<< Front page Commentary December 12, 2003

Critique of OC Science Center

To the Editors:

In response to Ben Newhouse’s article commending the Science Center, I wish to say that the building could have been so much more. While a new multidisciplinary science facility was much-needed, the design delivered all the program requirements in a bland and uninspired package.

We have the lecture halls, classrooms, offices, labs, common area, library and even the NMR equipment the College and the science departments desired, but none of the aesthetic and environmental considerations that would have made it a building worth preserving in the long-term future.

I have the same reaction to the Science Center as students must have had upon the completion of, say, East. With the new Science Center the lowest common denominator has been attained for at least the seventh time in the architectural history of North Campus. Surely Kettering was nothing wonderful, but I daresay neither is this.

First, I feel it is important to dredge up the complaint that while the College invested in sustainability with the Lewis Center for Environmental Studies on South Campus, it eschewed all green methods with the Science Center. The design approach taken toward the Science Center showed us that the reputation boost the College received from the Environmental Studies building is more a testament to the dedication of David Orr than to the ideology of the institution.

While the Lewis Center offers an almost neutral environment, the materials used in the Science Center have driven at least one chemically sensitive student away ailing. Even as an important campus artery, the main north-south corridor is excessively spacious for a climate-controlled space.

It is interesting to look at Middlebury College’s Bicentennial Hall when considering the success of the Oberlin Science Center. Designed by Payette Associates at the same time that firm was working on the Oberlin building, Bicentennial Hall had similar programmatic aims to be a campus centerpiece uniting all the sciences in one 220,000 square-foot mega-building while inviting humanities students in to study. But while Middlebury received a handsome building with a historical revival look worthy of Robert A.M. Stern, the largest use of green-certified timber in an American academic building and superior insulation, Oberlin delighted in a brute force effort with aluminum spiky things for architectural accents.

An architect who was with Payette at the time told me that he definitely had the impression that the Middlebury project received more attention than the Oberlin project at the firm. Buildings like the forthcoming Biological Sciences Building at Clark University have shown that green building strategies in an academic science facility need not cost considerably more than conventional methods in a comparable building if environmental goals are pursued from the start of the project. For what it is worth, the Middlebury building cost twenty million dollars less than ours.

Environmental concerns aside, the Science Center is at best ugly, were it daring enough to be ugly. I doubt the vaguely nostalgic vertical wood chair rails, office building color scheme and, again, those gratuitous metal spikes have caused anyone’s heart to leap. The days of stiflingly generic academic buildings are upon us.

At least there is a nice view of Finney from the Biology 214 lab. Most classrooms are without windows, the swiveling chairs in Craig Lecture Hall are too far from the desktops and some teaching benches lack electrical outlets. Offices are positioned so chemistry professors either look down on the Commons like jailors or out onto the mess of aluminum points.

As some leakage incidents have already proven, the position of the science library immediately below chemistry labs maybe not be ideal. Simple considerations such as covered bicycle storage against the building would have been far more considerate gestures to the community than the excessively wobbly study tables in the Commons.

And if the clumsy connection to the Wright Physics Laboratory on the second floor is someone’s idea of physical unification of science disciplines, that someone could use a little more Andy Shanken in his curriculum.

The nocturnal lights John Scofield mentioned are actively interfering with the Astronomy Department’s ability to see stars from the Peters Observatory.

The most telling detail of the building is the awkward handrail that extends from the bottom of the Craig Lecture Hall staircase to the exterior windows of the Commons. Look for it.

New technology for teaching seems to be a large part of the building’s appeal for professors; however, it should be said that Microsoft PowerPoint is often counterproductive to teaching, especially when complex biological systems are the subject.

If a professor takes time to draw a diagram, he highlights the important aspects and students know how to draw the structures themselves in notes and on tests. Computer-generated textbook representations flashed briefly help no one, nor do slide-in word effects. Pen or chalk-in-hand keeps the pace reasonable and the channels of information open. And, science faculty, your drawing is fine. Really, there is no need to apologize.

I am glad professors have found the facility to be beneficial to their work and that the new Science Center has been successful in attracting students such as myself on the admissions end.

All my gripes said, I hope that with future projects such as the new student housing on Union Street and the next phase of the Art complex, the College will pay more attention to the aesthetic quality standards set by Cass Gilbert early last century and the sustainability precedent set by Orr and McDonough in more recent history. We can do better; we have before. See you in the David Love Lounge.

Tom Anderson-Monterosso
College sophomore

   

A note to our subscribers: Our subscription list was deleted.
Please help us reconstruct it. (Read on...)