Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rapid-fire:
...
UVA: everything except for the main lawn area was an eyesore.
...

I am a double-'Hoo, but I totally agree. Architects are to blame. They just cannot resist the temptation to have a "signature building" on grounds. I have watched it for decades. Each of those signature buildings clashes with the others.

What is missing at UVa, and by now is nearly impossible to fix, is having a single cohesive architectural style for grounds (or at least for the expanded central grounds including thr McCormick Road area).

For what it's worth, UVA is not alone with this inconsistency problem. Georgetown U's early buildings are wonderful, but their later modernist / brutalist buildings are just awful.

Princeton's campus is not perfect, but overall it is much more cohesive than the two above examples. Yale also is not perfect, but has done much better than UVA/GU overall.

MIT is worse - and the signature Geary building started leaking before it was occupied. Faculty tell me it still leaks.

I always thought the issue at UVA was different. There has always been a push to have the newer buildings be respectful to the Jeffersonian architecture, but the end result is bland red brick buildings with columns and accents of white. UVA has never fully developed a comfortable, more contemporary style that takes greater advantage of glass, steel, and stone.

Have you seen all the new construction? It's so corporate looking. I don't even recognize that part of Grounds/town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rapid-fire:
...
UVA: everything except for the main lawn area was an eyesore.
...

I am a double-'Hoo, but I totally agree. Architects are to blame. They just cannot resist the temptation to have a "signature building" on grounds. I have watched it for decades. Each of those signature buildings clashes with the others.

What is missing at UVa, and by now is nearly impossible to fix, is having a single cohesive architectural style for grounds (or at least for the expanded central grounds including thr McCormick Road area).

For what it's worth, UVA is not alone with this inconsistency problem. Georgetown U's early buildings are wonderful, but their later modernist / brutalist buildings are just awful.

Princeton's campus is not perfect, but overall it is much more cohesive than the two above examples. Yale also is not perfect, but has done much better than UVA/GU overall.

MIT is worse - and the signature Geary building started leaking before it was occupied. Faculty tell me it still leaks.

I always thought the issue at UVA was different. There has always been a push to have the newer buildings be respectful to the Jeffersonian architecture, but the end result is bland red brick buildings with columns and accents of white. UVA has never fully developed a comfortable, more contemporary style that takes greater advantage of glass, steel, and stone.