More architects are speaking out in the controversy surrounding the planned Munger Hall development at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The Santa Barbara Independent is reporting that eight architects representing several different UC campuses sent administrators a letter dated November 17 which detailed their opposition to the unanimously approved multibillion-dollar dormitory building.
“We ask that you take a step back and embrace the values of a humane environment, one that fosters health, safety, and welfare, instead of one that may forever harm generations of young students,” a portion of the group letter read, according to the Independent. “A failed investment of this size is bound to ripple throughout the University system.”
Their letter joins a previous document from the local AIA chapter in which President Tai Yeh and others expressed their concern over health, safety, and wellness requirements tied to the proposal’s ventilation system and “inhumane living conditions” created therein.
This concern was echoed even further in the group letter, which stated that the development was “in direct conflict with the UC system’s Carbon Neutrality goal,” and adding that “the current COVID-19 pandemic calls into question the wisdom of residential buildings relying entirely on mechanical ventilation.”
UCSB did issue a response to the letter that largely ignored the architects’ charge about the new industry-wide mandate for resiliency being surprisingly bereft, instead choosing to focus on some of the group’s financial claims, which it called “misleading” and repeating its previous claims that the dorm would positively affect the available housing stock on campus. “Ultimately, the goal for the project is to provide students a better housing experience at a lower monthly cost than they would find in Isla Vista.”
The group’s letter drew to a conclusion with a retort to the hedge fund manager’s recently published statement that “no two architects agree on anything,” stating “Mr. Munger’s proposal for the Santa Barbara campus has demonstrated just the opposite: America’s architectural community is speaking out loudly against it.”
6 Comments
Aesthetics are a critically important factor as well, of course. Architecture is directly tied to the evolution of philosophy in all its forms. We now are contemplating a multi-verse. We now are proposing mathematical theorems that may help us grasp what preceded the Big Bang. We may indeed be one universe among a roiling sea of universes. Imagine an architecture to inspire students with form that responds to a multi-verse reality.
This horrific building is tied pathetically to a hegemonic racist Neo-Roman and now neo-fascist "style". It is an affront to intelligence. It exists in a philosophically appalling no-man's land where there is a "creator" and "heaven" and "hell.
Charlie Munger is a well loved sage of American Capitalism. That's it. No more no less. He's a pathetic and willful ignoramus in terms of anything approaching an understanding of the profound nature of architectural expression and the critical importance of an architecture pushing humankind forward towards enlightenment.
This building is a monument to ignorance on many levels. That's the beginning and end of this travesty. Open an international architectural competition. Choose modernist innovators as judges. Have the guts to defy this monstrosity.
It's very poorly execution of any sort of classic architecture behind the skin of the building.
Its up to the Regents now. If Munger pulls his money unless he gets to play architect, they'd have to find another funding source.
They don't need his money.
It's possible to design multiple student housing buildings on campus for the amount of money minus his funds and have a better outcome. I would make multiple buildings and avenues of natural light and if necessary, use a few possible spots on-campus to make it all work to a better outcome and still be built with higher quality without necessarily higher expense. Why not think outside this box. Sure, it might be technically an efficient (sort of) design of putting as many people in small footprint but this is California so why not spread out it a little with adequate density but quality of living while being cost-efficient.
"unanimously approved"...
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.