News
Faculty Debates Milstein Merits
February 12, 2009 - 12:00amIn an auditorium filled to the brim with students, faculty and administrators, the Faculty Senate Committee met yesterday to discuss Cornell’s state in the recent financial downturn. After Provost Kent Fuchs discussed Cornell’s reaction to the economic crisis, Prof. Abby Cohn, linguistics, introduced a resolution to pause construction of Milstein Hall, the proposed new building for the College of Architecture, Art and Planning that has been in the works for over a decade.
“This resolution is neither for nor against Milstein Hall, but is about the process and decisions made during these difficult [financial] times,” Cohn said.
The motion called upon President David Skorton to include Milstein Hall in the University’s construction pause. Additionally, it demanded that Skorton, the Capital Funding and Priorities Committee and the Board of Trustees utilize the pause as an opportunity for careful review and reevaluation of Milstein Hall.
The motion hoped to ensure that Milstein Hall “addresses the current and future programmatic needs of AAP, while balancing the financial constraints and sustainability objectives of the University as a whole.”
However, Milstein Hall is actually included in the capital projects that will be affected by the construction pause rendering the proposed motion invalid, according to Stephen Golding, executive vice president for finance and administration, in his letter to the editor.
Still speaking in opposition to the original motion, Kent Kleinman, academic dean of AAP, expressed the necessity of Milstein Hall for the college.
“For the last decade, AAP has suffered with debilitating facilities and has anticipated this building. The urgency of building this is real for us. We are in extreme danger of losing accreditation if our facility’s needs are not met. Anything less than a new structure is a risky course to engage here,” Kleinman said.
Despite the fact that, if approved, construction of Milstein Hall will force the University to pay for it out of pocket, Kleinman appealed to the Faculty Senate Committee “not to let the fiscal problems affect the excellence of the university.”
Eric Cheyfitz, director of the American Indian Program and Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters, wondered why building Milstein Hall as planned, versus refurbishing the college’s existing buildings, is essential to the college’s accreditation.
“This is a key question that needs to be answered before I can vote on the motion,” Cheyfitz said.
In response to critics of Milstein Hall’s sustainability, Kleinman promised to work so that Milstein Hall would meet the highest LEED certification possible for the site and explained that LEED is not the only valid measure of sustainability.
Kleinman concluded his plea by reporting that 18 out of the 23 architecture faculty members have agreed to Milstein Hall’s current construction plan because “they love their students.” He noted that this is rarity, considering architects rarely agree with each other.
Peter Stein, physics and nuclear studies, asked if the Faculty Senate Committee would consider an alternative motion distributed to members of the faculty Tuesday afternoon.
This motion asks President Skorton and the University trustees to assume a new policy that mandates a plan for publishing building plans to the campus community prior to construction and for “securing the full funding of the construction and operation of each building before the construction begins.”
The motion also requests that Skorton and the University trustees delay the construction of ongoing projects that do not yet have full funding until a plan for their complete financing is set.
Milstein Graphic: Pros and Cons
Last, the motion, written by six faculty senate members, demanded that strict standards for energy efficiency in the construction of new buildings and renovations of buildings be enforced.
However, according to a committee bi-law, motions must be delivered to senators one week in advance of discussion. Stern suggested an emergency meeting for next Wednesday to discuss a second motion that was written in light of Golding’s letter to The Sun.
Due to specific bylaws governing the Faculty Senate, the participants at the meeting were unable to examine the second resolution. A motion was made to hold a special meeting to present the second motion, but it ultimately failed, pushing the issue until next month’s meeting.
The new resolution reads: “consistent with the announced construction pause, we call upon President Skorton and the University Trustees to evaluate the financial status of ongoing construction projects, and if a plan for the full funding of a project has not yet been established, to delay the construction timetable until an acceptable plan for full financing is in place.”
Fuchs could not promise that no actions would be taken to approve Milstein for construction before the Faculty Senate had a chance to hear the proposal.
Prof. Shelley Feldman, sociology and director of the Feminist Gender Sexuality Studies, stood up in favor of both resolutions.
“ I think these are crucial issues during crisis times and normal times. Are we committed to as sustainable campus?” she said, adding that she was also concerned with the University’s decision to finance some of the building with debt.
Richard Talman, physics and a participant at the meeting, said that in the specific case of Milstein Hall, it is essential that the faculty trust the administration.
“I don’t believe that the faculty is especially more qualified than the administration and in these crucial times the faculty must exercise solidarity with the administration,” Talman said.

why milstein? why now?
For a building that has been in the plans for more than a decade, it is curious that faculty have chosen to weigh in now. It suggests to me that they either have not been paying attention, or that they are more deeply disgruntled by other construction issues as well. After all, there are numerous buildings under construction right now, and not all will be fully LEED certified. So, what is really going on here? How much power should faculty have in decisions made? What about alumni? What about students?
