. on the Engineering Quad. Today’s buzz is about “Starchitects” like Rem Koolhaas (Milstein Hall), Richard Meier (Weill Hall) and Thom Mayne (Gates Hall), who designed ultramodern structures that are meant to represent Cornell’s forward-thinking.
My question lies in what is interpreted as forward-thinking. It seems college campuses these days follow two rather discordant trains of thought – one of the modern or ultramodern designs as we have seen lately at Cornell (I was tempted to call them avant-garde, but I don’t think they’re radical enough to merit the term), and then a second line of thinking that delves into the Neoclassical and Gothic themes that conjure images of the romantic colleges of our grandparents’ youth.
Take for instance Princeton and their new Whitman Residential College, or Notre Dame’s new Eck law school building:
Image Property of Notre Dame University
Granted, comparing the new STEM buildings to Dorms and Social Science buildings is a bit like apples to oranges. But what are the pros and cons for the new Houses on West Campus? Were we better off with new and contemporary, or should we have revived the original 1920s era plan and constructed new Gothics?
The original West Campus Plan. Image Courtesy of Wikipedia
Any casual reader of this blog probably recognizes that I fall more into the traditionalist point of view. I guess my concern lies with the aesthetically pleasing value of a campus. Cornell has some tremendously wonderful natural spaces both in the confines of the main campus and surrounding it (the many gorges and waterfalls throughout the area assure that much). The built environment can either enhance that or detract from it, and I’d venture at Cornell it’s been hit-or-miss over the years. I wonder though, if the increasing traditionalism of some of our peer institutions gives them a recruiting advantage for top students. I think the West Campus structures are quality constructions, but they don’t quite garner the same level of fondness as the arches and turrets Collegiate Gothic.
So I’m going to go out on a limb and throw the question out there for debate. What role does architectural style play in prospective students’ decision-making? Is Cornell being bold and progressive in its current architectural plans, or are we foregoing traditional architectural styles at a detriment to the physical appeal of the university? I’m really curious to hear others’ take on this, so please leave a comment if you’d like to contribute your opinion.
P.S. I don’t want to downplay the importance of interior design, which is important from a livability angle. But I am more interested to hear about opinions about building exteriors, since they often set the first impression.
Ithacating in Cornell Heights 
When AD White was a student at Yale, he bemoaned their older red brick, unadorned buildings as “long line of brick barracks, the cheapest which could be built for money” and industrial. I fear the new West Campus housing has fallen into mold. They are neither inspired nor inspiring.
Given that the new dorms didn’t add many new on-campus beds, giving more housing space was obviously not a major objective. University planner should have slowly building grander gothic buildings, even if they cost more, rather than throwing together what we have now.
I too feel that Cornell could have done more with the canvas West Campus provided. Considering this is something of a gateway to the school from the west side, not impressive.
On a different subject, I was wondering if you have checked out the agenda for the Planning and Economic Development board for 11/16/11? Looks like there may be some movement on the Cayuga Green 2 project. There are also plans and renderings included. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
I had not heard anything, which is my own fault since I usually only check the planning board agendas and minutes, and not the planning and economic development board’s (only in Ithaca would these be two separate committees). From the looks of it, they’re seeking a third extension on their contract with the city due to the bad loan market (financing appears to be secured but not finalized), and the revised design loses a floor.This is quite interesting.
Thank for the tip ex. I’ll get a post up about this in the next day or two.
I adore classical architecture on campuses as much as the next guy, but for science and engineering buildings, I have to put my foot down and say that they must be made with a lot of metal and glass. It’s embarrassing, nowadays, to be on a campus where there aren’t any metal and glass science or engineering buildings… it feels like the university doesn’t care enough about those fields.