a guidebook to modern architecture in the pioneer valley

images, history, and criticism of 25 modern buildings from the pioneer valley of western massachusetts a guidebook to modern architecture in the pioneer valley

images, history, and criticism of 25 modern buildings from the pioneer valley of western massachusetts

This book sets out to explore how and why particular architectural spaces evoke different feelings of happiness, security, or uneasiness. Why would an architectural journal- ist describe Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Taliesin” as sitting atop the landscape like a “shining brow”? What types of visual mark- ers make Amherst College memorable, and create such a strong sense of place for student and faculty alike? Through class discussion, close readings, and field trips, we have explored a broad range of emotional linkages to architecture: the response of architecture to topography; the distinctions between the sacred, civic, and personal domains; the evolu- tion of culture through the dual modes of style and building type; and the ways in which human beings generate a sense of place. Introduction This architectural guidebook is intended to highlight the many significant and unique buildings within the Pioneer Valley region. The Pioneer Valley is a string of historic settle- ments along the Connecticut River from Springfield in the south to the Vermont border in the north. The northern reach- es of the Pioneer Valley remain rural and tranquil, dappled with small farms and towns defined by typical New England style architecture – functional, tidy homes and commercial buildings surrounding modest town centers. To the south, the cities of Holyoke and Springfield are more industrial and congested. The book is the result of a semester-long study of 20th century architecture and a collaborative effort by the students, who wrote, edited, designed and produced it. It is the first guidebook to the architecture of this fascinating and unusual region. We explored how buildings not only shape the physi- cal structure of our communities, but also the way we live our lives. The framework we relied on for this exploration includ- ed masterworks by Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Louis Kahn, Frank Gehry and others. Study- ing individual buildings and architectural movements yielded concrete examples of how space, place, form, materials, and money influence the outcome of architectural efforts. The Pioneer Valley remains a remarkable collection of works by some of the most influential and most histori- cally significant architects of 19th and 20th century buildings. From the Fine Arts Center building at the University of Mas- sachusetts to our very own King and Wieland dormitories, the unique design and innovation of these buildings will continue to capture the imagination. We hope this book will broaden the reader’s under- standing of how space is defined and encourage you to look twice at your surroundings. The guidebook explores some of the region’s most significant institutional buildings and hous- es, both large and small. Each entry includes a photograph, an identifying number keyed to a tour map, as well as histori- cal, descriptive, and critical commentary. The broad range of buildings and urban conditions that this guidebook documents will appeal to historic preservationists, scholars of twentieth- century material culture, architects, historians, and tourists.

Koch Science Center

Deerfield Academy, Deerfield, MA Architect: Skidmore, Owings and Merrill Architects Year Completed: 2007

The David H. Koch Center for Science, Math and Technology is the newest building at Deerfield Acad- emy, nested in Historic Deerfield, MA. The 78,000 square foot structure was designed by architectural firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill and completed in May 2007. Brick and glass are the primary materials used for its exterior. A state-of-the-art building for the sciences, its facilities include modern labs and classrooms, a large lecture hall, a planetarium and a roof terrace. In addition, the dining areas in the atrium and study nooks throughout the building facilitate social activities. Situated in the heart of historic Deerfield, the Koch Science Center, whose very nature would appear to defy the colonial tradition of the area, integrates itself beautifully. A hundred yard winding path leads up to the entrance of the building, and similar but smaller paths precede other entrances, anchoring the building to the ground. The exterior and interior walls of the building mimic these paths, creating an uninterrupted flow from outdoors to indoors. The front entrance lunges forward with curved vertical planes but also beckons and allows one to see its in- sides with massive glass windows. The entrance to the building is entirely glass, allowing an immense amount of light to fill its lobby. A curving hallway leads directly into the main circular atrium, from which all three lev- els are visible. The focal center of the atrium is the analemma- a figure eight pattern formed by mapping the shadow of an object everyday for a year. Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is one of the larg- est architectural firms in the world, acclaimed for its work in the international style or “glass box” skyscraper. True to the international style, the Koch Science Center is a very dynamic space. Its exterior has many intersecting planes, and its interior is full of gently curving walls. Al- though the Koch Science Center represents a departure from the traditional glass box, the influence is evident. The Koch Center uses more brick than most of SOM’s other buildings. For example, Harvard’s Northwest Sci- ence Center, which serves a similar functional purpose, has a predominantly glass exterior. Still, many themes of the glass box are prevalent in the Koch Center. The building is bound by light. It incorporates sun and moonlight to serve both functional and academic purposes. Every hallway in the building terminates with a large glass window and every room uses large glass walls (75% of the building lighting is natural). This creates the perception of being in a glass box. The use of light complements all of the sciences of the building: namely physics and astronomy. The analemma in the atrium provides students with a sense of the relationship between the sun and the earth (as does the sun cal- endar outside the building). Here again, light is manipulated in the architecture to serve an academic purpose. Sustainable design was a priority of the design team. The Koch Science Center was awarded a Gold LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating for its design and function as a green building. The frame was constructed with 90 percent recycled scrap steel. The million bricks that were used were produced from local materials. Radiant heating coils embedded in the floor keep the concrete warm in the winter, thus reducing the need for heating. The double-insulated glass windows keep heat inside the building, allowing sunlight to warm the space, and reducing the need for electric light during the day. Additionally, the design team took great care to recycle materials during the construction process. 90 percent of the demolished build- ing and 85 percent of site waste produced during construction were recycled. Established in 1797, Deerfield Academy has a long standing tradition of academic excellence. Though the available technologies to enhance students’ education are bound to change, the approach that the school takes to that education is not. The terminal hallways that end in wall-sized glass windows, looking out on paths below that continue the line of the hallway propel you forward, insisting (literally) that there are paths to be followed outside of the classroom. The massive central space, from which all three floors are visible, the star map on both the ceiling and the floor, and the sun calendar outside the building, are all constant reminders of our place in the universe. As a science building at an elite preparatory school, forward motion and awareness could not be better guiding virtues. The building stays brutally true to these values but in no way compromises the comfort of students or the ordinary life that occurs in the building. Lining the paths leading up the building and braced to most walls within it are hip high benches for contemplation and conversation. At every turn there are study nooks, not bound by strict corners or stubborn doors but by the natural curve of walls. There are even such spaces in the stairwells. The classrooms that house the top rate education of Deerfield defy the strict regiment of a typical education. Six-person desk clusters line the perimeter of the room, leaving a large open space for lectures and demonstrations. Further, the walls separating classrooms and offices from the hallway are made of selectively transparent glass. Looking squarely at the glass one can see through it but looking sideways the glass appears a porcelain sheet. This feature may not be welcomed by administrators and teachers seeking a moment away from the gaze of their students, but is instrumental in making the building into a larger unified space rather than a disconnected and compartmentalized one. Though designed to encourage academics in every way, the building concedes that its residents are young adults with lives outside the classroom. On the bottom floor is a snack bar (whose cookies are enor- mous and a paltry seventy-three cents) and cafeteria space perfect for a bite between classes or a meal with a professor. Balconies on the upper floors peer out onto the main quadrangle and the athletic complex, situating students not just in the universe but on the Deerfield campus. This kind of balance between virtue and every- day experience creates a truly holistic learning experience, a building, that as Deerfield hoped, teaches stu- dents when no teacher is present. Terence Lee and Alex Miller New Residence Hall

Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA Architect: SLAM Collaborative Year Completed: 2008 In planning for the construction of a new residence hall, the administrators of Mt. Holyoke College faced a unique challenge. The college, one of the early leaders in women’s education with a long history of tradition, had not built a new dormitory for over forty years. In addition to the individual beauty of many of the buildings, the campus as a whole maintains a cohesive and rich architectural style. Beyond that, the college and its stu- dents place a great value on the intimate scale and historic character of the campus’s original buildings. The challenge for potential architects in designing the new residence hall was to create a modern, high tech build- ing, to house up to 180 students that maintained the values of the college and fit within the campus. S/L/A/M collaborative, the firm that ultimately designed the new residence hall, employed a clever use of materials to ensure that the building would fit in. The red bricks of the exterior appear somewhat misshapen and irregular when examined up close, as if they had endured decades of wear and tear, just like the neighbor- ing residence halls, also done in red brick. The roof and sections of the exterior are covered in what appears to be slate tiles, but are in fact synthetic pieces made from partly recycled material; many of the other buildings on campus are done in actual slate tile. The drainpipes and roof gutters even have the same oxidized copper and weathered look of many of the older residence halls. Certain details as well as the layout and overall shape of the building, however, reveal the New Resi- dence Hall as a modern reinterpretation of the college’s classic forms. Its overall appearance is bright, incor- porating windows framed in light beige which plays off the red brick and dark blue tiling to create a sense of vibrant color. The incorporation of color with historic buildings styles comes out of the postmodern tradition in architecture. The New Residence Hall seems to have little in common with the sleek, minimalist surfaces often associated with Modern architecture, drawing instead from the Postmodern as well as the historic buildings around it. The influence of Alvar Alto is also evident in the rugged, uneven texture of the brick walls. Alto built with rough materials, celebrating texture and nature, in contrast to the purity of the International Modern style. The New Residence Hall has a similar style that both gives the building an ancient, natural feel and connects it to the austere, older buildings of the original campus. The New Residence Hall is a typical example of the work and guiding philosophy of S/L/A/M collaborative, the archi- tecture firm behind the design and construction of the building. Much of the firm’s recent work has been in designing research, science, and medical buildings for hospitals and universities. Like the New Residence Hall, many of these buildings, such as Kapoor Hall at SUNY Buffalo, have considered energy footprint, materials, and other indicators of sustainability as a high prior- ity. Additionally, although the individual style of each building varies greatly, they share an attention to their surroundings. When designing a new science building for Notre Dame Univer- sity, S/L/A/M collaborative set out both to outfit it with extensive, modern laboratories and modern equipment, and to place it in an exterior that echoes the gothic feel of the rest of the campus. The work of S/L/A/M collaborative can be characterized by its attentiveness to context and meeting the challenges of modern, multiuse, high tech build- ings. The New Residence Hall is a bold attempt at representing the seemingly competitive goals of creating a modern living space that doesn’t seem out of place on an historic campus. It is successful in some respects, as the colors, textures, the use of chimneys, and the tiled roof all fit in well. On the other hand, the use of weathered copper gutters and drainpipes comes off as somewhat artificial and insincere. Additionally, there are so many different angles, walls, and windows that it comes off as chaotic and confused. The building looks different from every angle, almost as if it were several buildings placed together, rather than a coherent com- plex. Despite its shortcomings, however, the New Residence Hall represents a remarkable accomplishment by remaining faithful to the ambiance of the campus without becoming derivative and cliché, and staying relevant with some intriguing modern twists. Nate Hopkin Village Commons

South Hadley, MA Architect: Gund Partnership Year Completed: 1991

In May 1986, the Village Commons of South Hadley was reduced to ashes following a devastating arson attack. A majority of the town center’s stores and restaurants were lost, and it was five years before the Commons’ successor was complete and business could resume. Architect Graham Gund, of the Cambridge-based architecture firm Gund Partnership, was commis- sioned to design the new center. He faced an interesting and unique challenge – to reconstruct the very build- ings that had originally influenced and given birth to the town as a whole. In doing so, however, he had to de- cide whether it was more appropriate to mimic the original design or, instead, cultivate a new vision. The Gund Partnership philosophy dictates that each project should evolve out of the building’s site, context, and purpose. In keeping with this principle, Gund considered his commission from the “outside in,” taking the Commons’ for- mer appearance and its surroundings, including a few remaining stores, some houses, Mount Holyoke College, rolling hills, and much farmland, into account when creating a plan for the urban village’s future. The result is unpretentious and relatively unannounced, not what you’d expect of a town’s largest retail center. When approaching the Village Commons from the main street of South Hadley, one could easily miss the eleven-building complex. The buildings’ street-side facades are indistinguishable from their neighbors’, mirroring the typical New England shingle-style aesthetic. With wooden shingles painted in off-whites and creams, slanted roofs, and attic win- dows, the Village Commons’ external appearance is neither shocking nor out of place, but, rather, surprisingly famil- iar, almost unremarkable. From this vantage point, there is practically no indication that these buildings extend considerably in the rear. In a similar vein, only one or two simple signs wel- come visitors to the Village Commons. In contrast to other nearby shopping areas such as the Hamp- shire Mall, whose purpose is strictly commercial, the Village Commons was conceived as an intimate meeting place for the town’s residents, local college students, and visitors to the Pioneer Valley. In keeping with the Gund philosophy, form followed this building program, and the result was an entirely “pedestrian-ized” complex. Depending on your point of entry, you will be guided up or down one of the many flights of stairs and, almost certainly, under a bridge or two before finding yourself in the complex’s central courtyard. This long process of orienting and situating oneself may strike some as inconvenient or tedious. It was, however, no accident. In the age of the drive-through and the strip mall, in which architecture and space were purely means to an end, Gund wanted to make the Village Commons personal. Navigating the complex is, thus, an experience in and of itself. The design of the space demands that you engage with it, and doing so forges a connection that might not otherwise have existed. To this end, the Village Commons does not cater to passive shoppers, but instead makes each visitor an active participant. The buildings that house the Commons’ vendors are equally as important as the way in which they shape and interact with the free space around them. The eleven buildings are positioned close together and arranged around a few patio areas along the length of the complex featuring benches and fountains. Unlike a shopping mall, where all of the businesses are encompassed in a single interior space, the Commons incorpo- rates nature and the outdoors as an integral design feature. Interestingly, however, practically every building is connected by a system of completely-enclosed or partially-enclosed bridges. The visitor is, thus, given the choice to engage with his or her natu- ral surroundings, but is not required to. These very bridges, in addition to the extensive layering of the land on which the complex is built, con- tribute to the sense that the Commons is in motion, rather than weighted and static. In other words, the Commons is not simply a collection of buildings placed next to each other. Rather, the many points of attach- ment and separation imply interaction and movement. Adding to the space’s already complex design, the buildings them- selves are neither symmetrical nor identical. Although each, with the exception of a lone stone turret, is built out of wooden shingles and may look similar from a distance, Gund refuses to be predictable and embellishes his buildings with distinct individual details. The best example of this design creativity is his choice of window shapes. Most, particularly those on the street-front, are rectangles, as expected. However, from certain van- tage points inside any of the Commons’ courtyards, one can spot up to ten differently shaped windows. Sever- al large ovular and circular ones break up the repetitive geometry that is created by the many horizontals of the roofs, bridges, and stairs. It is through details such as this that Gund undercuts the criticism of Paul Goldberg- er from the New York Times, who states that Gund’s work has a tendency to be predictable or “Disney-like”. From the interior of the buildings, these windows, which do not converge to a central view or focal point, have the effect of being simultaneously intriguing, for no two views are alike, and disorienting. Indeed, a newcomer to the Commons is almost certain to lose his or her bearings while navigating the interconnected upper levels, ending up at the movie theater instead of a doctor’s office, for example. In this way, the creative complexities of the Commons’ exterior design are carried over to the maze-like interior in a much less success- ful way. From this perspective, Gund has failed to meet one of the primary goals of such a commercial center: convenience. Nevertheless, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, Gund’s efforts at creating an intimate and inconspicuous, yet interactive retail complex are triumphant. Rachel Shapiro and Oscar Bedford Fine Arts Center

University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA Architect: Kevin Roche, John Dinkeloo and Associates Year Completed: 1973