Milstein Hall
In response to an apparently sudden and last-ditch attempt by some professors and alumni of Cornell University to stall the construction of Milstein Hall, it seems all too appropriate to quote a passage from Ayn Rand’s novel "The Fountainhead", especially since Mr. Rem Koolhaas included it himself in his groundbreaking 'novel about architecture' "S,M,L,XL":
“But finally you’ll get into a man’s office with your drawing, and you’ll curse yourself for taking so much space of his air with your body, and you’ll try to squeeze yourself out of his sight, so that he won’t see you, but only hear your voice begging him, pleading, your voice licking his knees; you’ll loathe yourself for it, but you won’t care, if only he’d let you put up that building, you won’t care, you’ll want to rip your insides open to show him, because if he saw what’s there he’d have to let you put it up.”
Cornell should ignore such calls to stamp out creativity, ingenuity and greatness. It should open its eyes and see what’s there, and let the Office for Metropolitan Architecture “put it up.”
I Support Milstein Hall
While I understand some of the prosaic reasoning by the opposition to those who stand against the construction of Milstein Hall, please note that these criticism center mostly around the "style" of the building and the nature of the "starchitect" and do not focus on the fact the building is actually quite un-iconic in nature and is driven and planned around activities that is "student-centric". All these critics just have to understand that one can make a "nod to history" without literally reflecting it in architectural style. The styles of Sage Hall merely mirrors a blender of architectural iconic elements of the past, which symbolizes an instutition that is the Business School. The Architural Program IS an institution as well, but Architecture changes over time and I feel that the school is trying to reflect the other merits of a creative program beyond style, which is innovation, experimentation, flexibility, and poeticism as well maybe. The "nod to history", while not there stylistically, is there in the way the building is low in scale and bows down to the humongous building that is Sibley Hall. Additionally, its also evident that the Architectural Program may NOT be an Institution anymore if we dont progress soon with the construction of this building. It will inevitably lose its NAAB license due to poor facilities to house the architecture program. These comments and criticisms are driven by fear, worry, and doubt. Its especially in these dark times that the University must make a stand and a choice as to plow through go forth with its decision to build Milstein Hall for its Students and for the avant-garde Architectural Program. Because years from now, a building will only be remembered by what it can do for the specific education of its students and what it can offer for the University and the program... and NOT by how its "Style" is either "this or that". Note the comments and criticism and lets Move On as planned.
James Acuna, B.Arch (04)
Thaw Milstein Hall
As an AAP graduate, it has been amusing to watch the saga of this project unfold over the decades. However, the loss of NAAB accreditation and the resultant collapse of the College caused by this construction freeze will not only be un-amusing but tragic. The survival of the College was most recently threatened by the (failed) attempt by (former) Provost Biddy Martin to merge the College with Arts and Sciences or Engineering. Now President Skorton and the Faculty are using the ongoing recession to yet again threaten the College. Ezra Cornell's famous motto "Where any person can find study in any subject" does not exclude Art, Architecture, and Planning. Shame on my Alma Mater for compromising his vision! Do the right thing and build this much needed project!
Simple Answer to One Question
There's a simple answer to the question posed in the article as to why the College doesn't simply renovate existing facilities: space needs. Not only does the current architecture studio setup lack modern accouterments, the existing studios are simply is far smaller than the minimum square footage per student that the accreditation board expects and is ultimately demanding. I think the total College facilities have something like 40-50 gross square feet per student, maybe 60? -- I can't remember the number exactly now-- and the NAAB expects about 100 sf per student. That was back before the M.Arch. I program opened its doors. When I was in the B.Arch program 10 years ago, students were shifted into classrooms, graduate spaces and jury spaces in order to give the appearance of better studio conditions, and the Board wasn't fooled then. The only reason the truncated accreditation was renewed then was the promise of Milstein Hall was put in front of them.
For the people that are concerned about the cost of Milstein
They should realize and think about the long term consequences that NOT building Milstein Hall will have. Losing the accreditation for the programs, as has been explained in various letters and articles, will mean, basically, the complete downfall of the architecture program in Cornell. Students will transfer out, and prospective students will not apply, which means that there are around 500 students less paying tuiton every year. The new architecture building has been promised to incoming students every year - I was told I was going to graduate in the new building by 2007, when I applied back in 2002. Due to conflicts with the design, it was changed over twice during my 5 year career as a student. It IS indeed a great accomplishment to have everyone in the Architecture Dept. agree on the OMA design. I am sure that every architect within the school has a few bits and pieces to criticize the building, since we all believe we can design something better than any other architect, but overall, the new facilities are badly needed. We have been the number 1 BARCH school in the US for many years now, and having a state of the art, new architecture building designed by one of the TOP architecture offices in the world just makes sense. It will reflect the excellence of the program.
I would also like to add how the people that are against it, in a way contradict themselves. They are concerned about how costly it is now, but that it does not meet LEED platinum. Getting LEED certified costs even more money, and in the end, any LEED certification makes a successful and environmentally conscious building. In the end, it will be more efficient than a 100+ year old building, Rand Hall, in which students freeze in the winter due to its horrible energy efficiency.
The students and professors that have made this program what it is deserve a building to be proud of as soon as possible, and should not be punished by losing our accreditation just because some people do not like the aesthetics (which I think what this is truly about) of the building.