The intricate process of designing new buildings

In the summer of 2002, amid a quiet campus with few students in sight, a massive building that molecular biology professor Shirley Tilghman calls "creative, a little revolutionary" will sprout up on the southern end of campus. The 90,000 sq. ft. Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics — the creation of acclaimed architect Rafael Vinoly — promises to be unlike anything the University has seen, according to Tilghman, who will serve as the institute's first director.

The institute's innovative blueprint includes a glass-encased, two-story atrium that will link two blocks of laboratory space, making it possible for scientists in one lab to see their colleagues on the other side. Giant louvers — overlapping slats that admit air and light and exclude rain — will move with the sun and cast shadows resembling the double-helix structure of DNA. In the atrium's center, an enormous metal sculpture by signature architect Frank Gehry will house a coffee shop, where the institute's scientists will converge on the human genome over cappuccinos and biscotti.

Tilghman hopes the building will foster collaboration among the chemists, biologists, physicists, computer scientists and engineers who will toil on the groundbreaking scientific process of understanding the human genetic code.

"We're trying to create a buzz in the building that is absolutely essential for an interactive science building," said Tilghman.

And it seems likely that the state-of-the-art building will create a similar buzz among the students, faculty and visitors who feast their eyes upon the institute's signature design.

The Genomics Institute joins a collection of new buildings — including the Frist Campus Center, Wallace Hall and the Princeton Stadium — that have altered the face of the Princeton campus in recent years.

As the University has embarked on a long path of construction and renovation, many students and faculty have found precious humor in the potentially aggravating situation. Jokes about ear-splitting drills drowning out lectures and chain-linked fences blocking popular paths to the "Street" have spread across campus, as a thin layer of dust has blanketed the University.

But for University administrators and the architects they hire, designing new buildings is an intensely serious process — one that entails few laughs. In approaching the drawing board, the Princeton architecture team must consider whether the building is user-friendly and reasonably easy to maintain, and most importantly, whether the projected costs meet the University's budget.

State-of-the-art design, though, often entails a hefty price tag, and reconciling design and usability is not always easy. In the face of increasingly idiosyncratic architecture, some also worry that the Princeton campus is becoming a mish-mosh of modern buildings that neither complement each othe, nor add to the traditional beauty of the campus.

Since plans for the Genomics Institute began a year and a half ago, the University and Vinoly have met for countless hours in an effort to maximize the building's design and usability.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

At the project's commencement, Tilghman and other University faculty members spent three months describing to Vinoly the institute's activities and outlining a broad picture of what they sought in the building — ideas such as flexible labs and interactive social spaces.

"Our top priority is that it actually serves the scientists and students who will be using the building," Tilghman stressed.

The University-Vinoly team then had to consider how the expansive building would be maintained once it was subjected to the flurry of activity and inevitable wear-and-tear.

"[We considered] what would happen if a student leaned a bicycle against the louvers, how to clean the glass walls, how to access things on the roof — from one end of this building to the other," Tilghman said.

"[Maintenance issues] forced Vinoly to slightly reconfigure what he was going to do. Not radically redesigning, but just tweaking things," she added.

While the University won't be able to gage the success of the genomics building for another 18 months, similar careful planning for the Frist Campus Center — the work of architect Robert Venturi '47 — has led to a building that works, and works well, according to Jon Hlafter, physical planning director for the University.

Since its opening in September, Frist has not encountered any serious structural or maintenance problems, he noted.

On any given day, a diverse portrait of students, faculty and visitors — whether enjoying smoothies in the beverage lab, chatting over coffee in the cafe or studying quietly in the center's reading room — adds color to Frist's otherwise plain interior.

"We're still learning how to use the building," Hlafter said. "Everyone has been surprised at how many people use it."

Venturi — who also designed Bendheim Hall and Lewis-Thomas and Schultz laboratories — noted that such usability is a key component in a building's design.

"Usability is an integral part of design in architecture — a good deal of design derives directly from function and to accommodate function is a thrilling part of the process," he wrote in a fax last week.

Key aspects of Venturi's design — such as entrances on all sides of the building and a large multipurpose level — foster its user-friendly nature and ensure its openness to both the campus and the community, Hlafter said.

A similar concern for maximizing both usability and style prompted the University to consider "15 or 20 different ideas" regarding the design of the Princeton Stadium, also the work of Vinoly, Hlafter noted.

