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
12 Comments
Wow, Cornell is screwed. Seriously, tho, Millstein Hall was Moshen's baby and with his departure it was inevitable that it would be scuttled. The tenured faculty has always hated the proposal, and I'm kinda surprised they even let it go this long. Lets not forget that there have been several other designs for Millstein (3 or 4, I believe) by architects such as Morphosis and Steven Holl, all of which got relatively far but were always shut down in the end.
However, I have a hard time believing that Cornell would completely shaft its students (specifically the two classes of March1s who have graduated) by not having some kind of building proposal next year, however it won't be the OMA Millstein.
In all likelihood, the studios will be rehoused in some hastily-constructed "swing" building behind Sibley which will ultimately turn into their permanent home. Either that or they can face up to the fact that they sold all the M.Archs useless degrees, which would probably sink the school's rep forever.
-andrew
As a current M.Arch I student at Cornell I am in complete "disbelief" to what is happening here. They give reasons like "fiscally irresponsible" because of the amount of money it would cost. Don't you think we should look at the situation as an opportunity to provide jobs for the community? It was a long time coming for Milstein to be passed and now, if it doesn't go through, the degree I am earning is useless? How can this happen?
If the tenured faculty could remember the constituency to which they serve...the welfare and education of THE STUDENTS, not the alumni, then they should be aware that we need the new facilities. If not for my M.Arch I fellow students but for all those students with a Cornell Architecture degree.
andrew/rabbits is incorrect. The tenured faculty in the college are not standing in the way of this. Quite the contrary. It might have been Moshen's pet project but the new dean, Kent Kleinman, is defending it mightily. It needs to be clarified that the opposition is in the faculty senate from a clique of faculty --not from architecture-- obsessed with leed gold.
Besides, my sense is that the university president and the college will get past this small hurdle. It would certainly be a shame for the arts and humanities as a whole to see that UC Berkeley, for instance, can move ahead with a gym on top of an oak grove while Cornell can't get this project.
Again with non-designers and non-AAP students/professors/alumni trying to dictate what is appropriate for other people
These people have no idea how much it costs to make new construction. You can barely make a low-rise office building for less than 30million. I didn't see any of these people complaining when the new engineering building(s) and their 160 million dollar price tag-oh wait-these were buildings for THEIR colleges!
The accreditation of the program is at stake here. Rand Hall and Sibley are past their prime-give AAP what it deserves!
Burn it!
hmmm. they do realize that leed is basically a scam, correct?
Ha, I stand corrected on the prof thing (although there are a number of names NOT on that list). I was there when they unveiled the design and the profs listed in the Sun article couldn't seem to talk enough shit about it. Funny.
-andrew
@holz.box, If Bike racks earn LEED credits for your project.. and so on... i agree.
Now it seems having a MArch degree from Cornell is going to be a "limited edition" thing ;)
wow...the infamous "death penalty"...similar thing happened to SMU's football program in the 1980's and they've never recovered. ouch.
After the Faculty Senate meeting last night to discuss the building of Milstein they argued again that 1) it wasn't LEED Silver which the university had agreed that all new buildings would at least be this (obviously it's dependent on a lot of uncontrollable things) and 2) that it used a portion of the funds by "debt funding" the institution (the school goes into debt in anticipation of returns i.e. enrollment, grants etc.). The new Dean Kent Kleinman spoke to the faculty senate and clearly stated that it is not a matter of it being "his baby (it was Mohsen's)" it was a matter of accreditation that was that the last time Cornell was re-accredited it was clearly stated that w/o the new building they would not become accredited again(due to no lecture space, etc). Then they understood that it had to go through so at the next meeting on March 11 they will discuss it again with a new proposition to let it go through.
ps David Basulto, I don't like the joke about the "limited addition" M.Arch degree.
thanks.
I have to say, I’m not really a fan of glass boxes, but there is an important argument for the building that was not presented in the above letter.
It is simply that, unlike so many other structures, it is actually built around what it will be used for, and around the people who will use it. In other other words, the exterior is not all that exciting, but the program is spot on.
As such, it would stand as a hallmark of building design built for its occupants, as opposed to an exciting structure in which the occupants are shoehorned in around the marvel that is the building.
For a Koolhaas project it is strangely lacking in ego. And perhaps that is the problem people have with it. It doesn’t scream “I am a prestigious academic building! Acknowledge me!” Instead it just does its job, and from what I can tell will do it well.
So yeah, we are never going to stand around outside it be stunned by it’s awesomeness. In fact, it will probably, and rapidly, become something people tend not to notice in its innocuous simplicity, hidden away on the back side of another building. But those who have to use it will every day appreciate that it does what it was meant to do, and thus helps them to do what they have to do.
And that is a good reason to build a building.
Besides, I've stood in the place they want to put the building. It is a disagreeable no-man's land sandwiched between the backs of buildings and an access road. This would be a major improvement over what is already there.
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.