|
If the reader will indulge me a moment of histrionics to express my outrage:
WHERE COULD A NEW BUILDING GO? WHERE WHERE WHERE?!?
I just don't see one single spot where another building could fit! Do you?! Yep, Prince Hall has gotta go!
Doing otherwise might mean sacrificing PRECIOUS SURFACE PARKING.
Let me say this very clearly, in very small, easily-understood words, with the same wall of fury and frustration I felt over the Century Building's pointless destruction, since the principle is so very nearly identical:
PUT THE NEW BUILDING WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS!!!!
Does the current administration have any idea what they're doing?? Do they understand the power of these original buildings? I can't see how they'd consider demolition if they did.
Can This Building Really Be "Replaced"?
Wash U's administration claims the replacement building will be in the Tudor Gothic style. It's been done already; every addition to the campus since 1991 has been an attempt to replicate the original campus buildings. They've even managed to come close to getting it right a couple of times, such as the imposing new Law School building (1997). But ultimately, even the most faithful of these buildings fall short in several ways: in scale, in workmanship and detailing, and by their unavoidable lack of the patina of age.
Scale is the most glaringly obvious. Prince Hall and its contemporaries are not small, but they are intimate. Their surfaces are complex, enlivened by articulation and projections -- bay windows small gables and dormers, tiny arched windows -- that architects today simply don't think to replicate. A dormer today is expensive, so it must serve some highly important purpose and be large and prominent. Not so the Cope & Stewart buildings; every small room was worthy of some light-giving gesture. These are human-scaled buildings, and they give the campus its unique charm. The new buildings, by contrast, loom as high as five and six stories, and twice as wide. They sport massive windows, huge mechanical vents, and an overall mass that overpowers the older buildings -- and the campus's inhabitants.
The original Cope & Stewardson buildings are as notable for their imperfections as for their design. The stone work is quality, well-laid, but not the relentlessly rectangular march of pre-cut stone that faces recent campus additions. The gargoyles show the lines of their sculptors. The stone is varied in shade and tone. A precast concrete lintel cannot approximate the sandy texture of a limestone one. These buildings were built by hand, at the end of an age -- they are irreplaceable.
Prince Hall stands immediately adjacent to Umrath Hall, the other men's dormitory; together they form a lengthy and
handsome wall of Tudor Gothic, a fine rambling edge to the playing fields that continues until it is rudely interrupted by the enormous bulk of Simon Hall.
Wash U's original campus architecture first inspired my interest in architecture and preservation. It fascinated and intrigued me -- coming from a small, mostly-suburban city in the south, I had never seen such buildings.
I crawled all over every inch of them, photographing, exploring, and marvelling at having lucked into such a beautiful
setting for my studies. They kindled in me the first flames of an ongoing love affair with the entire city, and eventually with
urbanism at large.
Washington University's original campus buildings are a legacy handed down to it from visionary founders, talented architects, and highly skilled builders. The job of present-day administrators is to safeguard that legacy, not dismantle it. The University would be well-advised not to obliterate a critical part of that legacy.
Wash U, don't tear down Prince Hall!!
Prince Hall gallery, pre-demolition || Next Site
|