And there is the problem with the bid system. You get guy's who've do block shaped elementary school buildings.
I'm sure the building will be impressive to potential architecture students though.
Do they design baseball stadiums?
It's been compared to a pop-out camper or a juvenile detention center, a robotic, formulaic design likened to "an architectural shotgun wedding."
I'm shocked you have to be out of your fracking mind to design something this ugly and derelict of duty to approve it. If this is from the master plan Savoie stole the students money.
This was approved and budgeted by the state a long time before the student assessed fees that were recently voted for and approved.
Keep giving them hell, Mhire. An ugly building is forever... ugly. And there are many ways to make a building more aesthetically pleasing without escalating the cost. I'm not buying the accreditation argument either. But, do you really think "that design" is going to help with accreditation? I'd rather use pity for having a damaged building, than ridicule at this choice of replacement.
Gordon Brooks who is over the Architecture program was suppose to be one of the the lead liasons for the university on this project. I am suprised at the poor redesign, and hope they get it fixed.
A few architecture department professors have and will continue to work with the (state assigned) firm to get this design disaster corrected.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)