Future Campus Framework Discussion

[FrancoPizza]

I have been to hundreds of games there over the years and agree it is a good place to watch a game. The seats are right on top of the ice. They are small, uncomfortable and too close to the row in front, so my knees are jammed into the back of the seat in front of me, but the sightlines are excellent.

If there are 10 criteria I have as a fan for an arena, they get a great grade on one or two. The rest are all awful. I want comfortable seats with leg room. I want good and varied food and drink choices. I want clean, well lit bathrooms where I have minimal to no waiting time. I want open and wide concourses where it is easy to get around and you can stretch your legs and still have an idea what is happening. I want a scoreboard that shows clear replays of controversial plays. I want a restaurant where I can sit down, have a bite to eat and watch the game. In short, I want what everyone seems to have everywhere except in Syracuse.

Syracuse's War Memorial shows its scars: Why can't we be like Utica?

The same can basically be said for the dome.

 

[OttoMets]

I consider that west campus. It's not a complete rebuild but it's such a major renovation it might as well be. Everything is being gutted and I think they may be adding a floor and glass exterior.

New skin, mostly gutted, and an expansion on the pool end. I think they've scrapped the extra floor, but maybe not.

West Campus is considered the mostly empty area west of Irving.

 

[TexanMark]

I consider that west campus. It's not a complete rebuild but it's such a major renovation it might as well be. Everything is being gutted and I think they may be adding a floor and glass exterior.

I hope SU will put the deck from The Arch to the Dome back in the plan.

 

[NJCuse97]

It all depends on how the RFQ/RFP is put forth. SU/Onondaga County/NY State (whoever will be the ultimate owner is putting the project out to bid) can put in as many demands/requirements for the construction and concession contract as they want. If bidders can't work with the requirements, they don't bid or they carve out items in their bid with the understanding that it might hurt them, particularly if other bidders will comply. For example, you can stipulate that design creativity will be more or less heavily weighted than, say schedule flexibility, or some other criteria. There are lots of ways to get a good product - it's not always just a cost and time compromise.

I know what can be written into the RFP and what can come out, in the proposal, I also know how much that can change over the course of the project and what are often the drivers of that change, no matter what was written in the RFP. That is the only reason I cautioned the P3 approach.
Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal - Wikipedia
Communications Security Establishment - Wikipedia

 

[dollarbill44]

I know what can be written into the RFP and what can come out, in the proposal, I also know how much that can change over the course of the project and what are often the drivers of that change, no matter what was written in the RFP. That is the only reason I cautioned the P3 approach.
Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal - Wikipedia
Communications Security Establishment - Wikipedia

I don't disagree as far as the P3 approach as there are pluses and minuses to every type of project financing and there are many ways to "skin a cat". Modifications and evolving plans happen whether its a P3, fully private or fully public structure. It's not uncommon for finished projects to be quite different from original plans.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

View attachment 97857

When did you take a picture of my basement?

 

[ForCuseSake]

View attachment 97857

Wow. Is that M street or a pic from the Rutgers dumpster fire thread?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Heard some discussion today about new housing on the field next to the women's building.

 

[TexanMark]

Heard some discussion today about new housing on the field next to the women's building.

This lot?

Google Maps

 

[NJCuse97]

Heard some discussion today about new housing on the field next to the women's building.

I would think they'd have to find a replacement for the field first. I know they have something blocked out for it in the new framework, but I am not sure what it's use is. I personally would be surprised if it was an early development site, or housing, even if that is what the framework says. That site is too valuable for other things, including its current use. Just my opinion.

 

[sutomcat]

I would think they'd have to find a replacement for the field first. I know they have something blocked out for it in the new framework, but I am not sure what it's use is. I personally would be surprised if it was an early development site, or housing, even if that is what the framework says. That site is too valuable for other things, including its current use. Just my opinion.

Agree. Open green space is important for aesthetics and the well being of the students (when used as an area for recreation). I hope they don't make another awful decision and throw this away to build another ugly East German prison tribute building.

 

[bnoro]

View attachment 97857

This makes me want to cry. Spent 3-4 nights there a week senior year.

 

[shandeezy7]

Agree. Open green space is important for aesthetics and the well being of the students (when used as an area for recreation). I hope they don't make another awful decision and throw this away to build another ugly East German prison tribute building.

Yeah SU doesn't have a good track record for new building aesthetics as of late, in my opinion. It's like their campus master plan is to incorporate every different type of architecture into the campus as they can. Zero consistency and it's impossible to tell where the campus begins or ends.

 

[NJCuse97]

Yeah SU doesn't have a good track record for new building aesthetics as of late, in my opinion. It's like their campus master plan is to incorporate every different type of architecture into the campus as they can. Zero consistency and it's impossible to tell where the campus begins or ends.

The idea is there. The campus was set up that way from the beginning. Hall of Languages and Crouse College are very dissimilar buildings. I am OK with the campus saying they don't want to mandate a design style that could have a negative effect on the function. I don't think there are many that like the late 60's -70's inner quad stuff, known in our own campus history books as "Bronx Brutalism". I don't find a lot of fault with the new Law building, Ernie Davis Hall, or even the Link addition (I am not a fan of Link so anything is an improvement). I really don't like the Sci-Tech addition. Weak. The original Sci-Tech is nice and plays well with Slocum, Sims, and Shaffer Art. I think most architects would beg to have those inner quad buildings removed, or re-faced at the least. I don't want to be BC, or Duke. Both are just attempted copies of Yale or Princeton.