The Fine Arts Center, located at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, was built in 1973 by the in- novative Kevin Roche, John Dinkeloo and Associates. The building houses a myriad of art facilities, including a 2,200-seat concert hall, a 750-seat repertory theater, an experimental theater, a recital hall, a music school, television studios, a library, art studios and gallery, and architecture studios. The Fine Arts Center sits at the end of Haigus Mall on the University’s campus, serving as a focal point planned to encourage students to be aware of the activities and events occurring inside. The principle materials used in constructing the building consist of concrete, steel, and glass. Originally designed to be built in Arizona, the overall beige color of the exterior evokes a desert backdrop. A play between the massive, concrete façade and exposed steel make the building dynamic and surprisingly animated, de- spite the flushness of the façade. The neutral beige of the concrete creates a lackluster backdrop punctuated by strong sweeps of steel that effectively ornament the building. The landscaping immediately surrounding the building is somewhat void of lushness, alluding to a desert environment with small, bristly bushes and a flat landscape. A back entrance to the Fine Arts Center opens upon a grand concrete staircase leading to a small confined pond and seating area. A concrete bridge overlies the steel-and-glass entrance of the building, which opens into a grand front foyer. The en- trance to a large theater lies at either end of the foyer. The use of color on the façade is limited to the tan concrete, dark gray steel, and a refreshing reflective glass with shifting tints; the interior color scheme, including purples, blues, and oranges, is far richer. The interior of each theater is completed in predomi- nately one color, creating an enveloping unity that accompa- nies the viewing of a show. The plans of the theaters follow a roughly hexagonal layout, providing an orderly and structured way to view performances. The overall angular, geometric shape of the building is reminiscent of the modernist manifesto, as exemplified by Le Corbusier. Many elements of Corbusier’s modernism are included in the construction of the building: the flush concrete façade, the grand ramp leading to the architec- ture studios, the presence of interior ribbon windows, the sunken windows (seen in picture) and the small pond serving as an intimate connection with nature fit the archetype of the five main points that directed Corbusier’s work. The monumentalism of the Fine Arts Center speaks to Louis Kahn’s post-modernist style. The front bridge rests atop large, heavily grounded concrete columns, evoking a sense of permanence and importance. Many of the service entrances to the building are hidden by a geometric protrusion; this effectively conceals the mundane to emphasize the mysticism of experiencing the art within. Contrastingly, the basement corridors contain exposed pipes and electrical wiring, chain-link fence divisions, bare staircases and heating ducts. The The revealing nature of the interior emphasizes the nuanced creation required to present the final performanc- es and products experienced by visitors to the building. The Fine Arts Center, an architectural masterpiece, draws many visitors by virtue of structural ingenu- ity. It’s scale is remarkable, and the sheer number of things to see, whether architectural details of the build- ing itself, or exhibits or performances held in its spaces, make it a welcome place for visitors to pass the time, regardless of their knowledge of art and architecture. The Haigus Mall and large plaza out front and the steps overlooking the pond out back invite students who want to relax, skateboard, throw a frisbee, or soak up the sun. The size and central location of the building make it an excellent meeting place and hang-out spot for the entire UMass campus, not only the fine arts community, which is reflected by the University’s decision to put the main bus stop out front. This draw of the community to the building likely has a positive effect on the num- ber of students who get involved in the arts who otherwise would not, whether it is through attending perfor- mances, gallery shows, or creating art themselves. It fully integrates art into campus and community life. But the structure does have its weak points. First of all, aside from the two main theaters, the building is a maze that is extremely difficult to navigate. The art gallery is tucked away on the bottom right in the back of the building—it is unlikely that a visitor would be able to locate it without asking for directions. Similarly, get- ting between spaces in the building is illogical and difficult. To get to the architecture studios from the theater directly below one has to exit the building, walk to the end of it, and walk up a long ramp back into the second floor. This occurs on a small scale as well: in the main theater there are concrete walls between every few rows of seating, meaning one must exit the theater and walk up the stairs outside in order to get to another section. The illogical layout of the building is not only confusing but also dangerous. One student noted that if there were an emergency evacuation, it would take a long time to get everyone out. Though the architecture of the building is strikingly beautiful and significant in the greater architectural context, certain details like the angular protruding walls to cover service doors and hide staircases become a colleting place for dirt and leaves, and the very fact that they are tucked away means they hardly ever get used. Additionally, the narrow corridors and cemented walls in between studios, especially in the music wing, make the building an unpleasant place to spend long periods of time: students complain about a lack of natural lighting and feeling claustrophobic and boxed in. Perhaps one of the most significant pitfalls is the building’s failure to provide a good structure under which artists can create music. The sound of an instrument playing in one practice room carries throughout the entire music wing of the building, making it difficult for those trying to perform or practice in another room to focus. If there is a performance going on, students cannot practice their instruments because the sound carries up into the theater as well. While the building is certainly remarkable architecturally and provides a wonderful center for the greater community to witness the arts, it unfortunately fails to serve the artists themselves. Getting lost in its hallways, discovering one beautiful and creative architectural detail after another, stumbling upon a room of xylophones or the rehearsal screening of another student’s film, is a fun way to pass an afternoon for a visitor, but unfortu- nately the building seems to be more about the spectacle of showing the artwork than the actual creation of the art itself. Brooke Berman and Brenna Kekst Brown UMass Studio Arts Building

University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA Architect: Gund Partnership Year Completed: 2008

Situated prominently near the main entrance to UMass Amherst, the Studio Arts Building is a welcome reprieve from traditional institutional architecture. Designed by the Cambridge-based Gund Partnership and completed in 2008, the thoroughly modern building is at once architecturally innovative and a perfect comple- ment to the more traditional brick buildings that surround it. That UMass spent $26.5 million to house its scattered art departments in one location suggests a new set of priorities for the University: By giving its various art departments an architecturally impressive and state- of-the-art space in which to work, UMass has paved the way for a new era of artistic achievement and collabo- ration. Thus far, the building has garnered rave reviews from UMass students and faculty, and the reasons for the building’s success are not difficult to come by. The Studio Arts Building provides a striking gateway to the UMass campus. Fitting snugly into the fork created by North Pleasant Street and Infirmary Way, the building consists of a central, glass-encased atrium flanked by two large wings. The central atrium, which is flooded by natural light during the day, serves as both the building’s main entryway on the first floor and a gathering and exhibition space on the second. Con- structed of glass panels with metal frames and supports, the atrium seems a literal interpretation of the Mod- ernists’ glass box. The atrium’s glass walls, which are supported by thin, vertical and horizontal V-trusses, give the bilevel space a feeling of lightness and airiness; the V-trusses support the structure yet do not appear load- bearing, and they allow every bit of available light to enter. Paralleling North Pleasant Street and Infirmary Way, the two wings set off from the atrium are the building’s defining features. When viewed from the V-shaped building’s inner courtyard, the roofs of these wings slant inward, connecting the wings’ taller, street-facing walls and shorter, courtyard-facing ones. This sharply angled roof not only plays on the traditional pitched roofs of sur- rounding buildings, but it also plays with perspective: When viewed from the wings’ outer corners, the roof’s sharp angle exaggerates the way in which the building would normally recede perspectivally into the distance. Though the building’s sharp, angular geometry sets it apart from nearby buildings – with the possible exception of the Fine Arts Center – it does not seem out of place. The wings’ red brick walls match those of Fernald Hall just across the courtyard and place it squarely in a long tradition of red-brick educational architecture. Despite the Studio Arts Building’s unconventional geometry, it is a highly functional and adaptable space for creating art. Here, form follows function, as the building’s large windows allow natural light to fill the artists’ workspaces. On the first floor, occupied by most of the teaching and shop spaces, the large windows also allow passersby to see work both in progress and on display on the windowsills. Large vents on the roof expel excess heat and pollutants from these workspaces, and high ceilings contribute to the studios’ spacious feel. The second floor houses an additional, larger teaching studio and lecture room, as well as individual student and faculty workspaces. Faculty and graduate students work in single- and double-occupancy spaces, and undergraduates share two large, open studios divided by flexible partitions. Not only is the Studio Arts Building a welcome addition to the UMass campus, but it fits into both Gund Partnership’s body of work and trends already detectable in twenty-first century architecture. According to the Gund Partnership website, the firm’s projects are unified by “a language that blurs the boundaries between traditional and modern, inside and outside, cost and constructability.” By using traditional red brick in a modern design, by incorporating an outdoor courtyard, and by remaining affordable while making an architectural state- ment, the Studio Arts Building treads precisely these lines. The building is also a perfect example of where twenty-first century architecture is headed: toward sustainable, “green” architecture. In designing the building, Gund Partnership clustered rooms with “similar air requirements” to reduce overall energy consumption, and the building is equipped with water conserving measures as well as heat recovery units to recycle energy. If you are in the area, the Studio Arts Building is certainly worth a visit – or at the very least, a drive-by. It is best to visit during the week, as the building is accessible only with a key card on weekends, and a week- day visit, when the building is busiest, gives the best sense of how students and faculty use the space.

