andrew.w

Does anyone know whether the Columbus Convention Center is clad in EIFS or precast concrete (the parts that are not brick or corrugated metal)? It seems to be holding up fine. Based on accounts from professors and staff at the school, while the chosen material system is certainly to blame for the facade failure, the problem stems from Eisenman's design process. When he handed the project off to the local firm to develop, there was absolutely no indication in the drawings for how the building would be clad or detailed (and supposedly minimal information on how it could even be built). Saying the building should be tile is one thing; actually making it work is another. Because constructability where never part of the original design process, this failure was probably inevitable. Ironically, this disregard for materiality and practical considerations of construction as drivers for the design, are a big part of what make this such an important work of architecture.

My problem with Proctor are 1: the unfortunate shade of brown that was chosen for the cladding. Thankfully it turns to more of a grey/toupe at night; and 2: the original Proctor cladding was an extremely early example of passive/active solar design. Those fins were originally designed to follow the path of the sun and shade the interior throughout the day. Sure they stopped working soon after construction, and the whole facade system was in poor condition, but it would have been nice if the new facade had at least acknowledged the the original innovative design scheme in some way. Supposedly the budget was extremely limited for this renovation, that is why the cladding had to be completely flat and the overhangs had to be nixed. At the very least DAAP saved one complete section of the original facade system, stored in some warehouse off campus.

At least the metal panel system looks like it will have pretty deep reveals, which will add some nice depth to the grid patterns. I'm sort of hoping that the colors are not quite as bright as the ones shown in the mock-up, because from what I can tell from the original "magazine shots" of the building, the colors were never that intense, even before all of the mold/mildew/dirt started to accumulate. The coral tones of the photographs are so much better than the barbie pink of the mock-up. Looking forward to photos, as I will be out of Cincinnati probably for the whole duration of the construction process.

I have to agree with jjakucyk, that style is pretty irrelevant in contemporary architecture, I'm not really concerned with what "style" it chooses as long as it is good, responsible design that is a good neighbor, contributes to surrounding neighborhood, and is people friendly. I'm not so keen on the idea of glass buildings that "disappear," because that is a form of cop-out response that doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the urban environment. We should be able to create buildings that are just as valuable to the community as those that were built 100 years ago. That said, as a self-proclaimed architectural historian/investigator, I think a building should be an expression of its time, but that is more an issue of construction methods than the overall physical appearance. I only discourage more traditional looking buildings in the sense that most architects today have no skills in proportioning and detailing with a classical eye.

This is true, do we currently have a spot for Wilson? In response to mcadrenaline. As far as I know there is no timetable yet, it is merely in the plans. One of the DAAP design studios this summer looked at some possibilities for its re-use. I think the University plans on at least finishing the current renovations (Proctor Hall, the Three Two Sisters, French Hall, and probably the Law School project, before starting on anything else. In response to natininja, the plan has actually been to demolish Wilson Hall for some time. It was part of the 2000 master plan, and former University Architect Ron Kull was determined to tear it down. Apparently Ms. McGrew is more open to finding a new use for it. That (in addition to the fact that there are no funds to tear it down and build a whole new building right now) is one major reason that plans have changed.

The plan is definitely to keep the law school on that corner and replace the current building (this information coming from people who have worked with the university architect, Mary Beth McGrew). McGrew wants to make the new building as open to the street, and as much a gateway to the campus from Calhoun St. as possible, especially after the University Park Apartments further up Calhoun completely failed to provide the intended gateway and promenade to the campus. Regarding Wilson Memorial Hall (Auditorium), the University has for now dropped demolition plans in favor of reuse, but this is conditional on a lot of factors, including funding, and retrofitting a very challenging building.