 

[shandeezy7]

The idea is there. The campus was set up that way from the beginning. Hall of Languages and Crouse College are very dissimilar buildings. I am OK with the campus saying they don't want to mandate a design style that could have a negative effect on the function. I don't think there are many that like the late 60's -70's inner quad stuff, known in our own campus history books as "Bronx Brutalism". I don't find a lot of fault with the new Law building, Ernie Davis Hall, or even the Link addition (I am not a fan of Link so anything is an improvement). I really don't like the Sci-Tech addition. Weak. The original Sci-Tech is nice and plays well with Slocum, Sims, and Shaffer Art. I think most architects would beg to have those inner quad buildings removed, or re-faced at the least. I don't want to be BC, or Duke. Both are just attempted copies of Yale or Princeton.

The law building and Ernie Davis Hall (strictly speaking about their exteriors) are architectural abominations that people will look back upon in 50 years and wonder what drugs people must have been on to concoct/approve those designs - in my humble opinion of course. Gray brick/cinder blocks are a completely unattractive building material and that's all that the eye can see in those two buildings.

 

[TexanMark]

This makes me want to cry. Spent 3-4 nights there a week senior year.

Don't worry. In 5 years you'll be that creepy old guy telling the coeds about how the original Hungry Chucks was better than the new one.

 

[xc84]

Don't worry. In 5 years you'll be that creepy old guy telling the coeds about how the original Hungry Chucks was better than the new one.

Which one? The original in the basement or the "new" one in the old Sutters space? I prefer the basement version.

 

[TexanMark]

Which one? The original in the basement or the "new" one in the old Sutters space? I prefer the basement version.

Dinosaurs--->Basement
Creepy Old 30-35 year olds--->new one

 

[sutomcat]

The law building and Ernie Davis Hall (strictly speaking about their exteriors) are architectural abominations that people will look back upon in 50 years and wonder what drugs people must have been on to concoct/approve those designs - in my humble opinion of course. Gray brick/cinder blocks are a completely unattractive building material and that's all that the eye can see in those two buildings.

Agree.

I don't want or expect SU to use the same style for all of the buildings.

I like the mix of styles.

I just don't like mixing good looking classic styles with garbage.

I agree with shandeezy7 that Dineen, that awful building for grad students across from the Fine Lot and Davis Hall will be looked upon with disgust and dismay 50 years from now. I don't know anyone that have ever expressed anything but dislike for both, except for NJCuse97. I guess I have to give those buildings another chance, since I respect his opinions a lot.

Doesn't Syracuse have any professors from the architecture school that can review designs and prevent awful designs from being implemented? Or are they the others designing these things? Eeek.

 

[shandeezy7]

Agree.

I don't want or expect SU to use the same style for all of the buildings.

I like the mix of styles.

I just don't like mixing good looking classic styles with garbage.

I agree with shandeezy7 that Dineen, that awful building for grad students across from the Fine Lot and Davis Hall will be looked upon with disgust and dismay 50 years from now. I don't know anyone that have ever expressed anything but dislike for both, except for NJCuse97. I guess I have to give those buildings another chance, since I respect his opinions a lot.

Doesn't Syracuse have any professors from the architecture school that can review designs and prevent awful designs from being implemented? Or are they the others designing these things? Eeek.

I suppose that in my original comment I should have clarified that I don't want all of the buildings on campus to look similar. However, I do feel as though there is a way to incorporate a diverse set of architectural styles that also complement one another, instead of plopping down new building after new building that looks more out of place than the one before it. I don't think SU is going to pop up on any lists of beautiful campuses anytime soon, and for good reason.

 

[NJCuse97]

Agree.

I don't want or expect SU to use the same style for all of the buildings.

I like the mix of styles.

I just don't like mixing good looking classic styles with garbage.

I agree with shandeezy7 that Dineen, that awful building for grad students across from the Fine Lot and Davis Hall will be looked upon with disgust and dismay 50 years from now. I don't know anyone that have ever expressed anything but dislike for both, except for NJCuse97. I guess I have to give those buildings another chance, since I respect his opinions a lot.

Doesn't Syracuse have any professors from the architecture school that can review designs and prevent awful designs from being implemented? Or are they the others designing these things? Eeek.

I genuinely appreciate not just the compliment, but what you guys are saying. As for the professors you speak of, Richard Gluckman, the designer of Dineen Hall is one of the most accomplished architects in the world (he's that respected) and he's an SU alum. I do agree that it's dark looking, and maybe a little too solid. That said, I think that was part of his design intent. The interior contradicts all the preconceptions of the building created by the exterior. It is light and bright and open. I will say this, building performance (energy efficiency) has become such a dominating discourse in architecture that some of the smaller punch windows and dark color could be to improve the building's thermal performance and heat gain in the colder, darker climate of Syracuse. I think both Dineen and Ernie Davis achieved LEED Gold. In general, I agree that all the new buildings should be a lot more contextual. That is one of the reasons I've always liked Eggers. That building has no ego. It lives to serve the older buildings around it.

 

[NJCuse97]

Dinosaurs--->Basement
Creepy Old 30-35 year olds--->new one

Ouch! That's all my T-rex arms can reach to type.

 

[Arangeman]

The law building and Ernie Davis Hall (strictly speaking about their exteriors) are architectural abominations that people will look back upon in 50 years and wonder what drugs people must have been on to concoct/approve those designs - in my humble opinion of course. Gray brick/cinder blocks are a completely unattractive building material and that's all that the eye can see in those two buildings.

In a city that is perpetually gray and drab it is unconscionable to me that the two prominent design elements is those buildings are "gray" and "drab".

 

[JSOrange97]

Ouch! That's all my T-rex arms can reach to type.

Ditto...