Two big name architecture firms are changing places on the campus of Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.
The university has commenced demolition of its Tod Williams and Billie Tsien-designed Mattin Center that was originally completed on its Homewood campus in 2001.
The demolition will make way for a new $250 million student center designed by BIG with help of Rockwell Group and academic design specialist Shepley Bulfinch.
The erstwhile center was designed as a place to “nurture the creative arts in a school where the primary focus has always been science and engineering.”
Featuring a dance studio, black box theater, art studios and a café, the center’s design incorporated clerestory windows focused on producing as much natural light and clear sightlines as possible in order to create a sense of “visual community” amongst the student users.
“I loved walking in and disconnecting from the academic rigor to create something artistic with a group of people, and the building definitely represented that,” one sophomore told the JHU student newspaper after the demolition was announced this May. “The first thing you see walking in is the display case of student-produced art, and there were always students practicing dance routines. I’m going to really miss having that space that allowed students to express themselves.”
The demolition marks the second time in recent memory that a TWBTA project has seen an untimely end following the 2014 demolition of the beloved American Folk Art Museum at the hands of a rapacious development scheme authored by board members at New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA).
The lack of concern for the fate of a modern building (albeit one designed by a high profile firm) comes as no surprise for some industry experts, who see the demolition as part of a larger cycle of commission and destruction overtaking academic architecture in recent years.
“Generally there is less respect for the modern buildings on campuses than for the historic ones, certainly among alumni and at the regent level.” Perkins+Will principal Jeff Stebar told the Chronicle of Higher Education in a 2019 interview.
The new 150,000-square-foot student center will open in fall of 2024.
25 Comments
This is wrong on so many levels.
The Williams/Tsien center is (was) low-key, informal, intimate, well stated and well integrated with the rest of the campus and, apparently well used and well received.
It breaks up space in a variety of unobtrusive ways, referencing the landscape and creating interesting sections for a variety of uses, for different groups.
In its place they're getting BIG's stampede of glass boxes.
Where inside everything is open to glass and air, where everybody is all together—and exposed. I wonder about the noise level.
There's a metaphor here I find disturbing.
Students, like the rest of us, especially in a large, crowded place, need to find somewhere to get away with like minded people or just be alone and feel supported in either.
I'm tempted to make a statement about what's happening to academia, taken by stylish—and questionable—trends, but I don't have much to go on.
i don't understand this at all. is baltimore out of land or something? is the existing student center irredeemably flawed? will the committee that led the planning and construction of a building that went obsolete so quickly be reprimanded at all?
how likely is it after all this the big building will still be recognized as leed platinum and thoroughly greenwashed?
I see from the previous post you read the Chronicle piece. Anything you can pass on? I'm not going to sign up.
Economics rule.
To the detriment of the vast majority.
what are the economics in this though? its a university, they make money from tuition and donations. they could just build this building anywhere around
and get some donors for it.
The real money in education is endowments, and donors like to see their names on buildings. Aside from the fact that John Hopkins is a private university, and there is no public benefit.
right, i'm not objecting to them building another somewhat unnecessary building to bring in endowments. it's just, why here? are they really totally out of land and so uncreative they can only demolish and rebuild? what about the donors for the old TWBT building, are they just forgotten now?
The building is the endowment.
Unless there's something significantly malfunctioning about the TWBTA building, this seems utterly wasteful. Can someone familiar with Johns Hopkins perhaps elaborate?
Demolishing such a well integrated (correct me if it's wrong) scheme by a leading American office is such a shame. There is a proliferating culture in American campuses to treat new buildings as mere amenities and this seems in that line (water parks in universities in the South, BIG buildings in the Northeast).
When the project was announced there was a bit more info about the planning process that led to this decision. Basically - JH has other plots, but the planning committee decided this one was the only logical place to put a student center.
http://twbta.com/work/mattin-s...
This is a complex, and you have to see the plan and several photos to appreciate what it is.
The campus doesn't have a student center per se, a place where large numbers of students can gather. Williams/Tsien, I assume, didn't build that because they weren't asked to. I think I read they offered to make the addition in some kind of revision, but the campus decided instead to raze Mattin and go BIG.
