Yale Daily News

“We thought hard about that, and we understand Yale has an important architectural tradition,” Levin said. “But we also … weighted heavily someone who could appreciate residential life here over someone who could create an exterior of a building that would look radical and innovative.”

President Levin suggests that the goal of sensitive and functional architecture is incompatible with modern design. This seems as though it's a false choice--I can only hope the new SOM building is sensitive and functional (as well as being innovative). It would be a real shame if Stern designed Yale's new residential colleges to resemble the work he did at Harvard Business School.

Hmm... well, Stern is very skilled and knows Yale architecturally better than anyone. And I guess he deserves it, being the beloved Dean of the architecture school.

But he definitely is the safe choice. He will deliver functional, competence, and typical beauty at the cost of the opportunity for something truly remarkable, new, avante-garde, revolutionary. Yale's architectural legacy will not be enhanced by this decision. These will be background buildings - nice places to live that nobody who doesn't live there will think twice about. Maybe that is fine, as these are intended to accentuate Yale's residential life rather than make an architectural statement or push the state of international contemporary art forward.

But it is very, very disappointing to see Yale again and again pass up opportunities to add to and further develop the cultural legacy of this generation. It has been shown time and time again at other universities what the choice of a great architect can do for culture and for the university itself (Mies van der Rohe and Rem Koolhaas at IIT, Gehry and Holl at MIT, etcl.). Unfortunately, Yale's priorities are elsewhere. We, instead, have new colleges built in a faux-historical style to compliment the wretched boringness of the new Sculpture Building (Kieran Timberlake) and the embarassment that is the new art history building (Gwathmey Siegel). When will someone with architectural taste and vision, who won't just settle for the average & passable, take the helm at Yale?

Expect much criticism of Stern's remarks, as reported here (i.e., "Georgian with limestone highlights"), and I have to agree. While I would prefer to avoid "cutting edge" attempts (a la Stiles or, gads, A&A itself), I think that the site, distance, and goals of the new colleges lend themselves to something... different.

I liked the "alpine chateaux" style someone somewhere noted (perhaps it was an alumnus sketch?), and I do wish Yale could retain either the current SOM dining hall itself or something along those lines, understated, obscured but not obscure...comfortable.

We'll see. Anyone able to point to existing Stern designs for hints of things to come?

Contrary to Mr. Kaplan's assertion, Rogers and Saarinen were not the only architects to build colleges at Yale. John Russell Pope designed Calhoun College (which I'm told is currently under renovation).

RE: #2 Chase

Yale tried that with the Saarinen colleges. When somebody is assigned to those colleges, condolences are often in order. Would you want two more in that vein, or perhaps two more that are functional?

I also love the quick rush to call the Gwathmey building an embarrassment, without acknowledging that similar charges were levied against the neighboring A&A building (and numerous other buildings now considered non-embarrassing) when it first opened.

In a campus which has the best work of Kahn, Rudolph, Saarinen and Gwathmy, Yale has dug up the corpse of James Gamble Rogers.

#2, it should be noted that MIT actually sued Gehry a couple of years after his building was completed due to "flaws in his design."

While I agree the KT and Gwathmey buildings are poor, I think Stern is a perfect choice for the new residential colleges. If there's one thing he excels at designing, it's residences, most recently demonstrated by the success and acceptance (even by some of his critics) of 15 Central Park West. I wouldn't pick him for an Olympic stadium, but I'm completely confident he'll do a great pair of residential colleges.

Coverage by Design New Haven:

http://www.designnewhaven.com/2008/09/ramsa-selected-for-yales-600-million.html

The A&A building was criticized when it opened because it's a concrete monstrosity that should have been dynamited 10 minutes after completion.

The A & A building (now Rudolph Building) was mostly celebrated as a landmark of American architecture when it was built. It remains one of the most architecturally significant academic buildings in the United States. Whatever your personal tastes and frustrations with the building, I would suggest taking a second look, it is in many ways a brilliant building.

Certainly modernism is not without its problems, but that's no excuse for architectural reaction. Plenty of modern buildings are thoughtful, sensitive, and quite functional (they need not be as controversial or brash as the A & A building). The failures of the 60s and 70s shouldn't distract from what really is going on with selection of Stern and "traditional architecture." Like the renovation of Bass Library, this is an exercise in branding Yale College. The university is using of architecture to support the transformation of education into a consumer product. And for the consumers of an Ivy League education--students and parents--modern, avant garde architecture is scary and frequently ugly. Unfortunately, the solution to this problem seems as though it's likely to lead to some rather bland traditionalism.

I believe Pope did Silliman as well (at least the parts that weren't cobbled together from earlier buildings).

Most people are happier living in colleges designed by James Gamble Rogers than in those by Saarinien. I agree with #7.

#12 is correct, but that isn't the end of the inquiry. There is an intellectual component to modernism (along the lines of abstract expressionism) which is lacking in the historicism on which Yale gorged itself during the 1930's. It may be a little ridiculous to include her in this important discussion, but Ayn Rand had a point. Yale's periodic obsession with an alien history (i.e. it is not Oxford or Cambridge) does not flatter a world class university.

In its decision, Yale follows Princeton's lead:

http://undersideofparadise.blogspot.com/2008/09/yale-follows-princetons-lead-as-sun.html

to #5 and #12:

Just because the Saarinen colleges (Stiles and Morse) are not particularly nice places to live doesn't mean you should write off contemporary architecture altogether.

Saarinen, while occasionally a good architect, was not exactly a great, wonderful, lasting, timeless architect. Besides, in the fifty years since, architecture has come a long way.

As an analogy: would you sweat off sushi altogether because you had rotten fish at one particular restaurant, once?

The choice of Stern for the colleges and Foster for SOM is smart PR as well. A flashy, architecturally significant design can help get SOM the national and international exposure it needs. Two new colleges that are livable, architecturally harmonious (the better to integrate them into the campus, even if they are a little far), and amenity-laden will work wonders with parents about to shell out $150,000. And if they turn out to be the most expensive dormitories ever erected on an American college campus, well, that'll get Yale some press, too.