Building designs betray MSU style
(Last updated: 10/27/09 7:24pm)MSU has a reputation for having a beautiful campus and, for the most part, this reputation is well deserved. In “MSU Shadows,” our alma mater, we Spartans sing of our campus’ “ivy-covered halls.”
Dan Faas
But a lot of this reputation, in my mind, has to do with the sheer size of our campus. When we sing “ivy-covered halls,” we’re clearly not talking about Holden Hall or the Communication Arts and Sciences Building or the Cyclotron. And although MSU has some strikingly beautiful areas, MSU also houses some architectural atrocities.
Look, I am no architect. I’ve never studied architecture, and I definitely don’t possess the skills necessary to be one. I can’t even build a solid gingerbread house.
But I do like and admire architecture, as much as an unschooled 20-something can. And like anyone, I have my personal tastes and opinions of aesthetics. The goal is not to offend anyone here.
But I really cannot stand the Hannah Administration Building. Can you imagine it covered with ivy? Gross. That brutalist behemoth of a building is the definition of repugnant. Sitting along the Red Cedar River like a big loaf of steel and concrete, it seems to mock me by saying, “Beauty be damned!”
It’s like the architects designing it gave up on anything resembling love or hope or happiness — all feelings conspicuously absent from my mind whenever I look at it or step inside.
But before I get too carried away, let me explain myself. My construction contemplations have been fueled by two recent developments — the looming demolition of Morrill Hall and the forthcoming erection of the new Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum.
I, like many MSU students, always have had a spot in my heart for Morrill Hall, the creaky old building that houses the history, English and religious studies departments. Dedicated in 1901 as the first residence hall for women, Morrill Hall has been the location for several of my classes, and I’ve felt there are few better places to study history or old literature than in a building that’s brimming with history itself.
But I’m a realist. I’m not arguing that Morrill Hall needs to stick around — it’s a miracle it survived this long. Rather, I’m lamenting the fact that it likely won’t be replaced with anything as beautiful or significant.
There’s almost no chance that its replacement will be built in the same neoclassical style, which will further add to the increasingly patchy architectural style on campus and further detract from MSU’s beauty.
Many of what we now consider to be our treasures likely weren’t intended to be looked at a century later as historic landmarks. The Richardsonian Romanesque buildings that make up Laboratory Row are considered to be real treasures, though when they were built, they were meant to serve no greater purpose than basic lab work. And quite a few of MSU’s beautiful buildings of the past were burned down, many of them purposefully, to make way for newer, more modern structures midway through the 20th century.
Which brings me to the Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum, MSU’s newest architectural foray. The university held a competition to select who would design the building, and we all know that nothing brings out the crazies more than an “artistic” competition.
London-based architect Zaha Hadid won, beating out other entries from firms with wacky names such as Coop Himmelb(l)au — no, that’s not a typo, some people really are that pretentious — and Morphosis.
The others looked more like choking hazards than buildings in which to hold fine art, but Hadid won by going with the “bizarre trapezoids” strategy.
The Broads can do whatever they want with their money, and I can’t stop them. But what does that say about MSU’s future when its newest building — described as “iconic” by MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon — looks more like the USS Enterprise than an art museum?
I realize that art is subjective and everyone has their personal tastes, but MSU shouldn’t pretend it cares more about its historic buildings than the hip styles and vogue architects of the moment.
Perhaps it only would be fair to change our alma mater’s words from, “Flushing deep and softly paling o’er ivy-covered halls,” to, “Trading old and charming buildings for parking lots and shopping malls.”
Maybe a century from now, after post-postmodernistic architecture has become passé, some other dimpled student will opine in The State News his sadness about the impending demolition of the Hannah Administration Building to build a jet pack landing strip. That’s fine, he can whine just like I’m whining now.
But seriously, if there was ever a building worthy of demolition, it’s that one.
Dan Faas is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at faasdani@msu.edu.
Originally Published: 10/27/09 7:24pm
SteveL
10/27/09 10:47pmI agree with you Dan in regards the art museum. I just can’t believe that they would put such a pile of steel where they want to put it. It is absolutely out of place. It looks like a UFO landed on North campus. Coming down Grand River it looks like a pile of junk waiting to be picked up by sanitation. Unbelievable. Seems like such a waste of money for what we are getting. So much for campus planning.
Agreed
10/27/09 11:37pmexcellent op-ed
HAM
10/28/09 7:51amI’d be surprised if it’s actually built. It’s too small of an area to house any building of decent size.
Student
10/28/09 9:13amWhile I agree with some of what you’ve said, i think its very important to thank Eli and Edythe Broad for their very generous donation to MSU. We greatly appreciate it!
FYI
10/28/09 10:18amI agree that the Hannah Admin building is quite ugly. However there is a reason for it. At the time when it was in the design/construct phase, the country was in political turmoil. There was a war going on, there were students protesting, and there were students killed protesting at Kent State in Ohio. The Admin building follows the tradition of many gov’t buildings constructed during the same era… large, looming and intimidating. It was meant to look like a fortress to discourage violent protest of the administration (government).
