Disjunctive Architecture and a Lack of Space

Like most, I wear numerous hats as a member of this community. I am philosophy major, art history major wannabe, "Prince" columnist, club sports athlete (soccer), and (thanks to my friends at the "Tory") infamous "campus lefty." At least two of those metaphorical hats were ruffled (metaphorically) by last week's lecture by world-renowned architect Frank Gehry.

You know Gehry — he designed the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and his buildings are easily recognizable for their signature facades of wavy, curvilinear sheets of steel. Moreover, Gehry is designing a building for Princeton, which likely won't be completed until the better part of this decade has passed. However, once completed, it will occupy (as I understand it) the entire grassy area at the corner of Ivy Lane and Washington Road, sandwiched neatly between the CJL, the football stadium, "The Hedgehog and the Fox," and a bunch of science and math buildings of which I must admit to not knowing the names.

First problem. In my opinion, Gehry's buildings don't work unless located in a modern urban setting. His buildings — and their architect — are imposing, aggressive, and domineering. They make little pretense to mesh with the other buildings around them, rather forcing their fish-like movement upon adjacent structures. When juxtaposed with skyscrapers twice their height or other huge steel structures, they are a natural fit. Such is the case with his nearly-completed Disney Theatre in Los Angeles, his atypical office buildings in industrialized German cities (atypical both for him and for office buildings in general) and would be the case with his new Guggenheim on New York City's East River (if it ever gets built). On the other hand, I find his buildings (proposed and realized) on Mississippi plantations, rural Spanish wineries, and American college campuses (MIT, Case Western, etc.) embarrassingly inappropriate. They show no respect for the style, history or spirit of the buildings or space whatsoever. What is to suggest that his structure on our campus will be any different? Granted, the buildings around it neither share much in common stylistically with the buildings of the main campus nor with each other, but is there any chance that Gehry's contribution won't nonetheless seem comparatively ostentatious?

Second problem. Add Gehry's building, the new genome building, Whitman College, and whatever else is going up around Poe Field, to the growing glut of buildings clogging up this campus. There is hardly any green space — or space of any color — left on this campus. I've written about this problem before from an aesthetic standpoint. The campus is constantly under construction, the amount of open space is constantly decreasing, and most of the construction takes place without any regard to the nature of the (minimal) open space left between the new buildings. Look at the old part of campus. Nassau Hall, East Pyne, West College and Whig and Clio Halls all form aesthetically pleasing angles to one another and leave a large, regularly shaped, easily accessable open area in their midst — Cannon Green. Similarly, the courtyards formed between the University chapel and the buildings on either side of it — Firestone and McCosh — are open, welcoming, communal, well-designed spaces. I challenge anyone to say the same about the space created by the recently completed buildings of our "new campus." The space between Wallace Hall, the Friend Center, the computer science building and others feels like a back alley. Adjacent buildings are crammed together at irregular angles and do not combine to create any sort of usable or aesthetically pleasing space; roads and walkways intersect at ninety degree angles out of blind corners. The buildings do not have well-designed entrances — in fact, it is unclear in certain cases which side of a given building is intended as its front and which as its rear.

Let me now address this problem on a personal note. The monopolization of open space for the erection of new buildings creates a valid logistical problem for activities which need to take place out of doors. There currently is hardly any space left on this campus for non-varsity athletes.

Poe Field is restricted to the use of intramural sports, forcing club teams to the off-campus West Windsor fields for practices and games. Who knows how long Poe will even be usable (or extant) given all the construction on and around it? Furthermore, at least some of the tennis courts are (as I understand it) being supplanted in order to build Whitman College. This is not simply a plea not to have to trek off campus to play. After all, I'm graduating soon. It's a plea for the maintenance of open space on this campus. There are some real benefits to a suburban campus, and one of them is that buildings shouldn't have to be cramped together as though they were fitting into city street blocks.

Of course it's too late to stop Gehry's building from happening, and underneath one of my hats I'm happy that Princeton will have a building on campus by one of the world's most famous architects. In fact, I really like almost all of Gehry's buildings in and of themselves. It's when they have to interact with the buildings — and people — around them, which they necessarily and inevitably do, that they become problematic. Such will indeed be the case once his proposed Princeton project is realized. Dan Wachtell is a philosophy major from Rye, N.Y. He can be reached at wachtell@princeton.edu.