It is the loss of a significant architectural work. I went through several of their buildings at their site, many educational, and it's impressive how much thought and variation go into their buildings, how much they pay attention to program and site. In the case of Mattin:
"By cutting the buildings into the ground, the strong presence of the wooded knoll and the character of the existing Neo-Georgian architecture are retained. The siting preserves many existing trees and new plant materials in the lower level courtyard and on the upper level terraces enhance the connection to the surrounding landscape."
I never get the sense BIG spends much time at all with site or context in any of their work. It doesn't show. Also the Mattin looks to be durable. The design, subtle and intelligent, will stand up through the years. The materials look to be solid and can take the wear of use. The novelty of BIG's solution will wear off soon, if it ever catches on, and won't be able to take much use/abuse without looking shabby.
The BIG design truly f***ing sucks. The TWBTA complex seems extremely well thought of, resolved and executed. Not to be overly simplistic, but the desire of a large space - could that not have been achieved essentially by covering the large open space with a transparent volume? Not that it wouldn't be sacrilegious, but would have certainly avoided a huge waste of effort and resources.
I see that BIG is expanding its product line-up with "Cascade" - wood and glass boxes with optional tent-like roofs.
read a recent anecdote about johns hopkins being the first "research" university in the US, willingly forgoing the "trivialities" of the humanities and general education. this move seems in step with their history.
It seems like they made a deal with the devil starting their firm: “okay you’re going to get interesting commissions and will be able to produce proper Architecture with a capital A...but all your work will be demolished in front of your eyes way before the end of its lifespan”
https://archinect.com/news/art...
TWBTA state their purpose and methods in the article "On Slowness," well worth a read. They cite Milan Kundera's novel:
“There is a secret bond between slowness and memory, between speed and forgetting. . . . In existential mathematics, that experience takes the form of two basic equations: the degree of slowness is directly proportional to the intensity of memory; the degree of speed is directly proportional to the intensity of forgetting.”
http://twbta.com/3031
The Mattin complex is well covered by Google Street Views, while it lasts. One of many things that is impressive is how much thought they put into context, respecting and featuring existing buildings, transitioning from a four-lane street to a distinctive traditional quad.
Johns Hopkins has opted for speed and forgetting with this big BIG building:
Compare with:
"We have attempted to imagine and design the Campus Center like a village condensed from a plethora of different spaces and pavilions for the greatest possible diversity of activities, interests and sub-cultures."
BIG's language is just suspect and sounds like it was made up on the fly, like this zip line. Building large, open space does not create community. I'm curious how this one turns out.
Plethora?
Haha did they really say "plethora".. I know what it means but it's almost like a backhanded way of saying "what else do you want from us ?!@#" .. Apt I guess.
Plethora carries the connotation of excess. Originally it meant "a bodily condition characterized by an excess of blood and marked by turgescence and a florid complexion." Perhaps that's the sense BIG intended.
If I had an Ivy degree, one year experience cutting blue foam for Rem in NYC and a trust fund from my parents, I would open an edgy firm in a second tier city and call it "Plethora".
There is little space for anything thoughtful today. It's all marketing and perception management. If the ROI isn't maxxed it's garbage because money is the only thing that matters. Thoughtful projects are destroyed to make way for (more, higher, any) profit.
Thus BIG (and others). Architecture as business, not craft.
#skewedvalues
And here we go:
Is there any effort being made to salvage or recycle any materials? Doesn't look like it.
Came across a little/lovely article in John Hopkins Magazine about the "creative chrysalis" published when the Mattin Center opened.
We read;
"looking around at the triangle of buildings, one gets the feeling of being in a maze--a maze connected by second-floor balconies, by ramps and stairways."
Thanks for this, Nam. The building, I suspect, was quite successful in what it was designed to do. And it was well designed. It has to be experienced to be appreciated fully.
Notes Hankin, "There is much more of a spirit of inclusion for art that absolutely didn't exist 25 years ago. I can tell you that this is the best time for me--and anyone who is pursuing the arts--to be at Hopkins."
Williams says the Mattin Center is not so much a destination as it is a public space, defined by people. "If you walk through it there are constantly changing perspectives," he notes. "There are a great many places for a person to be-- whether it is a bench in a hallway, or a step or stair outside on a balcony--where there is a view."
This is a loss—it set an example for other schools. And its demolition set the liberal arts back.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.