The University and Vinoly engaged in a series of complicated discussions before deciding to retain the old Palmer Stadium's horseshoe-shaped design, while adding features such as improved seating, office space and lighting.

This sort of dialogue, Spies said, represents a "very healthy and productive and creative tension" that allows for the free-flow of ideas and ultimately, a building that reflects both the architect's and the University's aspirations.

"There's never been a case . . . where the architect says 'we've got to do this' and the budget says no, we can't do that," said Spies. "It's much more dynamic and fluid.

"Sure, there are moments when one or the other party will leave grumbling under their breath that the project got ruined," he added.

"Half a dozen times [Vinoly] walked out muttering, 'You people just don't understand. You're ruining this.' But he always came back with a better idea."

But such ideas come at a price. Adding the multi-purpose level to Frist entailed an extra $3.5 million, raising the total cost of the project to $48.5 million. The Genomics institute is also expected to cost about $45 million to complete, including landscaping and furniture.

In the face of Princeton's new financial aid policy that replaces loans with grants, and WROC rallies to secure higher wages for University workers, some may wonder whether this money could have been better spent in other areas.

Yet University officials insist the money — much of which came from principal donors such as the Frist family — was well spent and that Princeton's total building expenditures are in line with those of other Ivy League universities such as Harvard University.

"The cost of [the Genomics] building is absolutely in the mean of square feet per dollar for new science buildings," Tilghman said. "There is not a dime of extravagance spending in this building," she added. "Ours is right in the middle range — not above, not below."

Hlafter also cited that high up-front costs level out in the long run and ensure that new buildings are designed to withstand the elements.

"[Frist was] expensive because over the long haul, it will cost less to operate," said Hlafter. "It makes sense to make investments that are going to last a long time and require the least amount of maintenance."

Others say that architecture is as much a part of a student's education as textbooks and teaching and that high figures spent on design and construction are in this way justified.

"Part of the quality of an educational environment has to do with the quality of the architecture," University architecture professor Guy Nordenson said. "It is quite inspiring to be in the company of [great buildings]."

"I don't think it has to do with publicity [from building expensive buildings] but with quality," he added. "It's part of a rich, educational experience. It's not a waste of money."

Nordenson — a member of the President's Advisory Committee on Architecture — argues that the University has not done enough to ensure a high level of quality in its construction and design. Campus buildings from the last 10-year period, he says, are "not good quality architecture," but merely rather "adequate."

"Rather than being extreme and hiring stars, I'd say Princeton has done the opposite," he said. "I would like to see Princeton commission some of the great architects [like Frank Gehry and Richard Meyer]."

Still, signature designs must ensure cohesion among other campus buildings.

"We want a building that we can be proud of," Spies said."But first and foremost, it needs to be a building that really works on campus, that really fits in."

"If it looks great and everything around it looks lousy, then it wouldn't be serving its purpose," he added. "[New buildings] have to be able to work in the context of the campus."

But for Venturi, the 1991 recipient of the coveted Pritzker Architecture Prize — aptly referred to as the Nobel Prize of the architectural world — individuality and cohesion are not mutually exclusive.

"Cohesion among buildings is very important, so the designer of the new building respects and accommodates existing context and thereby, the campus as an architectural whole," he said. "But remember — that doesn't mean the new building has to look like the old buildings because harmony can derive from contrast as well as analogy.

"The campus as an architectural whole can evolve via revolution as well as evolution," he noted.

Princeton's rich architectural heritage, which includes time-honored buildings such as Nassau Hall, Blair Hall and the Old Graduate College, also has prompted some to advocate a return to more traditional styles of design.

"Modernism appeals to people engaged with that history of ideas and that is a very small number," architect Catesby Leigh '79, noted. "To those who are looking for a deeper emotional resonance in architecture, the modernist [style of building] just doesn't click."

"It's time to build on the great architectural tradition instead of trying to reinvent the wheel every other week," he added.

But some Princeton faculty members and administrators emphasize the evolution of college architecture must mirror the evolution of academic ideas.

"The University is not a place that just studies classics. It's not just a traditional place, but also an innovative one," Hlafter said. "[A building such as] Frist is an architectural statement that the University is both a place that looks back at its past and looks forward."