HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 2:32 AM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Harry Weese-University of Wisconsin-Madison Humanities Building

This building is part of a pair of Weese buildings constructed on campus circa 1966-69. There are plans being discussed to demolish it to make way for a new facility.

There were some budget problems that prevented Weese from entirely realizing his vision, but the cutbacks were mostly in finishes and did not affect the basic form of the structure. To get an an idea of what this building could have been, you will see the much more richly appointed Elvejhem building in the background of the latter photos.

I apologize for the overkill, but given this building's uncertain status, I think that it deserves a rigorous documentation on the Web.

Enjoy!















Weese's pedestrian bridge.





























Weese's Elvejhem Museum building in background.














Last edited by Loopy; Jul 3, 2007 at 2:19 AM. Reason: Photo Credit: All photos by Loopy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 3:07 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Loopy, thank you so much for this awesome photo essay, and for bringing this incredible building some long-overdue recognition.

What an amazing work! What can I say? I am especially taken with the bridge. I sincerely hope that the University has second thoughts of robbing itself of a masterpiece. I also hope that people in Madison will rise to the occasion and save this work of art.

If I might suggest alerting the Midwest Chapter of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, as well as Docomomo in Chicago. They are probably aware of the issue, but it can't hurt to try.

Thanks again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 7:47 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Here's the University of Wisconsin's "public dissing" of the building and the timeframe for demolition. http://www.uwsa.edu/capbud/Capbud/07...rmanceBldg.doc

[EDIT - On second glance, I am not certain if they are discussing the same building. I am not too familiar with the campus up there... sorry.]

Also, here is a link to a hilarious anti-Brutalism essay on the Boston City Hall. He's done everything he can to make it look terrible, but I still think it looks good in the photos. I think the visual connections between Weese's UW work and BCH are pretty overt, although Pei had a lot to do with that project too, and Weese and Pei were of course close friends. http://www.waltlockley.com/boston%20...oncityhall.htm

One other thought: The top of this building looks highly similar to the top of Rapson's work at the University of Chicago. Any possible connection there? They were friends too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 7:58 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
The document you posted definitely is referring to this building. Good find.

This building and it's sibling, Vilas Hall, across the street were never loved in their time. A combination of anti-establishment values and a local mistrust of Modernism in general contributed to their poor reception.

Now that the building is going through a re-evalution, it's low suitability to purpose seems to be trumping any value it has as a seminal work of architecture. And the long history of bad-mouthing that has plagued it will likely preclude any consideration of retrofitting it to meet the current program requirements of the Music School.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 6:34 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
Interesting building, I certainly do not mind it or believe it's the worst imaginable building ever. Also, that online piece relating to Boston's city hall was insightful. I found this paragraph hilarious,
Quote:
This would have been news to the original client. The Mayor of Boston at the time, John Collins, reportedly gasped in involuntary horror when the scale model of this competition winner was unveiled in 1962. Somebody else in the room blurted out, "What the hell is that?" That's truly enthusiastic praise.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 12:24 AM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
^Thanks for taking a look at the building, BigKidD. This "brutal" form of Modernism has never really caught the public's imagination. But, I remember, as a UW student, loving crossing the bridge into this magical, almost medieval, world of columns and narrow walkways. I knew many other students who felt the same way. Unfortunately, the ruling wisdom around campus and the City of Madison, was that this building was a trainwreck that didn't deserve to exist.

Let's see if they feel that way 30 years from now.

Anyway, here is a good example of the kind of building that is considered acceptable by today's University community:



So, can they really say now that THIS is ugly?


Last edited by Loopy; Jun 10, 2007 at 12:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 2:51 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ Ah, it's nearly enough to wish one had a different career.... something has gone seriously wrong. Americans seem to have lost their understanding for most fine art - not just architecture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 6:58 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
For what it is, I think it's a good building. But I dunno, it seems like as years pass, these things don't seem to age well in terms of materiality.

What I mean by that is there are certain materials that hide the effects of neglect and weather over time. Brick for example, tends to age well, and so does limestone. They are also easier to replace when damaged. That's why its acceptable for universities to use them.

Concrete on the other hand, will require a large amount of patching, or expensive replacement. This building while it looks fine now, will look horrible 50 years down the road. Do realize how ugly all the patchwork will be? What's going to happen if one of those reinforced concrete colums or beams gets water infiltration? The building will lose its intended appearance.

Don't misunderstand me. I love this building, but I just wanted to raise the question.

This point doesn't justify its demolition, but it does raise the question of its ongoing maintenance. How much are they willing spend to actually preserve it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 3:11 PM
LyndaleHoosier LyndaleHoosier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 117
Hey...not all new university acrchitecture is crap...