Annie Dolmatch Mullins Memorial Center

University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA Architect: Cambridge Seven Associates Year Completed: 1993

In 1985, state representative William D. Mullins from Ludlow, MA suggested that the University of Massachusetts at Amherst needed a new multipurpose arena and convocation hall to attempt to expand the university’s athletic program and help encourage the growth of the university. He passed away in 1986, but the state decided to go ahead with the construction of the complex, naming it after him. It would replace the Curry Hicks Cage, a 1930s-era basketball gymnasium. The Mullins Cen- ter would be the home of the minutemen basketball teams, and help the UMass hockey team to be elevated from a club sport to a division one program. Cambridge Seven Associates out of Boston, MA was commissioned to do the project, which was completed in 1993. There have been few renovations done to the center since then with the exception of the hockey rink that was added five years later. The William D Mullins Memorial Center is situated on Commonwealth Avenue on the western tip of the UMass campus. It overlooks the outdoor fields offering vista-like views of the Hadley Hills and the Holyoke Range. According to the UMass website, “the Mullins Center represents a joining in form, of the campus’ architecture, and in spirit, of the campus’ commitment to the quality of life for the university community.

The southern side of the complex bears resemblance to an oval, while the northern side is more rectangular in shape. The edifice is composed of mostly brick that is interspersed with tinted pane windows that provide luminosity to the interior. The main entrance to the complex lies between two columns like structures that exhibit the similar tinted windows. Above the central entrance is a protruding and curved metallic structure that holds many of the Mullins Center offices. The ceiling of the main center as well of the adjacent practice rink is a trapezoid structure that is finished in a dark green. The ceilings color immediately grabs the eye and creates uniformity between the two build- ings. A pleasant square joins the main center and the adjacent hockey rink. Metallic grating lies above the brick of the office building giving it an industrial finish.The roof is reminiscent of the prairie style, and a drop on one side of the building suggests multiple levels simi- lar to Frank Lloyd Wright Robie House. This overlying roof also provides a sense of shelter from the elements while outside. The complex is a dual-building facility connected by a plaza with locker rooms, weight rooms, and equipment storage located underground. The main arena contains a basketball court over an Olympic sized hockey rink. The arena is also used for convocations, commencement ceremonies, cultural events, concerts, and fine art productions. The adjacent building has a permanent ice rink for recreational skating and practice for the collegiate teams. The arena also contains seven racquetball courts, numerous multi-purpose rooms, and offices of the athletic department, a “green room”, and press area. The Mullins Center is managed by Global Spectrum, which manages over 70 different arenas throughout the United States. Benjamin Bridges Murray D. Lincoln Campus Center

University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA Architect: Marcel Breuer Year Completed: 1969

Marcel Breuer’s Lincoln Campus Center stands prominently located in the heart of UMass Amherst’s campus, just off of North Pleasant St. in Amherst, Massachusetts. Designed in collaboration with architect H. Beckhard, the building was constructed between the years of 1965 and 1969, at the end of Breuer’s career, and is primarily composed of reinforced concrete. Like many other buildings of Breuer’s latter period, the UMass Campus Center can perhaps best be described as an example of Brutalist architecture. With its liberal use of concrete, thickly articulated walls and support structures, and imposing, monolithic composition, the building exhibits many of the movement’s sty- listic characteristics. In fact, at this time Breuer was known as one of the movement’s leading practitioners, and, as such, he had developed some of his own subtle Brutalist trademarks; there is critical consensus that attributes a certain softness to the way in which Breuer was able to render his concrete. In other words, Breuer was able to make concrete look “soft,” and with its smooth surfaces, rounded edges, and shallowly recessed windows, the Campus Center is exemplary of this quality in his work. The building also exhibits shades of Breuer’s modernist beginnings. As a member of the Bauhaus’s Weimar and Dessau faculties, Breuer worked closely with and was strongly influenced by Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, whom he would later join at Harvard University during the Second World War. As eminent figures of the modernist movement, their influence on Breuer would often find expression in his works; the Campus Center is no exception. While modernism in many ways marked a complete disavowal of an architec- tural past, many of the movement’s practitio- ners retained subtle nuances of the classical, particularly when construed in terms of a sharp delineation of bottom, middle, and top seg- ments of a building, as in Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building. In Breuer’s Campus Center these clearly defined sections are manifest. The bottom, marked by ambiguous load-bear- ing columns and a recessed, nebulous entry- way are reminiscent of Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, while the middle and top segments are marked by Breuer’s trademark soft, gently re- cessed windows, and a protruding lattice-work, respectively. The building is also defined by an asymmetricality of form, a clean, off-white, industrial aesthetic, and orthogonal elements (although edges here are notably rounded) that in some ways recall Gropius’ Dessau Campus. However, one can observe a departure from the modernist ethos that es- chews ornamentation in the structurally articulated ornamentation and texturing of the building’s front and back facades. One aspect of the building that is hard to ignore is its positioning atop a large plaza. Besides contribut- ing to a striking first impression, this plaza is intended to promote socialization (much like Mies intended with his Seagram Building), with chairs, tables, and benches incorporated into its very structure. Given the build- ing’s purpose as a “campus center,” a place intended to promote student interaction, the structure exhibits a wonderful confluence of form and function. Indeed the building serves as a hub of activity, not just for students, but for anyone who may happen to be visiting the campus, as it houses several conference rooms, convention halls, retail food outlets, the campus’s central dining hall, and even hotel rooms. Beneath the plaza, which actually marks the entrance to the building’s third floor, lies a labyrinth of underground passageways that connect the building to a nearby parking garage and the UMass Stu- dent Union. Breuer’s conceptualiza- tion of this building reflects a strong intention to define it as the heart of the campus’s vascular system. With respect to the rest of UMass Amherst’s campus, the building fits in nicely with its vaguely modernist aesthetic. While the UMass campus is often noted for its eclectic leanings, most of its other noteworthy buildings can either be classified as falling under modern- ist or strict Brutalist classifications. The Fine Arts Center, which was designed by Kevin Roche, is of- ten touted as a prime example of 1960’s Brutalism, while I.M Pei, who designed the campus’s library, stud- ied under Breuer’s tutelage while at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. The campus has an urban, industrial aesthetic to it, with which the Campus Center produces a harmonizing resonance. That said, viewing the build- ing and the campus from a broader scope, there seems to arise a strange paradox; while the campus remains somewhat uniform in its overall aesthetic, this aesthetic seems en- tirely unsuited to, and incongruous with such a rural setting. Western Massachusetts is farm country, and there is a notable lack of organicism to any of the buildings that define UMass’s campus. Indeed as one drives past the University on Rt. 116, the campus looms above the tree-line as a small city, alien to its surroundings. Once enveloped by its grand scale, however, as when one drives along North Pleasant St., the campus, and Breu- er’s Campus Center, strike one as strongly rationalized, and clear in intent, if only from this insular perspective. Ironically, the building affords quite majestic views of the agrarian countryside from its more elevated floors. Betsy Critchfield and John Redmond Gordon Hall

