Opinion
AAP Dean Urges Milstein Construction to Move Forward
February 9, 2009 - 12:00amI did not think I would be writing an op-ed piece on Milstein Hall, and I do so with reservation. I do not want to ratchet up the rhetorical volume, which is often the unintended consequence of simply “trying to set the record straight.” But there is a pending University Faculty Senate motion advocating that Milstein Hall be put on hold to “ensure that this building addresses the current and future programmatic needs of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning, while balancing the financial constraints and sustainability objectives of the university as a whole.” My desire is to address these three areas of concern — need, funding and sustainability — so that this project can not only break ground on schedule but do so accompanied by a university-wide feeling of accomplishment in difficult times.
Programmatic Needs
Milstein Hall is the culmination of a decade-long struggle to address the College’s inadequate facilities. Several generations of AAP deans, department chairs, University presidents and provosts, and, unfortunately, architecture accreditation boards, have recognized the need for improved facilities. As designed, Milstein will provide approximately 15 studios on an open floorplate, dedicated critique space, a 275-person lecture hall and a small exhibition space. These are urgent, high priority, long-standing needs. Studio space is to an architecture student what laboratory space is to a chemistry student or what rehearsal rooms are to music students. Studio space is a teaching and learning tool, a pedagogical necessity, not merely square footage.
The building plans include upgrades to the ventilation system of East Sibley Hall, required by code, and modest alterations to Rand and Sibley Halls at the interface with the new structure. In the scope of work are improvements to the fire suppression and structural systems of the Foundry building, which are life-safety measures. The plans also include hard- and soft-scape improvements to the south of Sibley Hall, a space that currently reflects poorly on the campus image. Once completed, the whole of the AAP campus will be substantially better off than the mere sum of these alterations and additions.
Financial Constraints
Until the final construction contract is negotiated (mid-February), the cost of Milstein Hall and the associated work will not be known. The project — construction and so-called “soft costs” combined — was budgeted at $54 million. I can state, without pleasure, that this is a propitious time to build from a cost perspective, and the price will likely be under budget, in the range of $52 million or better, and not $60 million as erroneously stated last week in a letter printed in the pages of The Sun.
The University is under significant economic stress and it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about how precious funds are spent. The College is committed to funding fully 80 percent of the cost through a combination of philanthropy and borrowing. The College has established an operations and management fund to address long-term maintenance costs. The College has extremely loyal alumni and friends who have given generously in support of the building fund. But AAP is not rich and the burden is not minor. We would not invest our resources thus if we were not convinced that inadequate facilities are endangering our ability to maintain academic excellence and jeopardizing our core mission. There is no connection among tuition, financial aid and the College’s debt-service load, which will be secured by an existing College endowment dedicated to the enhancement of the architecture program.
Sustainability Objectives
There is probably no distance between the critics and the supporters of Milstein Hall with regard to sustainable building practices. No reasonable person can ignore the impact of the built environment on global climate change; by some estimates buildings consume more than 50 percent of the nation’s energy. A recent and increasingly popular means of codifying a building’s performance is the LEED program (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). LEED scores a project on a range of areas using a scale from zero to 69 points. Some areas do not apply to certain projects — points are granted for brownfield reclamation: no brownfield, no points. Points are granted for contractor practices such as recycling material from on-site demolition; such practices need to be confirmed with the contractor during the contract negotiation before points can be awarded. LEED also grants points for sustainable maintenance regimes, which are not a design feature but a facilities management issue. LEED is meaningful, but like all systems embodies certain values; points are granted for providing employee showers within 200 yards of a project. This may improve the work environment but does not measure ecological footprint or direct energy consumption of a structure.
The LEED scorecard on Milstein is still a work in progress, points are still being tallied. But the most important point to be granted is that this University, and certainly AAP, is committed to sustainable building practices.
Milstein Hall has my vote
The Architecture department needs these facilities in order to be accredited. Funds are already earmarked for construction and sustainability compliance is in process. Let us not derail it over a design approval that has already been received.
‘contextualization’ vs.‘similarity in appearance"
Dear Editor:
As an Ithaca native, an alumnus of the school of architecture at Cornell and a designer who works frequently on campus architecture, I would like to voice my strong support of Milstein Hall as a contextual design. I was in school 10 years ago and even at that time remember having student competitions to design a much needed studio building for the department. The need for modern facilities that will foster creativity and forward thinking design is the foundation for the success of the school and the student’s education. Cornell’s architectural education is continually ranked at the highest level nationally and it would be a shame if they were to lose their accreditation due to a few faculty and Alumni confusing ‘contextualization’ with ‘similarity in appearance’. Let me explain.