Check out Simon Hall at Indiana...

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 4:10 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
For what it is, I think it's a good building. But I dunno, it seems like as years pass, these things don't seem to age well in terms of materiality.

What I mean by that is there are certain materials that hide the effects of neglect and weather over time. Brick for example, tends to age well, and so does limestone. They are also easier to replace when damaged. That's why its acceptable for universities to use them.

Concrete on the other hand, will require a large amount of patching, or expensive replacement. This building while it looks fine now, will look horrible 50 years down the road. Do realize how ugly all the patchwork will be? What's going to happen if one of those reinforced concrete colums or beams gets water infiltration? The building will lose its intended appearance.

Don't misunderstand me. I love this building, but I just wanted to raise the question.

This point doesn't justify its demolition, but it does raise the question of its ongoing maintenance. How much are they willing spend to actually preserve it?
I'm not sure I agree. Leave anything alone for 50 years, and it is going to look pretty bad.

It's true that brick buildings are easier to make look "decent" by tuckpointing, but to actually keep them exactly as intended (repointing) isn't a cheap process by any means. The general public tends to be very forgiving of incorrect brick masonry.

There are people out there who do excellent concrete repair jobs. It's a kind of myth that concrete must be painted and that patches will always look bad (witness Weese's poor correctional center in Chicago as an example of the myth perpetuating).

I agree that exposed, traditional concrete has serious problems as a material. But one of the most major issues is its novelty, and relative newness as a historic material, meaning that there is an absence of knowledge out there on its maintenance. I think if it were something that were 1) respected and 2) more prevalent / older, we would find that routine upkeep and maintenance come much more in line with brick. After all, it's a pretty cheap material, unlike, say, that expensive piece of stone you have to replace and rehang.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 3:54 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
^ I know it's not cheap. I just finished a $50 million masonry restoration, that took 2 years. But at least it didn't require ripping down entire walk sections. It was alll piece by piece, and the difference is hardly noticeable.

What I hope is that the university, if dedicated to preserve this building, would actually do so through constant maintenance. Not a whole lot of universities are willing to do that. Seriously. I worry that there would be sloppy patchwork to just temporarily fix the problem if no long term solution is present.

I'm still waiting to see some outstanding patchwork or replacement that isn't distracting. If people have examples, please post.

Last edited by Rizzo; Jun 11, 2007 at 3:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 1:47 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ There have been some very, very good ones here in Chicago. The old BCBS building on Wacker has had patching done, and they matched not only the color but the brushed concrete look too. Marina City has had work done on some of the balconies. Unity Temple also comes to mind - and that was actually a rather strange Shotcrete job done back sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, I believe.

I am trying to think of other ones. There actually are quite a few good jobs out there - you just don't notice it because they were done really well! I can think of quite a few others that were done to top-notch standards, but unfortunately they were always painted concrete, so it doesn't really illustrate the point as well. But even on the painted ones, with bad patching you would expect to see changes in texture, depth, or some other indication that work had been done.

The trick to doing excellent concrete repair work is to analyse the material very closely, and then to match those material properties as closely as possible. Similar to how a top-notch brick masonry repair would match not only the mortar color, but the strength of the mortar, the sand that went into it, the type of mortar joint, etc. It's a very tedious process to get started, and not too many owners or contractors are enlightened enough to put up with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 4:03 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
I can't believe this building has its own thread. I thouhgt I'd put this one in the ulgy buildings thread.

Honestly though, its one of the more entertaining buildign on camps, it can look real nice at night with lit glass in the roof and exotic windows. A lot of the building was very forward thinking, with clear, unpaned glasswork and some stone too. its like the little deformed orphan that no one loves and that makes me more fond of it.

However, the building is a disaster on the inside and a pain in the ass to get around in. It sohuld be knocked down, but mroe infill cr*p will replace it.

[QUOTE=Loopy;2887873]Anyway, here is a good example of the kind of building that is considered acceptable by today's University community:/QUOTE]

Isn't it horrible, at least there is actually going to be a semblance of a wall in Madison now. However, the city is sh*t for urban planning. With all the new constrcution the university is doing, none of it is big enough and all of it is backward. So many buidings like Hummanities and Ogg were built with the future in mind, now we get cr*p.

I got so pissed, i designed my own masterplan for the SE dorm rennovations and campus development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
^ Ah, it's nearly enough to wish one had a different career.... something has gone seriously wrong. Americans seem to have lost their understanding for most fine art - not just architecture.
Americans never had it.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 8:24 PM
Mr Roboto Mr Roboto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chi 60616
Posts: 3,577
Its not a bad looking building from the outside, especially in the pics. But it is brutal, and an extreme bitch to navigate. The inside has cramped hallways, is cold and dark, and very illogically set up. Some floors are accesible in one stairway wing, and not in another. It is not a comfortable place to work in or attend classes.