University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA Architect: Sigrid Miller Pollin Year Completed: 2003

To the average visitor, the bustling campus of University of Massachusetts, Amherst seems like its own industrial city, separate from the quiet town of Amherst. Yet, tucked away on North Pleasant Street is the peaceful retreat of Gordon Hall. Architect and UMASS professor, Sigrid Miller Pollin, designed Gordon Hall. The principal architect of Miller Pollin AIA Architecture in Amherst, MA, Miller Pollin began designs in early 2000 and completed construction in the summer of 2003. Gordon Hall houses the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) and the department of Legal Studies and Labor Relations. PERI honors two academics who happen to share the same last name—Glen Gordon, a retired dean of Social and Behavior Sciences, and the late Professor David M. Gordon of the New School for Social Research. A plaque is mounted at the front entrance of Gordon Hall explaining why the build- ing is dedicated to the passion and testament of these two academics. Another large bronze plaque hangs in the atrium of the building, listing all those who participated in the construction of the building and contributed to its success. In these two memorials, Miller Pollin interweaves the history of the building into the academic and administrative purpose. The building is rooted in the legacy and mission of Glen and David Gordon, and also aware of the work and support needed to accomplish such a project. Essentially, Gordon Hall is a composed of two three-story sheds, which merge to create a v- shaped, double triangulated atrium. The rural barn façade and glass panes create an environment that appears both rustic and modern. The building is located on a privately owned property right next to a Baptist Church. Miller Pollin intended for the building to follow the sloping contours of the land that it resides on. Although Gordon Hall is physi- cally separate from the rest of UMASS campus, the students and faculty who work in the building feel it reflects the same values as the rest of the in- stitution. The campus itself is somewhat disjointed, so Gordon Hall does not need to follow a clear-cut architectural vision. The immediate context of Gordon Hall is both peaceful and academic. Walking around the building there is a certain sense of serious- ness and calming tranquility. The 20,000 square foot building is complete with conference rooms, administra- tive offices, classrooms, and an atrium dining area. As you walk through the corridors of each floor, there are windows opening out into the central v-shaped atrium. The center of the atrium of the building incorporates the barn-like structure of the building, using the red walls as a contrast to the transparent glass windows. One of the most unique aspects of the building is the central white cylinder in the atrium. Following the contours of the external structure, the cylinder has both a practical and artistic purpose. At first glance, it appears to be a work of modern sculpture. The white cylinder contrasts the rustic red interior. The seemingly random pattern of windows is reminiscent of Le Corbusier and other modern architects. Yet, inside the cylinder is a fully-equipped kitchen that offers complimentary coffee, tea, and snacks. This encompasses the purpose of Gordon Hall, which is to provide a relaxed academic atmosphere that inspires creativity, research, and colloquy. Compared to Miller Pollin’s other work, Gordon Hall is continuous with her philosophy. Most of Pollin’s work focuses on the relationship between built form and natural form. Gordon Hall incorporates the themes of agriculture and nature along with the principles of interior design. Miller Pollin’s other work follows this philoso- phy, as she attempts to break down the barriers between nature and design. With Gordon Hall, in particular, Miller Pollin has said that she wanted to “create a focal space that brings natural light into the heart of the building in all seasons – especially in the winter months.” This concern about the interplay between one’s natural environment, the aesthetics of light, and design, guides Miller Pollin’s work and is exemplified in Gor- don Hall. Gordon Hall at UMASS Amherst is definitely worth seeing and, I would argue, is an architectural gem in the Pioneer Valley. In Gordon Hall and her other projects, Miller Pollin articulates the importance of sustain- ability as well as the relationship between modernism and nature. The focus on light and sustainable materials reflects the general trend in architecture to move toward more eco-friendly buildings that are rooted in nature. Miller Pollin’s aesthetic is both pleasing as well as conducive to productive work and thinking. Gordon Hall also engenders a sense of community. The offices of professors are organized by practice area and are inviting and approachable. The classrooms also encourage community and utilize natural light. The only weakness I would consider is the building’s physical location and the lack of landscaping around the perimeter. If Miller Pollin wanted to create a total experience at Gordon Hall she might consider updating the grounds and the outside of the building. Overall, however, Gordon Hall is a captivating building that successfully accomplishes both the goals of the architect and the academic institution. Julia Merrill Amherst Police Station

Amherst, MA Architect: Kuhn Riddle Architects, Inc. Year Completed: 1990

The Amherst Police Station is located on the corner of Churchill and Main Streets, just east of Town Center. Before the station was built, Amherst’s police headquarters were less than a block away, in the base- ment of Town Hall (Main Street at Boltwood Avenue). The force worked out of the outdated and cramped facili- ty for years. It is largely because of this that town officials agreed in 1989 to finance a state-of-the-art $6 million police station, despite the controversy it provoked amongst officials and taxpayers.The 22,000 square foot, 80- room Amherst Police Station opened in 1990. At the time, it was considered the archetype for a new generation of community-oriented police stations. It is more than just a holding area for petty criminals—it is a thoughtfully planned building which features a cutting edge communications center and radio tower, a small gymnasium for officers and a host of administrative offices. It has an on-site forensic testing laboratory and a sally port that can double as a massive holding cell in the event of civil unrest. When construction was completed, Amherst’s police began, for the first time, to work out of a centralized, well-planned and all-inclusive headquarters. This was thanks in part to Kuhn Riddle Architects, Inc., also of Amherst, MA. The firm won the bid for the project in 1989. Kuhn Riddle has been working in the Pioneer Valley since 1977, and has worked on a number of acclaimed buildings in the area—St. Brigid’s Catholic Church, Yankee Candle Company and Amherst Cinema included. Their offices are located just a few blocks from the Police Station. Kuhn Riddle describes it mission as designing buildings with ‘strong links to context and neigh- borhood.’ The firm views architecture and con- struction as ‘collaborative processes that succeed when all genuine stakeholders work together and have ownership of the finished product.’ Both these sentiments are reflected in the Amherst Po- lice Station. It is at once an open and modern civic center—anyone can walk in for a tour or infor- mation—and a high security facility. Its exterior is aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn’t call attention to itself. It is clean and understated, and makes reference to Amherst’s architectural history. The Police Station is reminiscent of Am- herst’s Town Hall, completed by H.S. McKay (Bos- ton, MA) in 1889—exactly a century earlier. Both buildings feature a modified cruciform floor plan, a main tower, arched entryways and substantial bases. The Police Station, however, is not a mere replica. Its design conflates Town Hall’s Romanesque conventions with modern and post-modern influences. In place of a rough granite base, the Police Station is anchored in smooth concrete—a building material popularized by International Modernist architects in the early twentieth century. Its main entrance is not cut as deeply into its façade as Town Hall’s, whose recessed, arched entryway is remi- niscent of H.H. Richardson’s style. Instead, two brick plinths invite you toward the Station’s glass double doors, which are framed by an unadorned, shallow concrete arch. The transom window overhead is emblazoned with a Robert Venturi-esque ‘POLICE’ sign, which gives the entry a post-modern vibe.