Recently at my local neighborhood council meeting, the topic of contextualization was discussed at length which ultimately led to the creation of “General Design Guidelines” to be applied to all future developments. This was something that could have resulted in the requisite list of appropriate paint colors, construction materials and approved ground cover selections. Instead it surprisingly resulted in the understanding of a basic premise that I believe is relevant not only to this situation but to contextualizing architecture in general.
The council argued that the styles and designs that are valued today reflect the styles that were, at the time they were built, contemporary styles. The beauty and scale of a community’s structures is the result of historic development, and reflects styles (plural) that span throughout time. Historic architecture that is perceived to be successful or “classic” today usually reflects the materials and craftsmanship that were “state of the art” when they were built. This is a very universal yet relevant assessment. Eclecticism is a product of contextualization and a result of being true to the innovation and technology of today – something that is different from yesterday and will be different from tomorrow.
There is an inherent discrepancy in an academic establishment such as a University promoting the duplication of something historic rather than fostering innovation and development. Contrary to most disciplines taught at the university, architecture is not afforded the same advancement or reverence. A scientist is expected to be forward thinking and inventive however the architect should know how to use the copy machine at Kinkos? Accurate reproductions of another person’s work lacks an ethical approach at best and typically falls flat in execution for the same reasons listed above. We don’t have the same technology, materials, skilled trades and craftsmanship we had 100 or more years ago and to readapt it for modern production will always yield an inferior result. Structures such as Lincoln or Sage Hall that have received additions or renovations to “contextualize” with the original architecture have resulted in a superficial “plastic surgery-like” recreation of the original that lacks the integrity and detail that made the original work so wonderful.
Contextualization has to do with many factors to which Milstein hall appropriately responds. As for the similarity in appearance to surrounding buildings, that would be a blatant move to weaken Cornell’s architectural history. In my opinion the campus should embrace the addition of a strong architect with a grand idea as an asset for the future history of the campus and to send a clear statement to the students of this top ranked school that innovation and new ideas are strongly supported. It was this ideal that Ezra Cornell founded the university and built the beautiful buildings atop Lib-Slope. It was this ideal that allowed the Johnson Museum to eventually sit next to them sporting a dissimilar façade but with a familiar integrity.
Sincerely,
Christopher King
Millstein Hall would be a
Millstein Hall would be a valuable asset to the university as a whole, and especially for the AAP. The spaces provided by the building are not only necessary but is also a significant opportunity for the college. It would be peculiar for it to be stopped given the comments above. It would appear from the post above that it isnt something the college should have but is one that it is necessary.
Milstein is an Ugly White Box
Milstein is another ugly white box. It will destroy the Arts Quad. Ruin the drive up University Avenue. And block the view to the gorge. ug.
The basis of your comments
The basis of your comments is essentially subjective and uneducated. The "ugly white box" that you are criticizing is the result of over ten years of design and critique, and the final result is an incredible revitalization of a space that is currently being occupied by a hideous parking lot. If you want to see something "ugly", I invite you to come to Rand Hall and experience what it is like to work there. Believe me, it is not a "nice" thing.
The Time for Talk Is Over
In short, I want to reiterate the Dean's point that Milstein is essential for the future and health of AAP at Cornell.
I will say that I have my criticism's of the OMA design, but as I've followed the progress of the design, many of my reservations have been addressed. I understand why some have issue with the very contemporary design, especially considering some poorer examples of this approach on campus in recent memory. However, to speak of the design as not being contextual ignores the the programs themselves that this facility will contain. In that respect, it is very pertinent to the campus and the programs it houses.
I am not privy to the kinds of reviews and input process the rest of the university and city were given on Milstein, so the situation may be different than the one I just got through. However, this situation reminds me of one I just got through with a critical new facility for the local government where I was involved in the design. We sought input for a year and a half, and got virtually none, at the time when we could have done the most to address people's concerns and maybe even take a different approach. This protest from the community seems to be so late in the process, that it is either a last plea or a very late start. I hope it isn't the latter.
As for the former, I think Milstein is, for better or worse, far too critical for the future of AAP at this point to deny what needs to be done. It may seem dire to say that AAP may not survive if Milstein is delayed or abandoned at this pint, but I cannot imagine another outcome when you follow what I've been following for the past 15 years. Yeah, I was more of a fan of the Barkow Leibinger design, but I think the OMA design has come a long way. I still wonder how wise it is to have floor to ceiling curtainwall facing west on the East Hill, but the peculiarities will be part of its legacy, and the modern counterpoint to the traditional architecture on the Arts Quad will hopefully be more successful than the awful schlock that adorns Lincoln and Sage Halls.
Cornell has never had the architectural distinction of many of its peers. I'm more concerned with the campus as a whole than the architectural bits and pieces that make it up, but that's to its benefit. Milstein as designed seems to have this in mind as well, stitching instead of tearing the built fabric of the North Arts Quad. Time to reap what we sew.
