Average Joe revolted by Scully, other new architectural 'masterpieces'

With Princeton in the midst of one of the largest building booms in its history, we can now cite such famous architects as I.M. Pei and Robert Venturi as contributors to our campus culture. We must live and work in their creations, but I have concerns with the appropriateness of the buildings that they are providing for Princeton.

I recently saw a sketch of the new Wallace building — an edifice of sleek glass, surrounded by concrete or stone. I have heard descriptions of the new Frist Center, which is to have a rear covered in glass. I have examined Scully from the outside and cannot figure it out for the life of me. My conclusion is that the architects guiding the future aesthetic of Princeton may not be designing buildings that "fit in."

That statement is very ambiguous because "fit in" has many implications. Sure, the new buildings probably look great to the architecturally educated person. That person knows what goes with what by architectural standards. But are those standards what Joe Princeton sees as he traverses campus? I think not. As I look at Scully, I don't see anything better than Butler, and I wonder if our campus is being used as a laboratory supplement to the architecture textbooks available.

There are essentially two major reasons for the new architecture to correspond better with its existing gothic counterparts: aesthetic beauty and campus unity. By aesthetic beauty, I mean that it should look nice. This may be a dictation of my personal tastes, but I really don't like Scully — it just doesn't appeal to me.

Probably one of the reasons I don't like certain buildings on campus is that they don't contribute to the unity of the campus, which plays off of aesthetic beauty. I don't know what the architectural merits of the Architecture Building are; when everything is said and done, though, the building doesn't look right straddled by stately McCosh and traditional 1879 Hall. This may be an attitude of ignorance, for I am neglecting to consider how it completes some architectural task, but as Joe Princeton, I just don't get it.

Constructing more original designs might be fueled by a desire to have an architecturally well-rounded campus and to use the campus as an architectural time capsule. The first reason is convincing as long as the buildings are not ugly. I certainly am in favor of having different styles represented, but they must fit well into the existing architectural landscape.

As for the second reason, Vice President Tom Wright '62 pointed out to me that when older buildings were built, they too didn't fit in. He cited Alexander as the perfect example, and even today, opinions are mixed on it. However, many admire Alexander for its unique use of high-quality materials, not just its design. I doubt that 50 years from now spectators will be praising Spelman for that same reason. Wilson College is the perfect example of this today. I know that due to cost constraints, construction materials have changed, but architecture must fix what less-expensive materials sacrifice.

Much to my chagrin, I have not taken an architecture class; however, I think that still leaves me in the majority. I may be totally incorrect, but I think that 1915 Hall fits in fantastically with the rest of campus. No, it's not collegiate Gothic, but at least it's traditional — the bricks all go in one direction, and it has a calm roofline. For me — the typical architecturally uneducated person — 1915 Hall looks better in the grand scheme of campus design than the Wallace Building or Scully.

I may be naive and superficial in my views, but architecture on campus should better fit with the perceptions of average people as well as that of trained architects. Ryan Salvatore is from Stamford, Conn. He can be reached at salvatre@princeton.edu.