<p>I know SEAS needs a new building, but whoever approved the atrocious design should be fired. </p>
<p>The new building does not have the classical feel of typical Columbia building, and will probably take over for Mudd as the ugliest building on campus.</p>
<p>The building’s not just for SEAS, but science in general (though apparently it’ll block the observatories on Pupin).</p>
<p>The lead architect is Jose Rafael Moneo, who has no Columbia affiliation (shocker!) but is hand picked by Bollinger.</p>
<p>Most buildings built in the 60s and after are ugly and utilitarian: Mudd, Uris, East Campus, Jerome Greene Hall, that Schapiro place, Lerner.</p>
<p>I just hope this new ugly, un-Classical building will get rid of its ugly name someday.</p>
<p>See [Northwest</a> Corner Building - WikiCU, the Columbia University wiki encyclopedia](<a href=“http://www.wikicu.com/Northwest_Science_Building]Northwest”>Northwest Corner Building - WikiCU, the Columbia University wiki encyclopedia)</p>
<p>a) moneo is pritzker prize winner.
b) the building is not supposed to evoke the MMW Beaux Arts design, but rather be sort of a harbinger toward Manhattanville.
c) with environmental concerns, building with brick is as moneo even notes a sort of travesty. it would be like using mud in the 1905 (or gothic architecture).
d) what made columbia’s campus so remarkable from 1896-1905 as it was being raised was because it was the epitome of what was modern and cutting edge, moneo’s design does the same thing.
e) it is an engineering feat in which it stands on top of levien gym 11 stories above it, without needing any new columns to be built or disrupting the gymnasium. it was a challenge that required more of an engineering twist.</p>
<p>wifey, i am sorry you don’t appreciate it, sure it is entirely too functional (like actually having cutting edged resources to keep up with the joneses is a bad idea), but it is certainly more a reflection of this engineering/architectural moment than what was in vogue 10, 20, or 100 years ago.</p>
<p>columbia is only classical because it was once modern.</p>
<p>I was recently on campus and found the NW Corner building to be very, well… attractive. I think it was the perfect architectural choice and feel it would have been an enormous mistake for Columbia to implement some new rendering of so called “classical” architecture. When you step onto campus, you of course get the vibe of “old school” education, which Columbia is famous for, where you feel like you’re part of something refined and ancient. However, the new building sets a tone that enhances the Columbia experience by assuring its students (both prospective and current) that it is up to date with all modern technology.</p>
<p>You can have modern techonology inside, with classical-look exterior. </p>
<p>Did anyone see Duke’s library extension? Their construction retains Duke’s famous gothic style on the exterior, but inside of the new building, they use modern techonology throughout.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s terrible. Columbia was always the most beautiful Ivy campus to me…I think it still is, but this big old monstrosity isn’t helping matters…first Lerner, now this. It’s a dud-a-thon at CU!</p>
<p>wifey, bostock has a significant amount of glass, and does a sort of lerner like replication thing without necessarily being 100% faithful to the gothic.</p>
<p>and you certainly can do a sort of half-job in architecture for the sake of consistency, but that is not what columbia wanted. </p>
<p>by hiring moneo they were in essence saying they didn’t want a replication.</p>
<p>so coulda-woulda-shoulda isn’t the game to play, they didn’t, and in the end i don’t mind.</p>
<p>the facilities will be what matters, it will completely reopen the northwest side of campus, with an actual entrance to campus that isn’t a gate, a new cafe and lounge area. a new science library, new labs.</p>
<p>ilovebagels, do you think it really changes the same main quad? i don’t think so, which is probably what matters most. if they blew up hamilton and replaced it with the building, then we’d be talking something else.</p>
<p>Northwestern Corner Building sits in between two beautiful classical buildings (Havemeyer ext. (or chandler) and Pupin). Why can’t they make the new building look like either one of these two to make it more consistent? </p>
<p>It just doesn’t look right to have a modernly-look building in between two classical building.</p>
<p>I think it’s a really cool super modern looking building. I love it! New York is filled with interesting juxtapositions with little churches and tenements often nestled next to office buildings. So the inconsistency with the surrounding buildings on campus is something I enjoy and look at in that vein. It adds a very nice accent to the campus.</p>
<p>And as adgeek says, what’s also really important is that it promises to open up the north end of the campus to the street and enliven it overall with the science library, cafe, etc. The comparison with Mudd is off-base – Mudd is just pedestrian and ugly, with no attention to design aesthetics that I can detect.</p>
<p>Personally, I think it looks like a giant air-conditioner.</p>
<p>Ugh, another hideous building. Don’t they realize that everyone loves the McKim buildings and not these ugly glass buildings?</p>
<p>It’s better than Mudd…</p>
<p>new aerial photo of Northwest Corner building. It just doesn’t look right… </p>
<p>[File:Columbia</a> University 001.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_University_001.JPG]File:Columbia”>File:Columbia University 001.JPG - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I <3 the McKim buildings.</p>
<p>Here’s a great piece from City Journal putting Columbia’s campus self-immolation in historical context as an inevitable conclusion of post-1968 academia. This piece is focused on, and inspired by Lerner Hall, the Columbia campus mistake of the previous decade.</p>
<p>[7_4_urbanities-now</a> theyre](<a href=“http://morningside-heights.net/cityjour.htm]7_4_urbanities-now”>7_4_urbanities-now theyre)</p>
<p>I used to be like this. I went to college wanting to be a historic preservationist. I love the classical buildings on campus. But, among other things, the fact is that it would cost far too much money to execute a building with the detailed qualities of a McKim work. Some schools can afford that. Other times you get ugly apeing (see the broadway side of Lerner) or just unwieldy and ill proportioned wastes, like CEPSR which at first glance seems like a nice modern homage to the rest of campus, but is really heavy handed and ugly once you get used to it. So rather than trying to emulate the past and only insulting it in the process, I prefer to try something new.</p>
<p>I’ve seen the new building up close, and I’m pretty happy with it. Hopefully Columbia doesn’t eff up the little details that give a place it’s soul (this is the first building Columbia has built that’s been designed with a street facing lobby and entrance. I really hope they don’t turn it into a cramped sterile military check point) and I imagine the views will be stellar from the inside.</p>
<p>Lerner is a disaster for plenty of reasons, among them that Tschumi’s theories are those of an egomaniacal jerk. I’ve studied them. I really enjoyed the Blue & White review of a book Tschumi published shortly after lerner opened: <a href=“http://www.morningside-heights.net/lerner.htm[/url]”>http://www.morningside-heights.net/lerner.htm</a> (towards the bottom of the page)</p>
<p>That being said, take morningsideheights.net with a grain of salt. Nothing would satisfy those people, and they love spending other peoples money! It’s a great source for history, but the opinion stuff gets a little out of hand :)</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_University_001.JPG]File:Columbia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_University_001.JPG%5DFile:Columbia){kind=link}
