OPINION & EDITORIAL
Plans risk injuring Madison’s image
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Rossmeissl:
- Trolley proposal deserves thought (May 1, 2007)
- U.S. should re-evaluate free trade agreements to improve economy (April 24, 2007)
- High quality city inspires progress (April 17, 2007)
- Comic relief important in movies (April 9, 2007)
- Shout outs harbor hatred (March 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Master Plan embraces unique architecture (September 14, 2006)
- Campus growth must preserve green space (September 11, 2006)
- Unleash the neutrality (October 11, 2007)
- Evolution not about free speech (March 17, 2005)
- Creationism not sound science (November 11, 2004)
by Rob Rossmeissl
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Who says that you can’t modernize without sacrificing character? The University of Wisconsin-Madison campus seems to be, from my amateur viewpoint, an eclectic mix of opposing architectural philosophies put into practice. While I would never claim to be well versed in theories of building design, it hardly requires a professional eye to observe, for instance, the disparity between Bascom Hall and nearby Van Hise Hall. Although such structural differences may seem awkward, this type of contrast is what defines the UW campus. With this in mind, a thought struck me recently, as I walked through the cavernous halls of the soon-to-be-demolished Humanities building: although a first-class university must constantly renew and modernize itself, the UW’s impending campus reconstruction plan goes far beyond necessity, ruthlessly altering the campus to the point where it may no longer be recognizable.
Originally a sole product of 19th and early 20th-century architecture, the UW campus, after a long period of complacency, eventually faced the need for drastic expansion during the mid-20th century, as the baby-boomer generation began to arrive on campus. Before long, the popular building styles of the 1960s began to appear around Madison. Structures such as Ogg Hall (built in 1965), Van Hise Hall (built in 1965) and the Humanities building (built in 1966, and rumored as having been designed with consideration for student protests) complimented existing buildings, adding character to the UW campus through the sometimes bland but nonetheless distinct designs of their era. The Madison campus, in effect, became a product of two polar-opposite conceptual periods, making it the unique architectural hodgepodge that it is today. Unfortunately, soon the UW as it is currently known will cease to exist.
There is hardly a person affiliated with the UW who wishes for it to contentedly wither away and fall behind other modern universities. However, rather than carefully renovating and modernizing it, the plan to reconstruct the campus — already underway with the building of two new dormitories — will effectively eliminate an era of architecture, almost pretending that an important chapter in history was never written.
The conceitedly titled “Master Plan” for the UW campus outlines ambitious actions that include knocking down the Humanities building, Ogg Hall, Van Hise Hall, the Peterson building, the Psychology building, University Square Mall and a slew of other buildings within the next few years. Essentially, anything mildly reminiscent of the 1960s will soon be gone. It seems that the idea of remodeling buildings rather than demolishing them was not even considered by the authors of this “Master Plan,” which will eradicate the UW’s character and create a world of generic and homogenous Grainger Halls.
Perhaps the most absurd aspect of the UW campus reconstruction plan is the haste with which action will be taken. As it attempts to correct what it considers the errors of the hurried 1960s-era campus reconstruction, the “Master Plan” will be executed just as quickly as its predecessor. Maybe I sound naíve, but it seems to me that this massive, accelerated operation is very likely to eventually require a correction similar to that which the campus is supposedly about to undergo. Ironically, as it ignores the history that it is about to eliminate, the “Master Plan” is repeating the very mistakes used as its justification.
In order to attract the brightest students and faculty, it is essential that Wisconsin’s premier University constantly take action to modernize and compete with similar institutions. However, in taking such a sweeping action as the current plan for reconstruction, the UW is losing touch with its own identity. Rather than employing a moderate approach of considerate restoration and renovation, the University is choosing to destroy and rebuild a huge portion of the campus, compromising its unique character. The “Master Plan” will not only repeat past mistakes, but it will destroy much of the UW’s rich history.
Rob Rossmeissl (writerossy@writeme.com) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 8:27am):
As much as I hate the Humanities Building, having spent many years in it, I must admit that it is unique and without compare. And yes, I would take it over Grainger Hall any day.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 10:01am):
The Humanities building is terrible for so many reasons though. It's ugly and it was designed to keep protester's from organizing.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 10:22am):
That's a myth. Humanities was designed and built before any significant war protests on campus.
While we're at it, there are no sniper posts on the roof, either.
The Red Gym however (or the Armory as it is also known), WAS built during a time of widespread rioting in many urban centers around the country.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 11:44am):
"Who says that you can't modernize without sacrificing character?" WILEY!
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 12:06pm):
"That's a myth."
Oh really...
http://www.housing.wisc.edu/Student_Orgs/crc/tours/nbrs.humanities.html
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 12:15pm):
The myth is that Humanities was designed to prevent a bomb attack.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 12:21pm):
"Oh really...
http://www.housing.wisc.edu/Student_Orgs/crc/tours/nbrs.humanities.html"
That's incorrect. Show me where there were riots or student uprisings that would warrant specific building styles during Humanities' design pre-1965.
The stairways and hallways are no more narrow than most other campus buildings.
The reason that there are no entrances on the first floor is because the first floor is UNDERGROUND. And, in fact, if you descend into the first floor courtyard from the second floor (ground floor) you can access the first floor.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 6:55pm):
The urban legend about Humanities is that they built it upside-down. Check it out!!
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 6:56pm):
Isn't Communications the real "Fortress Modern" building from the protest era?
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 7:12pm):
"Rather than employing a moderate approach of considerate restoration and renovation, the University is choosing to destroy and rebuild a huge portion of the campus, compromising its unique character."
Apparently you've been missing some of the articles in your won paper about this subject. It would cost far more to remodel and renovate buildings like Van Hise (with all its safety and building code problems) and Humanities than it would to completely start over.
Anonymous (March 15, 2005 @ 7:13pm):
sorry, that should say "own", not "won"
Kari (December 6, 2005 @ 3:45pm):
I love this article. I've had many of the same thoughts myself and will miss the campus after the 'Master Plan' is completed.