The pitched roof and warm brick façade give the building a New England-y, residential feel. Even though it is a police station, it doesn’t feel out of place amongst nearby residences, churches and a cluster of restaurants that Amherst’s many college students patronize. However, the building isn’t overlooked because of its understated design. Ribbon windows and the low-lying, vertical nature of the building are modernist flairs that are scarce in Amherst. They bring to mind the spare functionality of Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, which gives the Amherst Police Station a contemporary relevance that the town’s many historic buildings lack. The Amherst Police Station is worth going to see—not because its design is stunning or groundbreak- ing—but because it is an interesting departure from the conventional police station. The structural similarities that can be drawn between it and its predecessor, Town Hall, contextualize the building within the town of Am- herst. It wasn’t thoughtlessly plopped down on the site of a razed apartment building; its reference to Town Hall integrates it into the community. Furthermore, the exterior façade is warm and inviting, giving us the sense that it is a building that belongs to the public as much as it is a place for holding criminals. Brick masonry imbues the façade with a sense of solidity and authority; poured concrete and windows temper this effect. Ribbon windows on the tower and the glass entryway on the exterior façade infuse the main lobby and administrative offices with light, giving what otherwise could be an imposing structure welcoming. Kuhn Riddle prides itself on architecture that has ties to context and neighborhood, and in designing the Amherst Police Station, they cre- ated a building that truly feels as though it belongs to the community. Maddie Tamagni Arms Music Center

Amherst College, Amherst, MA Architect: Benjamin Thompson Year Completed: 1968

The Amherst College Arms Music Center was constructed in the 1960s by Benjamin Thompson and As- sociates. The center was built to house the college’s performing arts facilities and incorporates a music studio, 25 listening and practice rooms, the Buckley Recital Hall, classrooms, and a library. Situated at a cross street between the college and Route 9, the building not only accommodates the Amherst College student body and faculty, but is also open for use by the public. Amherst College students and nationally renowned musicians perform in the Buckley Recital Hall and these performances are open to all. The building is made of brick and stone. Large glass windows dominate the building’s façade, giving those inside dynamic views of the campus and town, while also providing those outside of the building glimps- es of the action inside. The building’s interior contains elements that resemble features from works designed by celebrated architects. For instance, in both the Arms Music Center and the Yale University Art Gallery, designed by Louis Kahn, the ceilings are patterned with concrete squares. In both buildings these squares hold light fixtures, technical systems, and the weight of the building. The latter allows for more open space because it creates a lesser need for walls. Benjamin Thompson is a celebrated American architect, having received honorary doctorates from three universities and the Firm Award and Gold Medal from the American Institute of Architects. He pioneered the terms “adaptive reuse” and “festival marketplace.” Thompson notably ap- plied these terms in Boston’s Faneuil Hall, where he reused three blocks of old markets and warehouses. His firm is also well known for other produc- tions throughout the United States. BTA collaborated with developer James W. Rouse in the development of Faneuil Hall, along with Harbor Place in Baltimore, New York’s South Street Seaport, Miami’s Bayside Mar- ketplace, and Jacksonville’s Jackson- ville Landing. The exterior of Arms Music Center resembles a number of build- ings designed by Thompson. These include Harvard Law School’s Griswold and Pound Halls, the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts in Min- nesota, and the Design Research Headquarters building in Cambridge. In both the buildings at Harvard and the Arms Music Center, Thompson employed the use of brick and stone to create jutting, angular forms on the building’s façade. The juxtaposition of these two materials calls attention to each one’s surface. Also in each of these building, the brick and stone accentuate the building’s large glass windows. The Arms Music Center mir- rors the Ordway Center and the Design Research Headquarters in that Thompson made use of glass. All three buildings have large frameless glass windows that create a view into the productions inside the building. With the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts and the Design Research Headquarters, Thompson is respectively highlighting the performances and the furniture within. The large windows of the Arms Music Center call atten tion to the Music Library as well as the building’s large main entrance space. The implementation of these large windows also blurs the division between inside and outside. Many modern architects, including Le Corbusier, heralded this idea, along with the idea of the open plan, yet another feature of the Music Center. The Arms Music Center’s scale is miniature in comparison to other colleges’ and universities’ music centers. Though the space incorporates a number of facilities, students, professors, and faculty members all agree that the space is inadequate. Many suggest that the various components of the building should be separated. The building’s top floor houses the library, along with lockers and practice rooms. The nature of the floor plan only enables large, open spaces on the ground level and the basement.Thus, the Music Library is constricted into a tight L-shape, mirroring the angular nature of the building’s edge. The constriction of rooms and gathering spaces to the periphery of the building leaves a wide-open space at the building’s center. Many who use the building on a daily basis argue that this “wasted space” is visually jarring and inefficient, and that it does not contribute to the functionality of the space. On the other hand, some argue that this space could serve as an open gathering space for visitors before they enter the Buckley Recital Hall. The empty space also visually highlights the upward orientation of the building, drawing one’s eye to the sun lit ceiling. A second notable inadequacy is the building’s wheelchair inaccessibility; there aren’t any elevators or ramps in the Arms Music Center. Ann Maggs, a voice coach at the Center recounts, “Once I watched a woman in a wheel chair being carried up the stairs while two others behind her carried up her chair.” She then added, “Try to imagine how it would be to carry a grand piano up those stairs, I’ve seen it plenty of time.” Despite the inconvenient aspects of the building, its aesthetic complements the college’s other build- ings. One could argue that the use of brick helps to effectively integrate the Arms Music Center with the other brick buildings on the Amherst College Campus, making its modern structure less of an anomaly on a campus if nineteenth century buildings. Also, at night, the building’s large windows help to illuminate the Arms Music Center, making it into a shining jewel. When walking past the building, one can’t help but be transfixed by the light that shines out from the building’s interior. Porsche Dames Keefe Campus Center

Amherst College, Amherst, MA Architect: Perry Dean Rogers | Partners Architects (PDR|P) Year Completed: 1987

The Keefe Campus Center was finished in the fall of 1987 and named for Harry Keefe,Amherst Class of 1947, in 2000. It serves as the college’s student center and contains offices, meeting rooms, a coffee shop, and a game room. Along with these amenities, the campus center also serves as the headquarters for the col- lege’s post office and their Center for Community Engagement. Although it doesn’t house classrooms, Keefe Campus Center acts as a key aspect of every student’s life at the college. One of the more striking aspects of this building is its location. Seating in the middle of a hill at the cen- ter of campus, next to McKim, Mead, and White’s Fayerweather hall, and a short distance from the college’s main quadrangle, Keefe Campus Center offers brilliant, unobstructed views of the Holyoke Range to the south and the Pelham Range to the east. On the south side of the building, a lawn, connected to the building by bril- liant granite stairs offers students the opportunity to enjoy sunny days, and is a popular working spot. In an attempt to fit in with the layout of the college, Keefe Campus Center borrows designs and forms from other buildings on the campus. The rectangular columns that mark the entrance to the building and the tall rectangular windows above them represent a neoclassical interpretation of Fayerweather Hall, its neighbor. Its yellow color mirrors that of the Octagon, another building on campus. Keefe Campus Center was built on a cruciform plan and has a very geometric exterior. Shapes, mostly triangles, rectangles, and circles, are repeated over and over in the build- ing’s symmetrical façade, which feels repetitive and boring. The circles, as the only curved lines seen on the façade of the building, feel forced and out of place and give the building an uncomfortable feel. The main entrance of the build- ing faces west, however, an entrance through the coffee shop that opens into the yard to the south is also widely used. Each of these entrances opens into the main foyer, a large open spaced in the heart of the building that gets natural light from the skylights in the center of the roof. From the foyer, you can see a majority of the second story, which is wrapped around the foyer, and gain access to the mailroom and coffee shop. The second floor is a rectangle that offers views into the main foyer through windows and walkways whenever possible. The highlight of the second floor is the performance space/multi-purpose room above the main entrance. On either side of this room, study spaces and meeting rooms are located and look out onto the lawn or Fayerweather Hall on the other side. These rooms contain large wooden tables and ample tall rectan- gular windows to provide natural lighting. The building’s basement contains meeting spaces for clubs as well as the campus movie theater. This area is difficult to access, with stairwells that are poorly lit, cramped and sometimes difficult to find. In general, the interior basement, tucked into a hill is very dark and unwelcoming, with no means of collecting natural light. As a whole, Keefe Campus Center is an underwhelming building that does not really have a place in the campus. Its beautiful laocation is wasted, as not enough accessible, large windows are located on the east side of the building, overlooking the Pelham hills. Also, the building is too small for its intended purpose. As on of the most frequently visited buildings on campus, it does not have the size or the layout to comfortably deal with traffic. The foyer, which is easily the most beautiful aspect of the building’s interior, is often packed with people trying to get from point A to B and, as such, is not inviting. The central fireplace in the coffee shop and the tiny game room are the two “offering” locations in the building (along with the steps to the south), which seem to invite people to slow down and “hang out”. However, all in all, the building is trying to perform too many tasks in too small a location and, thus, is not practical. Conor McDowell Earth Sciences and Museum of Natural History