Basically, its never been loved at that school. Ive always thought its cool looking from the outside though, as well as its sister, Vilas Hall. Meanwhile, UW-madison builds a lot of ugly buildings lately, but they cant help it. The city hasn't fared too much better either. Anyways, I miss that school, thanks for posting Loopy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 11:43 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
I think brutalism isn't given it's proper credit. Granted, it did often give developers and university's excuses to skimp off on mediocre buildings, but there are also many beautifully thoughtful brutalist works out there. One just needs to look at this kind of architecture by eyes that don't swoon to shiny blue glass or victorian detail. Brutalism is the modern art of architecture, not everyone will get it, but those who do will be rewarded.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 1:09 AM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndaleHoosier View Post
Hey...not all new university acrchitecture is crap...

Check out Simon Hall at Indiana...
Architecturally, I'm not so sure it's notable.

Anyway, you have to understand that most Universities in the US don't have the best limestone quarries in the country pretty much down the street...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:47 AM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
A sketch of the finished Simon Hall.



A like it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2007, 8:57 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Here is a nice essay on the building that someone recently sent me. It is no longer available online, so no link.

Quote:
The Capital Times
HUMANITIES BUILDING A PRODUCT OF MODERNIST MOVEMENT OF 1960S

Date: Saturday, July 2, 2005
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: ALL
Page: 9A
Type: Column
Column: GUEST COLUMN

Byline: Arnold R. Alanen

Recent comments about the G.L. Mosse Humanities Building in The Capital Times make an important contribution to the public discourse that should accompany decisions about the fate of this much-maligned structure.

Given the pejorative terms ascribed to Humanities as justification for its razing, it is noteworthy that previous campus planners wished to demolish several buildings now regarded as UW icons: Washburn Observatory, Education ("very unsafe"), University Club ("world's worst rat hole"), Red Gym ("obsolete"), and Dairy Barn ("extreme fire hazard").


Humanities may not be in the same design league as the above buildings, but it is a step above the other architecturally bland, poorly constructed campus structures of the 1960s-70s -- the Peterson Office and Extension buildings, Ogg Hall, Weeks Hall, and so forth. Humanities has many shortcomings, including its maze-like internal organization and lack of architectural embellishments, but the building also represents the application of Modernist design principles as interpreted by two sophisticated practitioners of the movement: European-trained campus architect Leo Jakobson and Chicago architect Harry Weese, one of the nation's leading Modernist designers.
In 1959, Jakobson called for a campus based on "the advanced architectural thinking of the day," a campus that would embrace a synthesis of architecture, landscape architecture and urban design. To carry out this mission, Weese was selected to design a section of the "South Lower Campus" district that accommodated Humanities.

Weese immediately grappled with a key problem: "How much building can be put in a given amount of land without destroying values of the surroundings as well as causing congestion and loss of amenity?" Unlike many Modernists, who seldom considered context or history, Weese sought to develop a design that would "co-exist happily" with the nearby Wisconsin Historical Society and the buildings flanking Bascom Mall.

His proposal considered the ratio of required floor area space to the height and mass of the new building, resulting in a rectangular, block-like structure. Since the UW units housed in Humanities -- art, history and music -- had such significant space demands, the building footprint covered much of the block between University Avenue and State Street. Had a tower block been built instead, the linear shaft of space and sense of scale that define the eastern side of Park Street would not exist today.

Funding limitations unfortunately eliminated many design details that Weese proposed for the building, including the application of plaster on bare concrete surfaces, the construction of stone entrances, and the installation of interior carpeting. The more elegant amenities that distinguish the privately funded Elvehjem (now Chazen) Museum of Art, also designed by Weese, indicate how Humanities might have avoided acquiring its infamous nom de plume: "Inhumanities."

Many Modernist structures are difficult to love, especially "Brutalist" buildings such as Humanities. Modernist environments, in fact, are disappearing throughout the nation. This is not a unique phenomenon; other design periods have been neglected and even despised some 40 years after their heyday.

Recognizing that the vicissitudes of fashion and taste can result in the sudden removal of signature buildings, Gordon Orr, the erudite campus architect of the 1970s and 1980s, gave "first priority" status to 18 historic and contemporary UW structures in 1978. Orr identified these buildings as having "a high degree of architectural or historical integrity and whose retention is essential." Included in that group was Humanities.

I myself much prefer the Revival-style buildings that define the UW of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but I feel that large universities should retain the best examples of major design styles represented on the campus. These buildings and their associated landscapes serve as landmarks that link generations of students to one another and to the university, and they represent and symbolize the ideas and events that have influenced a campus over time.

