There is a movement within the Cornell community to stop the planned construction of
Milstein Hall (previously -
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6). Those opposing it argue that the school's budget is already over-extended, and the planned project doesn't have a gold LEED rating. Some say the opponents have simply been opposed to the design since the unveiling. Those supporting the project say that the Koolhaas project is a vital move for the school's success, and that canceling the project could lead to a lack of accreditation.
To read a copy of the email circulating the Cornell community, take the jump or
click here
---
Hi -- we've just learned that a few members of the University,
supported by a few alumni and who knows whom, have made a motion to
the faculty senate to stop Milstein Hall. This, after we just
received the final approval for proceeding with construction.
These faculty members cite concern over the university's budget, the
fact that the design so far is not a gold Leeds rating, and (the real
reason for some of these folks, who have been fighting us every step
of the way), the design. Against the latter, they cite Sage & Lincoln
hall as exemplars of 'context-sensitive' design. (You might recall
the corporate, pseudo-gothic-victorian pastiche that served as
additions to the business and music schools).
In their vocal publicity efforts, the faculty group and their few
supporters are giving the university and Ithaca community the
impression that this is the opinion of many of our alumni. Having
broadcast their views to various media outlets, and now to the full
faculty senate, they want the University to stop the building, and
for Arch. go back to the dwg boards to create a cheaper, more
'contextual' design.
Even before debating the uninformed opinions noted above, I should
point out what any delay at this point would mean. THe NAAB has
warned us for over a decade, and have explicitly stated that the last
accreditation we got is the FINAL one they will grant without
compliant facilities. They have just denied us an accreditation
review for our new M.Arch 1 program this spring because of delays to
the final approval process. When they return next year, they plan to
review both the M1 and B.Arch programs -- if we don't have a building
in process at that point, the B.Arch will LOSE its accreditation, and
the M1 will be denied the same.
As you can imagine, losing accreditation will be catastrophic.
Enrollment will decline precipitously, students will transfer out,
operating budgets will decline in turn, and our hard-won reputation
will be tarnished irreparably. Very few schools sink to this depth,
and no one will stop to ask the reasons for us osing accreditation.
The word on the street will be that something is very wrong at
Cornell. Our hard-won efforts in the new grad programs will be
crushed -- it took us 4 years to build the M1 program to #4 standing
against wealthier and long-established Ivy-peers. Imagine how long it
would take to disperse the stigma of failure.
If you disagree with the opinions stated above -- and with the
representation of Architecture alumni opinions -- please help us make
countering views known. The well-being, if not survival, of our
design programs depends on quick and vociferous response (the Senate
meeting is scheduled for this Wed.).
To help, please do 1 of the following as soon as possible:
1. Send a letter to the editor of local media outlets.
- Cornell Daily Sun:
News-editor@cornellsun.com
- Cornell Chronicle:
SSL4@cornell.edu
- Ithaca Journal:
atutino@ithaca.gannett.com
- Ithaca Times:
editor@ithacatimes.com
- News10 Now:
news@news10now.com
- WHCU:
gdunn@cyradiogroup.com
- WVBR:
wvbrnews@yahoo.com
2. Post your online comments to articles already written. Go to the
article and add your comments where indicated at the end of the page.
-Cornell Daily Sun:
http://cornellsun.com/
- Ithaca Journal:
http://www.theithacajournal.com/
I've attached a letter by some of our colleagues in AAP and on campus
protesting Milstein Hall to the Cornell Sun. I've also attached 2
responses, one by an Arch. grad student (draft form), another by a
Cornell prof on campus (copied below). Zachary's letter offers a
good, brief rebuttal for the budget and Leeds arguments by
Architecture's opponents. Your letter need not be long &
time-consuming -- Adrian Lewis's letter below is just a couple of
paragraphs.
Please forward this message to others you think may want to
contribute. We urgently need your help, and the more response the
better.
**************************
Sent to the Cornell Daily Sun - Sunday
Dear Editor,
A group of Cornell professors and other members of the University have
expressed vigorous opposition to the forthcoming construction of Milstein
Hall, an addition for Cornell's Architecture program. Plans for the hall
were presented in public two years ago by the architect, Rem Koolhaas.
The group's opinion appeared in a February 6 letter to the Cornell Daily
Sun, and in a motion to be debated by Faculty Senate on February 11.
I was surprised by the group's opinion, and disappointed. Despite the
challenging financial environment, President Skorton has commendably
deemed the Milstein project critical to the University. The group, by
contrast, while engaged and well-meaning in its worries, is prosaic in its
thinking. I find this failure of imagination distressing in a great and
dynamic university.
Cornell is proud to host the top-ranked undergraduate architecture program
in the US. The program has suffered in grossly inadequate facilities for
decades, and as a direct consequence has been at constant risk of losing
its professional accreditation. It is surely self-evident that, to a
greater degree than any other University project, this desperately-needed
architectural work needs to do more, intellectually, than simply "house"
Architecture. Koolhaas is among the world's most brilliant and respected
architects; the design he unveiled is effective, cost-conscious, and bold.
The group finds the Milstein design "provocative and setting-discordant",
"atavistic", and a "flamboyant individual statement". They hope for a
building "respectful of... historical setting". I do not. The books I
read, the music to which I listen, the art I admire, none of these are
"respectful of historical setting". Should students at a great university
learn to think for themselves in a mundane neo-gothic pastiche? I urge
the group to think again.
Sincerely,
Adrian Lewis
Professor
Operations Research and Information Engineering