Amherst College, Amherst, MA Architect: Payette Architects Year Completed: 2006

The 60,000 square foot combined Earth Sciences Building and Museum of Natural History at Amherst College is sited at a prominent location that initiates the re-definition of a major campus space.The new facility, opened in the spring of 2006, will enhance the identity and visibility of both the geology department and mu- seum at Amherst. The facility includes state of the art teaching labs for both introductory geology courses as well as advanced instruction in the geological sciences. Students in these disciplines have access to their own special- ized research spaces, map rooms, a library and multidisciplinary GIS lab. The new Natural History Museum houses outstanding collections and exhibits that include vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology, minerals and other geologic specimens, and anthropological material. Designed by Payette Architects, the firm worked closely with Amherst’s geology faculty to develop a unique program and design for the building that seamlessly integrates teach- ing and research. In the facility, each faculty member’s office serves as a hub surrounded by a teaching laboratory/class- room, scientific instrumentation and faculty research labora- tory. Payette used brick to connect the contemporary Earth Sciences Building and Museum of Natural History to its con- text. Red brick and gray stone dominate the existing architec- ture on the Amherst, Massachusetts, campus, which includes many 19th- and early 20th-century buildings. Brick, terra cotta, stone, and lead-coated copper compose a carefully crafted ve- neer on the new building, relating materially to existing struc- tures. The gray roof and gray stone on the base of the building compliment the newly designed King and Weiland dormitories, while the brick and terra cotta are woven to form a fabric on the façade of the building. The brick matches the color and texture of many campus academic buildings, but with longer Norman brick to accentuate the “stretching” of that fabric. The building was constructed on a slight hill and the Norman brick and placement of the ornamental terra cotta screens accentuate this. The brick stretches down the hill while the screens are higher on the building at the top of the hill and become lower as you move down it. The contours or flow of the building try to match that of the landscape. Similar to how Frank Lloyd Wright’s Teliesin blends into the “brow” of the hill, Payette architects, although not on the same level as Frank Lloyd Wright, tried to mimic the landscape. The architects also placed geologi- cal boulders outside the back of the building, which helps the building blend in with the land. The terra cotta screens that span some of the building’s glazing provide shade while maintaining a visual connection between the campus and the building’s interior. These screens add an ornament to the building and protect the ancient artifacts from the sun light. The screens are also placed so that a passerby from the outside can view the geological artifacts through a large glass window. Inside the building the class rooms, offices, and labs are compartmentalized, except on the first floor, where the atrium houses the museum’s paleontology collection. The atrium is an open plan similar to the Yale Art Gallery by Louis Kahn. Similar to how Kahn pushed the columns to the outside of the floor, Payette architects did the same thing as the columns blend in with the walls. As a result of this open plan the atrium could be used for many purposes; not just a museum. Hidden in the ceiling of the museum are also electronic shades that come down to help the outdoor terra cotta screens ward off the sun. Unlike Kahn and the Yale Art Gallery, the lights are not imbedded in the ceiling, but positioned in a square above the artifacts. The lights, which are small and round, take on different shades of blue, yellow and gray, and are supposed to resemble natural sunlight and the sky, but do not shine directly on the paleontology. On the interior and exterior many of the materials that Payette used were rich. Payette used terra cotta and copper on the façade of the building, while the interior included marble, and rich looking wood. This reminded me of Mies van der Roh’s Seagram building where only the best materials were used. Also Mies was very specific about the window blinds on the façade of the Seagram building. As a result, he specified the window blinds to operate in three positions - fully open, halfway open/closed, or fully closed. This made the building look very proportional. The same proportionality was used in Payette’s design of the screens on the façade of the Earth Sciences and Museum of Natural History building. Amherst College was very happy with the design of this building; however, there was one shortfall that they noticed after the building opened. This was that there was no place for students to “mingle” on the first floor. As a result, classes in session in the lecture hall or the museum were often distracted by sounds of stu- dents talking while they waiting in the hallway for their next class. Regardless, Amherst College’s Earth Sciences and Museum of Natural History building has been recognized by the Boston Society of Architects (BSA) and the New England Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) for its exceptional design. The building’s architectural firm, Payette, earned a BSA Honor Award and an AIA/New England Honor Award in the Education Category for this innovative facility. Matthew Himler King and Wieland Dormitories

Amherst College, Amherst, MA Architect: William Rawn Associates Year Completed: 2004

Wieland and King dormitories are predominately upperclassmen housing comprised of 115 single rooms. These dorms, which opened in 2004 and were designed by William Rawn Associates with 59,000 square feet of room, were built at a cost of 17 million dollars and are situated at the top of the athletic fields on the east campus. Both dormitories are four stories high, have a slight curve to them and are made of granite. Although much of Amherst’s campus is made of square, red brick buildings, Wieland and King are not out of place. Beyond their similarities to Barrett Hall, their place on campus allows for the use of stone. According to Ned Baxter, a designer at William Rawn associates, where granite may not work on one of the many quads, it works in many senses on the periphery of campus. In Wieland and King, functionality is of the utmost importance. While there is a defined space for indi- vidual concentration and work, the layout of the dorm encourages interaction and collaboration. The buildings are designed with small floor plans – no more than fifteen people live on any floor – in the hope of creating a tight-knit community on each floor. In addition, the common rooms are all well lit with both an abundance of natural light as well as strong artificial light. In contrast to most dormitories built in the past that primarily provided areas for students to work by themselves, Wieland and King create spaces where students can work together collaboratively. The common rooms are not meant only as a place for people on one floor to gather. The staircases welcome people to transition from one floor to another in a few ways. First of all they have many large windows, which ensure that the staircase is not the usual dreary and dark place that it is in many buildings. Another interest- ing aspect is that the floor tiles present on the first floor common room extend all the way up and down the stair- cases. Thus the staircases seem to be more a continuation of the common room and encourage people to move about the dorm. Wide, well lit hall cor- ridors also encourage students, even when they are in their own rooms, to keep doors opens and allow for the possibility of informal interactions. In a similar sense as the common rooms are continued into the stairway, there is an integration of in- side and outside. To begin with, many of the walls on the first floors have large planes of glass. The first floor common rooms have 180 degrees of glass that allow not only a thin membrane but also a visible connection to nature outside. This use of large panes of glass with views of nature is present in other works of William Rawn Associates as well, in particular The Alice Paul and David Kemp Residence Halls at Swarthmore College. In addition, the fireplaces that sit in the middle of the common rooms are made of the same grey, rough granite as the outside of the buildings. Baxter noted that the curve and length of the buildings frame the view of the athletic fields and hills beyond, once again creating an interaction to nature from within the dorms. The material of the buildings is a gesture towards nature as the rough stone connects to the hills just beyond the campus. All of these aspects create an integration of inside and outside. On a larger scale, the buildings are built into the sloping hill. This is not only functional in leaving open, flat spaces for students to use for rec- reation but it also creates the sense of having the building rising out of the ground, in many ways reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings. While nature is integrated into Wieland and King, there is also a geometric exactitude in the orthogonal shapes that are present throughout both dormitories. In the first floor common room, the ceiling has four large squares, all of which have 16 smaller squares within them. The ceiling melds well with the rectangular shapes of the wall as well as the floor. Even the outside of the building, which has the rustic aspects previously ad- dressed and has a curved structure, is comprised of equal sized blocks. The combination of the integration of inside and outside and the logical geometric order to the buildings create a controlled connection to nature. In a similar way to Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, there is an organized view of nature. If one looks at the Amherst campus as a whole, the Wieland and King dormitories serve as a transition between the formal, academic buildings and the athletic fields. In this way it is more than appropri- ate that Wieland and King integrate these two aspects – the formal geometric order that lends itself to one’s studies and the natural that is so much a part of sports. Although the architecture of Wieland and King is not a stunning display of architecture that blows the viewer away, it is not supposed to be. Instead it works as a logi- cal addition to the Amherst campus, providing a transition between athletics and academics. In the end, Wieland and King are successful not just fitting in but unifying the whole campus as well as provid- ing an atmosphere for serious individual work and group collaboration. Sam Sperling Maria Chao House

