The proposed 25 year master plan for the Art Center College of Design is facing opposition.
The master plan includes upgrading the existing Craig Ellwood designed building, a new Frank Gehry designed Design Research Center (DRC, consisting of a new library, technical skills center, and studio spaces), as well as a new parking structure.
Please, if you can, take a moment and sign this petition supporting the DRC. We are trying to get the support of the broader Design and Architecture community.
I personally believe that in order for Art Center to remain competitive, the college must expand its facilities, or risk becoming irrelevant. The DRC is a crucial component of the master plan.
In addition to the master plan for the Hillside Campus, the college is also expanding its South Campus, with new graduate facilities to join the Raymond Building, which was formerly a wind tunnel renovated by Daly Genik Architects.
The following news articles can better illustrate the concerns about the master plan:
LA Times|Pasadena Star News|LA Weekly
57 Comments
Astrid:
I am new this blog. I am just struck by the amount of time you spend responding and getting answers to this blog. What else do you do at Art Center? Are you part of the newly reorganized fundraising or marketing department? If it's not 22- or 23-person, how many are in fundraising and how many are in marketing. Yes, you can hide behind doublespeak but payroll numbers don't lie. It will eventually come out in the required financial reporting.
There was a comment posted in the LA Weekly article which I found puzzling?
" I was wined and dined several years ago to entice me to give money to Art Center by RIchard and crew. When I saw the plans and models, I was amazed at the scale of work and hubris--and the money it must have cost, not to mention the space the development office took on an already overcrowded office. The capper for me, however, was the TV-studio and Frank Gehry-designed hockey rink planned for the power plant expansion south of the Turbine Hall campus......." -- An ex-prospective funder
Was there such a plan? If there was why would an design school of 1500 students embark on a hockey rink endeavor in "sunny" Pasadena? I am waiting to hear your spin on this. It's good for the community and its Art Center for community out reach. Hmmm. Sounds good but I don't see the connection and the relevance of this to design education? Better hockey stick designs?
There is no need to support architecture at Art Center. Art Center HAS an iconic building.
The so called "Master plan" is a megalomaniac plan in its name and in its roots up to its goal.
Megalomaniac acts have historically been the downside aspect of artcenter that projected shame on all the community, while the art center community itself is its pride. This community is now threatened. Please do not defend buildings against people and education.
Art Center HAS an iconic building, and has no vocation to produce another one. It has vocation to produce the best designers, and for that atract both the most talented Faculty, and the most talented young persons. Faculty is treated with disrespect and cut budget (when revenue increased). Students are accepted even when they don't speak english and have no ability to draw. Tuition is so high tlented people turn to other schools. BOth professionals and other schools dont even look at art center as a reference. Art center still has a potential, in its ALUMNI and its FUTURE TALENTS. what links them and makes it possible is EDUCATION given by one to the other.
please allow the Art Center community being able to deliver amazing talents and craft to the world.
EDUCATION FIRST !!!
hmmm.....so lets see....
we shouldnt support architecture cause we dont have an arch program.......speaking english should be a requirement......ability to draw also.......
ok...have you read your own comment outloud..maybe you should cause it sounds really bad....
I thought high education institutions existed to give people a wide range of opportunity and community.
If i am a photo major does do i really need to know how to draw, what about a film major, or how about fine art student, i think there alot of major here that dont have to know how to draw inorder to learn their craft.
Maybe we (as a society) should be learning more then one language instead of restricting it to just one.
Maybe we should support architecture because I tell you what. You get what you pay for. and seeing how the world is changing in relevance to building green and building techonologies I think it would be wise to invest in an experienced architectural office like Gerhy Partners (thats frank gerhy's office for those "designers" who dont know)
Considering that architecture is the backdrop to life maybe you should study it alittle and try to understand its relevance to design and the larger world before we just ignore it and isolate ourselves as designer from it.
and one more thing, why are you still argueing on here, this post is so far back in the news now that most people wont find it if they didnt see it the first day.
Archpatriot:
You found the posting this far down from the top and yet you felt compelled to respond. Hmmm....Sounds a bit hypocritical or are you just angry people don't agree with you?
The discussion is not about whether architecture is important or not. The issue is about the "priorities" of the school.
The merit of any architecture or initiative cannot be discussed in a vacuum. "Context and People" are the foundation doctrines of architecture. Is it not?
What's the context of this discontent? Why do you think 1400+ people familiar with the school signed the petition? Do you think they are misguided with misinformation? What about the blatant solicitation of architects to sign a petition for a Gehry building? Was there full disclosure of context? Is "The proposed 25 year master plan for the Art Center College of Design is facing opposition." one's idea of providing context to make informed decisions. I assume the reader of this forum will not be misguided and misinformed?
For what purpose does a building by a celebrated architect serve Art Center? Press? A vehicle for fundraising? Is that it? Does Art Center have a Plan B? If not? Why not? If you don't know, surely someone must know.
How does it connect to the strategic plans of linking the educational, financial and facilities needs of the school together? That conversation is strangely absent. If it's been clearly communicated, why is there so much dissent and anger? Unless these issues are worked out with a well articulated plan, we have no way of evaluating the merit of any idea or claim. Does such a comprehensive plan exist?
Look forward to hearing from you to shed light on these questions?
Archpat,
You’re joking by critiquing someone’s English, reasoning, and writing right? If not, then wow, you are truly not self aware. The syntax, typos and logic of your posts indicates a truly confused mind. You have got to be baiting us!
"Where are you going to hold classes if the DRC isn’t built"
My answer is where we have always held classes. In the classrooms. If we keep the enrollment exclusive, and limit it, we not only don't need all of the extra space but when those talented students graduate, THEY will be the future of art center. Not another empty building. This will also "further enhance the education experience" by keeping the ratio of students to teachers at a low level. Art Center has an amazing reputation because of it's students, not because of the building that houses them. One student commented that you can take all of the students and faculty and put them in a shack and they will still be just as effective.
We should not be trying to boost enrollment or raise tuition to pay for all of the extra expenses that the new building is costing us now. And this building is costing a LOT. The administration has just been skillful at hiding the costs from the public so it appears like the students are unfounded in claiming that it is affecting their education. But it is.
For one, the salaries of the architecture and planning department at Art Center: those people all make more money than the faculty! The space they take up: their department has taken over what used to be two classrooms and they all have offices on campus and plenty of space for their models and plans. The salaries of all of the V.P.s who spend all of their time fundraising for the building. You can add up the hours and effort spent on that and subtract that too. Many of these of their costs have been hidden in the education budget and diverted from real educational goals. So when it is said that no money is being used to pay Frank Ghery, they are right, but a lot of money, time, space and funding is coming out of the eduction budget and going into the costs of managing this project.
And finally, the Gehry building is simply the wrong style of architecture. It does not match the stark, clean black of the existing building.
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.