Ideally, the interior of Humanities would be reconfigured, refurbished and renovated to accommodate new functions and activities. Although this will require considerable investment, so too will the monetary and material costs associated with the demolition of such a solid building. But since it appears that Humanities will be removed in the future, I offer two modest proposals to precede its demolition: offering guided tours that give information about Modernist design and organizing a symposium that features the experiences and events associated with the building, along with discussions about campus design issues.

* Farewell, Humanities Building! You may have not realized all of the ambitious goals put forth at your genesis, but thank you for reminding us of the intellectual fervor, excitement, turmoil, experimentation, and chaos of the 1960s, a most eventful era in campus history.


Arnold R. Alanen is a faculty member in the Department of Landscape Architecture. He has taught historic preservation and cultural landscape courses at UW-Madison for three decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2007, 9:01 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Heres another one:

http://www.nationaltrust.org/Magazin.../mj06essay.htm

Quote:
Embracing the Brute
A much-reviled architectural style has its admirers.

Essay By ANNE MATTHEWS

Since 1969, the George L. Mosse Humanities Building has housed the departments of history, music, and art at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. I all but lived there as an undergraduate in the 1970s, but now that this seven-story hulk of rough limestone and unfinished concrete is slated to be turned into rubble, I am trying to be sorry.

Although it stretched a full city block, Humanities, as it is known for short, had no main door. I remember the exterior being as gray as Madison's winter skies, the interior menacing and incoherent, a Piranesi maze of low, sunless corridors, cell-like offices, unventilated art studios rich in toxic fumes, and music practice rooms with miserable acoustics. The inmates who attended classes there called the place "Inhumanities." It dripped and grew moss, and its designer seemed to have scorned ventilation and storage space. It also grabbed and shook you on a daily basis: Even when you felt most lost, most trapped, you never forgot you were wandering inside a gigantic work of art.

The medieval historian William Courtenay has taught in that space for 36 years. "I have longed for the demolition of the Humanities Building," he says, "and only my sense of civil responsibility kept me from helping initiate the process." His colleague Philip Hamilton has spent years breathing the fumes as Art Department chair. "I do have a lot of bad memories from teaching there," he says, "yet I still think the building should be preserved and a creative, adaptive reuse found for it."

The university thinks not. As Alan Fish, the associate vice chancellor for facilities planning and management, explained at a recent planning meeting, "I don't usually say demolish, but it's so much fun with the Humanities Building." It is scheduled to be razed sometime in the next two decades so that a new arts district on the east end of campus can be created. Official sketches display well-mannered towers, and practical shoeboxes bland as buttermilk.

Humanities is a classic example of the architectural style known as brutalism, which championed massive block forms and raw concrete, or béton brut, as best realized in Le Corbusier's thrillingly unfinished Marseilles housing block, Unité d'Habitation, started in 1947. From the 1950s to the '70s, brutalism sought to make buildings plain, but also understandable. Naked pipes snaked along bare corridors, and loading docks trumped grand entrances. A brutalist structure typically was constructed by pouring concrete into a wooden form; when the form was removed, the rough patterns of the wood were proudly visible on the concrete walls—often the only ornament on the building. "No mystery, no romanticism, no obscurities about function and circulation," exulted the British critic Reyner Banham, who is often credited with coining the term brutalism.

For more of this essay, look for the May/June 2006 issue on newsstands or e-mail us to purchase a copy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2007, 10:35 PM
blockski blockski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 269
Ah, the inhumanities building. A lovely sight for this Wisconsin alum.

I personally very much like the exterior aesthetics of Humanities. It's far better than a lot of the hastily constructed crap from the 60s.

Unfortunately, Humanities is functionally obsolete. The departments stationed there need more space, and many were never given enough space to begin with. How, exactly, should an art department function when it has no gallery space? Even if the galleries were there, you'd still have to find them. I spent 15 minutes wandering hallways and stairwells trying to find a professor's office once.

Furthermore, the building's condition has deteriorated rapidly. There's lots of water damage, deteriorating concrete, as well as functionally obsolete classrooms that lack the needed IT connections, projectors, etc.

I'd agree with one of the opinion pieces posted: Ideally, money could be invested in the building, reconfiguring the horrible interior to better serve the building's tenants, while preserving this great example of brutalist architecture. However, given the fiscal realities, as well as the pressing needs for more space, demolition is far more likely.

I haven't yet seen anything more than rough concepts for what would replace Humanities. Furthermore, Weese's LVM museum (now the Chazen Museum, a far more functional building) will remain, preserving at least a piece of that architectural style.

However, the average student trying to take notes while dodging a steady stream of drips from the ceiling during a class sure won't miss it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.