On Sustainability
For what this is worth, the project I mentioned that got a lot of heat at the end of its design process is planned to achieved LEED Gold. I am a little suspect of the rationalization that Milstein isn't sustainable enough because it didn't seem to help us at all. LEED has its shortcomings anyway. At the end of the day, you do what's best and not worry about your checklist and point totals.
MILSTEIN MUST BE BUILT! It
MILSTEIN MUST BE BUILT! It is essential not only to the AAP and its future standing at the top of US architecture programs but seems to define how Cornell sees it self moving into the new century. It is respectful of the existing campus and traditions while at the same time surging boldly and optimistically into the future!
Let the Architects Have Their Building.
Let the architects have their building. They know what they're doing. They're architects, remember?
The dissenters have already had ample opportunity to speak. The last thing the university needs now is a divisive and ill-reasoned motion such as this to carry. The endorsers of the letter urging a stop to construction, while understandably concerned about budget, are underestimating the consequences should their efforts succeed. The Architecture department will lose accreditation, enrollment will drop and the program ranking (not to mention income from tuition) will be diminished for years to come. Under no circumstances is this acceptable.
Furthermore, the endorsers are distressingly dismissive of University protocol, misinformed about the LEED process and willfully ignorant of current architectural trends. They see the trends they want to see and that is perhaps worst of all – their narrow, anachronistic vision for the campus.
As an alumnus, it is very disturbing to see this kind of disrespect for an entire college come from within the University. Let the architects have their building.
In favor of Milstein
I am writing as a Cornell alumna and Ithaca native to say that I am strongly in favor of OMA's design for Milstein Hall. I think it's a great design; it will make attractive and practical spaces for the students and other members of Cornell's community.
While at Cornell, I was very
While at Cornell, I was very interested in sustainability and found ways to work that into much of my studio work and electives. After graduating, I went on to become a LEED accredited professional and work at firms noted for their 'greenness', high percentage of LEED accredited professionals on staff, and LEED certified projects in their portfolio. And one thing I have learned working within the industry, something those who read glossy magazine articles on the virtues of LEED might miss, is that in many ways, we really don't know what we're doing when it comes to making buildings sustainable.
My former office designed, built, and then occupied the first LEED platinum commercial interiors project certified by the USGBC boasting 46% more efficient lighting, a 50% energy savings, and a 40% water savings, etc. What this actually meant for our day to day operations was that the dual flush toilets we'd specified always clogged (and failed to flush away debris), the shower stalls we'd retrofitted into the bathrooms to encourage commuters to bike to work led to messy puddles, we'd taped cardboard boxes over the lighting sensors in order to prevent the lights from flickering on and off on as the clouds rolled by, the mechanically-controlled exterior sunshades were nearly impossible to adjust for meetings leading to many apologies to clients and colleagues, the eco-friendly and locally sourced counter tops chosen for our kitchen began to fail within the first several months of use, the compost bin on our kitchen counter constantly filled with mold, and nearly half the office had individual space heaters at their desks to combat the breezy natural ventilation - I could go on. On the one hand, I have valuable knowledge about what products and systems to avoid in future projects, on the other hand the firm is paying for several costly and embarrassing mistakes in exchange for a little LEED platinum plaque and bragging rights. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't keep trying to build better more sustainable buildings or even improve on the LEED system. But I think it is an unfortunate reality that in order to meet higher LEED (and similar green building) standards we often turn to solutions that are untested, unnecessary, or known to fail.
In regards to Pauline Saliga's comments about the end of an era in architecture and the "breathing room" we've been granted, I'd argue that it's not only iconic 'starchitects' who make buildings bad. In November the project I'd been working on for a year and a half - a new commercial building in a brewery complex designated as a historic landmark - slowly came to a halt. And, honestly I was a bit relieved. It was never going to be an "icon" or "mega-project". Rather what started out as a contemporary building with scale and materiality sensitive to it's context, had become a series of compromises that no one actually likes - not the architects, not the developers, not the community, and not the landmarks board. It was very regrettably 'designed by committee' and I can't say I'm sad it won't be built. What I am sad about, is that that project would have employed me and many others for another couple years. And after that project went on hold, many others in my firm followed. Which in turn has led to layoffs and cutbacks and a very grim outlook for my firm and the profession in general. (I am currently employed at half of my former time and pay.) The decision to push forward with Milstein Hall has real economic consequences if it is not built and I'd urge you to consider the jobs and prospective students lost if this project is delayed and the university were to loose it's accreditation.
The debate about Milstein Hall upsets me as an alumna who made a significant personal investment in the university and my education (5 years of late nights and hard work, roughly a quarter of a million dollars in tuition and fees). And I would hate to see that investment compromised were the program to loose it's accreditation or standing.