So we are left with a hulking behemoth of a building along a scenic portion of the river.
Oh well.
Kdel
10/28/09 10:22amIf they would put the Broad Museum on the other side of campus (where it would “fit” with the likes of the Chemistry building, etc. or, better yet, near the Wharton Center) I would have no problem with it. After making the parking ramp fit in on the old part of campus (and did a beautiful job), you would think they would realize what a sore thumb this museum will be. While they are at it, they should take down that Student Services building, it looks out of place too! Come on people, let’s look at the big picture, this campus is large and we can spread the “beauty” around, let’s just keep it coherent.
N.D.
10/28/09 12:07pmI could go either way with what Dan wrote. While I agree that there are many eyesores around this campus, there are plenty of breathtaking buildings as well. However, Dan is right when it comes to just tearing down beautiful old buildings and replacing them with ugly ones, or worse, parking lots. Unfortunately, that has happened in a town near where I live because of a lot of fires. But it shouldn’t happen here.
...View full comment »
tedman
10/28/09 2:34pmLeave those modern designs for the corporate world. I say MSU should stick with the neoclassical style.
ZT
10/28/09 3:47pmI agree with most of what everyone is saying. The only problem with Morill is it is cost prohibitive…. or so I hear.
I believe there were articles a few years ago that it was more money to fix it, bring it up to codes, retrofit blah blah than to tear down and build new.
When that day comes, I hope the new building fits in.
Another option I have seen is saving the outer walls, and rebuilding the insides brand new. I have seen this done with old school and court buildings, and its very cool.
jrmsu
10/28/09 6:46pmVery well written. As a lifelong East Lansing resident and 1975 MSU grad, I’d like to see those ivy covered buildings like Morrill preserved and any new structures should be designed to fit in.
food for thought
10/29/09 12:52pmIf there’s enough disapproval for this building, why don’t you complain to the MSU presidents & do something about it? Hadid has known to do that kind of work all over the world. If communities want solutions that are more contextual, why don’t the students & residents round up & petition for a new competition? There are many dollars at stake.
go to harvard
10/29/09 1:49pmYes some of the building built post WW2 are not as attractive as older buildings on campus. However, I would rather have some ugly less expensive building and less expensive tuition. If you want all your building to please the eye go to Harvard and fork over 60,000 a year.
identity; disjointed
10/29/09 2:13pmSoapboxing aside; this architecture critique is just another example of the interplay between boards, commitees, donors, and benefactors. Certainly MSU has a defined building and grounds council governing styles of architecture to be acceptable for MSU’s campus plan (and I bet it requires a red brick in the facade) – have they gone soft?
...View full comment »
Zach
10/29/09 3:13pmI don’t think it really matters anyway. Michigan State is still going to suck and Dan will still wear green t-shirts. The world will keep spinning and other universities and college campuses on the for front of design and education will move on ahead. Meanwhile MSU and the rest of the over rated Big Ten(11) will be talking about how good things used to be.
common sense
10/29/09 6:01pmPeople always like things later. The Eiffel Tower and Space Needle were both ugly when built.
What I don’t like is that Morrill will get destroyed. Come on, it’s history. I wish they’d renovate the hell out of it and keep the brick like some kind of facade instead of destroying one of the few buildings that keeps us differentiated from a 10 year old community college.
Townsend
10/29/09 9:56pmNo, “go to Harvard”, I’ve got a better idea: why don’t you drop out (which I’m sure you’re close to doing) and enroll in community college where you would have ugly buildings, low tuition and a place that will nurture your infantile mind…
… btw, I still refuse to believe Morrill can’t be saved — it amazes me people like Dan just go along with the powers that be and drink the Morrill Kool-Aid they’re selling…
… I was in Lancaster, PA recently in it’s convention center which is made up of the facade of a 150 year-old department store.
...View full comment »
Badvibe
10/30/09 5:50amFor someone with lack of knowledge and any desire to understand the current state of world or American architecture, you provide amazingly strong and ignorant views. Admittedly you say this is your personal taste, but you talk about architecture as if its main purpose should be pleasing you personally. The nostalgic view of âhistoric architectureâ you have presented is more in tune with Uncle Charles across the Pound.
...View full comment »
Townsend
10/30/09 1:40pmBadvibe,
you make a lot of sense and are absolutely right when you say: a college campus, particularly an international-class university like MSU, should absolutely push the bounds of architecture when it comes to seeking the daring and the cutting edge, … the Broads selected both Hadid and the design for this very purpose… The Dan Faas’ and other students (seemingly a majority, if you go by this board) are an embarrassment for MSU — they have little artistic or architectural understanding and are very closed minded.
...View full comment »