No, the south entrance is where several us engineers would gather around a table to work on assignments. At the time I was in school there was not much gathering opportunity near the quad entrance. No tables, computer labs on either side of hallway.The new entrance featured in the tweet looks good.
The one you're referring to was rebuilt last year and is so hideous it's as if someone's playing a practical joke on the Quad.
Used to sneak into the computer lab in Link as high schooler to play video games on the computers
This render looks like when you accidently zone high density in cities skylines In a low density neighborhood.Is this a stupid idea being shopped to gauge interest? Please don’t tell me this visions thing is going up on Marshall Street.
It isn’t great now but this would just make it worse….
My theory is that the Jacobs family owns the only stretch of the Marshall St commercial block SU has not already purchased.
It’s going to be some hideous generic modern architecture made with cheap materials no matter who builds it.My theory is that the Jacobs family owns the only stretch of the Marshall St commercial block SU has not already purchased.
They got an architect to create the most hideous design for their little piece possible in hopes of getting SU to panic and agree to meet whatever insane demands they have for that property.
Not very confident in SU doing a great job re-designing Marshall Street for the new millennial. But I have great confidence that the Jacobs family will do a far worse job. Hope they sell soon and move to Piscataway or State College.
It’s going to be some hideous generic modern architecture made with cheap materials no matter who builds it.
How about when they doubled the size of the life sciences building and used manufactured facade instead of brick to cut costs. It looks lovely!Maybe the university can put up an entire block of gray brick disaster like Ernie Davis Hall or the law school building.
How about when they doubled the size of the life sciences building and used manufactured facade instead of brick to cut costs. It looks lovely!
It’s terra cotta tile. It’s a look. I don’t like it on our campus, but it’s done lots and it isn’t cheaper. It’s seen a lot in Boston/Cambridge where the design firm was based (I think Ellenzweig)How about when they doubled the size of the life sciences building and used manufactured facade instead of brick to cut costs. It looks lovely!
The law building was designed by a very successful alum. It’s not a bad building. It is a bit dark and that doesn’t seem to have aged well in a dark place. Eggers was built while I was in school by an alum too and I loved that design for where it was especially. I then listened to my architecture professors throw shade on it, and even took an elective psychology course about how its design is oppressive. I am an alum and helped a former professor of mine design Einsley. I then read lots here about how bad that is too. We needed that building more than most for so much of our potential survival in football. Aesthetics is only part of what goes into a building design and I think there were more that a few bad decisions made on that project, many driven by finances. I’m glad and proud it got done. Point is, architecture is a long game and very subjective. To each his own. Money is always a factor as are fads.They have an architecture school and have been building crap for years (the veterans center aside). They have a law school and utilize a kangaroo court for student judiciary proceedings. They have a school of communications and constantly (and I mean CONSTANTLY) flub external communications/public relations. It’s beyond embarrassing, and I’d be even more embarrassed if I was an alum of the school.
The law building was designed by a very successful alum. It’s not a bad building. It is a bit dark and that doesn’t seem to have aged well in a dark place. Eggers was built while I was in school by an alum too and I loved that design for where it was especially. I then listened to my architecture professors throw shade on it, and even took an elective psychology course about how its design is oppressive. I am an alum and helped a former professor of mine design Einsley. I then read lots here about how bad that is too. We needed that building more than most for so much of our potential survival in football. Aesthetics is only part of what goes into a building design and I think there were more that a few bad decisions made on that project, many driven by finances. I’m glad and proud it got done. Point is, architecture is a long game and very subjective. To each his own. Money is always a factor as are fads.
Eggers looks good and matches up well with Maxwell. The new Life Sciences addition looks terrible against its older(not very old) original.The law building was designed by a very successful alum. It’s not a bad building. It is a bit dark and that doesn’t seem to have aged well in a dark place. Eggers was built while I was in school by an alum too and I loved that design for where it was especially. I then listened to my architecture professors throw shade on it, and even took an elective psychology course about how its design is oppressive. I am an alum and helped a former professor of mine design Einsley. I then read lots here about how bad that is too. We needed that building more than most for so much of our potential survival in football. Aesthetics is only part of what goes into a building design and I think there were more that a few bad decisions made on that project, many driven by finances. I’m glad and proud it got done. Point is, architecture is a long game and very subjective. To each his own. Money is always a factor as are fads.
Eggers looks good and matches up well with Maxwell. The new Life Sciences addition looks terrible against its older(not very old) original.
Theres too much terra cotta tile like the life sciences building has on the hill. I don’t think it’s going to age well.
Eggers looks good and matches up well with Maxwell. The new Life Sciences addition looks terrible against its older(not very old) original.
Theres too much terra cotta tile like the life sciences building has on the hill. I don’t think it’s going to age well.
Both are different than the life sciences building which both have much larger panels. Regardless, I don't think any of this architecture is going to age well. Just like most of the buildings that were built in the 60's.
That’s fair, but many of these buildings, including the NYC one I included, are 15-20 years old already and holding up well. Both are also science buildings which is why it continues. It is suggested as the “language” of a science building. Think about grant rich researchers looking for the next institution to write papers and make hay looking at the building and saying, “This is like the building I was in at MIT or Harvard”. It begins the process of legitimizing SU as a research institution.Both are different than the life sciences building which both have much larger panels. Regardless, I don't think any of this architecture is going to age well. Just like most of the buildings that were built in the 60's.
Those will never lastI hear they plan on building this next:
That said, SU offered folks to make input during the design phase.I don’t think there is anything wrong with the interior of the law building. It’s beautiful. The exterior has a bland post-war Eastern European vibe to it. In a city as gray as Syracuse, there should be a total ban on the use of drab gray brick and/or cinder block exterior. It’s just an awful look.
Small minded people with fiefdoms are the worst.That said, SU offered folks to make input during the design phase.
I suggested public restrooms next to the lower West (back) entrance. They could be opened up on gameday to improve tailgating for Stadium West. The Law Dean wanted nothing to do with that. It obviously could easily be designed with security doors so us commoners wouldn't walk through her building. Sigh...selfish and shortsighted
Looks like the Terra Cotta Warriors Museum in Xian, China.I hear they plan on building this next:
Good stuff. My experience there was that most of the merchants expected an extended bargaining session before a purchase and many appeared to enjoy them. When a friend of mine immediately agreed to the starting price, the merchant was usually disappointed.Looks like the Terra Cotta Warriors Museum in Xian, China.
My son taught at a university in China for awhile and while traveling around the country with him, we visited the museum. My son taught me a bunch of survival Chinese, including asking how much something cost. No matter what they said the price was, I was to respond with the Chinese equivalent of "too expensive!" Then the negotiating would begin.
Outside the museum, we stopped in a small souvenir place and I found something I wanted. I asked the price (in Chinese). The guy told me and I emphatically said (in Chinese) "too expensive".
The guy looked at my son, smiled, and then to me in perfect English said "OK, how much?"
I've seen sutomcat haggle with a Chinese Merchant for 3 quarters in Cantonese while watching SU Football on a 3 inch screen. Results: got his price for the trinket and posted 14 paragraghs the next day at Syracusefan.com about the gameGood stuff. My experience there was that most of the merchants expected an extended bargaining session before a purchase and many appeared to enjoy them. When a friend of mine immediately agreed to the starting price, the merchant was usually disappointed.
Haggling in the open markets was one of my favorite things to do in China.