Amherst, MA Architect: Margaret Chao Year Completed: 2007

Maria Chao built this two story home for her family in 2007. The overall theme was sustainability, ex- ecuted more from a materials and cost effect perspective rather than the use of flamboyant technology. The architect utilizes the site plan, the angle of the sun and seasonal breezes to accomplish her goals. Maria Chao has incorporated environmental architecture into her designs as a second nature through working with William McDunn Architects. It was natural that when she built her home she would carry these values with her. The complexity of her design is at first difficult to see but the use of materials is almost immediately apparent. The first sight in the living room is the exposed composite material fire place/c entral support.The rest of the house is ornamented simply through the use of materials such as the composite bamboo railings and the fiber cement panels of the stairs. The house needs no air-conditioning in the summer and requires a significant less amount of winter heating than the average home. This is due to the combined design of the windows and the use of concrete as a main material for the house. The concrete is extremely good at temperature regulation and adjust quickly to room temperature. During the summer keeping the northern windows open at night lets in the cool air, which cools down the concrete. Closing them in the daytime keeps the temperature cool inside the house and eliminates the need to regulate the temperature. The sun is kept out by a small over-hang on the southern sides open wall. This is where the precision of the design comes into play. The overhang is an- gled just right to keep the sun’s sum- mer rays, angled at 68 degrees, out of the open common space; yet during the winter time it does not impede the rays of the sun, seasonally angled at 23 degrees, which pour in and heat up the concrete floors, subsequently heating the house. There are other smaller design features, which help regulate the temperature and make this house green. From the use of fiberglass window frames for example, rather than wood, which has an expan- sion temperature that’s closer to glass, to cheaper, more sustainable concrete bathroom sinks. It is also evident from visiting the house that it is very family oriented. Although the architect declines that there are any direct stylistic influ- ences, it is evident that her architectural training influenced the design of the house. Starting with the central hearth, it is clear that family life is to revolve around the hearth and the kitchen area. There’s a connection here to the hearths of Frank Lloyd Wright and his family planning. The open plan connects all of the three major family oriented rooms, kitchen living room and dining space. This seems to be largely influenced by the open plans of modernism. The use of materials as ornament mimics the modernism of Mies Van der Rohe. There also are indications of influence from major modern architects in the style of windows used.There are ribbon windows, cutouts and a full floor to ceiling window spanning two stories; the use of these windows are reminis- cent of Robert Venturi’s post modern style. All of these architects seemingly most important ideals come together to ornament this simple house based mostly on sustain- able architecture; and while the subtleties of the plan are im- pressive, the appearance of the façade, the wood juxtaposed with the metal in a modern style, is rather impressive. Maria Chao has a commit- ment to changing architecture on a small scale. The extreme attention to the detail of the site and the advantages this area provides is juxtaposed by the lot next to hers. The baseline energy star buildings are all arranged around a cul-de-sac facing inwards with little regard for the nature around it. Maria Chao noted the difference in houses designed for the cars of the 21st ceuntry, and her home designed for sustainability in the 21st century. The subtle difference between the used of purely architectural features and environment to govern the house is what truly makes this home special and an example of great sustainable architecture. Mwanzaa Brown Seterdahl Residence

North Amherst, MA Architect: Anmahian and Winton Architects Year Completed: 2001

The Seterdahl House sits on a low hill in North Amherst, partially hidden among slender white pine trees. A distinctly modern house, it stands apart from its colonial and split level neighbors. Designed by An- mahian and Winton Architects of Cambridge, MA and built in 2001, the house is constructed almost entirely of wood, and without the use of structural steel. From the exterior, the house appears to be an unassuming wooden box. It stands in a small clearing, at once integrated with the surrounding trees in its material, yet remaining distinctly separate in form. The wooden siding of the house, all Western Red Cedar and Douglas Fir, runs in both horizontal and vertical planks, eliminating the potential log-cabin effect and instead giving the façade a woven look. While it was not designed specifically in the spirit of the Modernist movement of the 19th and 20th Centuries, the design incorporates several elements of modernist architecture: its simplicity of form, efficiency of layout, and its unconventional way of manipulating sunlight all make it a unique and decidedly contemporary residence. The design of this house was a collaborative effort between the architects and the owners. Peter and Mary Seterdahl built this house with their young family in mind, and at 2500 sq ft, the layout is intended to maximize practical and livable space. The most striking layout decision is the double-story pine wall, which divides the interior of the house length- wise. All of the plumbing runs on one side of this wall, maximizing the ef- ficiency of water-flow to the bathrooms and the kitchen. Also in the spirit of efficiency, the owners deliberately eliminated spaces created purely out of convention, such as a formal dining room. In a style reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian houses, the layout of the Seterdahl house was de- signed with great attention to freedom of movement throughout spaces. The ground floor of the house has hardly any formal rooms at all; the living area and family area are divided by a semi- transparent wooden lattice box that encases the stair. The central dividing wall is opened up to give access to the kitchen, which is separated from the family area by only a small counter. In contrast to the communal nature of the spaces on the ground floor, the second floor is divided into private bedrooms and bathrooms. Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the Seterdahl residence is the lattice structure that encases the stair. The unfinished pine planks run horizontally and vertically, intersecting at right angles. The lattice serves the purpose of an informal wall, distinguishing the family area around the woodstove from the dining area and the fireplace; yet because it is semi-transparent, it does not disrupt the open feeling of the plan. The staircase is the central channel connecting all three levels of the house: basement, main floor, sec- ond floor. Through it, the sunlight that enters from the skylight on the second floor can filter down into the main part of the house. A similar lattice structure encloses the screened porch on the house’s western façade. The lattice rises to the second story of the house, where it shields the windows of the master bed- room, both creating privacy and filtering sunlight in the evening. The uses of the lattice pattern both inside and outside creates a subtle continu- ity from interior to exterior, another facet of mod- ernism. The Seterdahl house engages with nature on its own terms; horizontal planks on its southern face form a built-in trellis, encouraging vines to grow up onto the side of the house. The wood siding, though only a few years old, has clearly been weathered by New England winters and faded to a dull grey. Many of the construction materi- als, however, were chosen with attention to the local labor market; the stone of the shower basin and the kitchen and bathroom counters, and the interior pine are all local. The orientation of the house, however, is not ideal. The “front” door faces East, opening onto a forest and is not as easily accessible as the South-facing side door. It seems that the West face of the house, which is more dynamic in appearance, receives more natural light, and is visible from the road, should be the front of the house. In addition, the long sides of the house face East and West, but a South-facing orientation would make better make use of natural sunlight for passive heating in winter. The design of the Seterdahl House is honest and undecorated. Its charm lies in the details that make it a com- fortable home for family life: the bookshelves built into the central pine wall, the benches set against the walls of the family room, whose horizontal planks mimic those of the lattice and wood siding. The house’s greatest achievement, however, is the sense of connectedness present not only within the spaces of the interior of the house, but also between interior and exterior. It is possible to stand in the kitchen and look out onto the yard through the family room, then to pivot and view the front yard through the window above the sink. From a sin- gle position on the landing of the stairs, it is possible to see both up the stairs to the second floor and through the lattice into the family and living spaces, the kitchen, and the front entryway. This house’s transparency and its imaginative manipulation of light, combined with its simplicity and humble materials make it a unique and comfortable residence well suited to family life. Eliza Peabody Miller Pollin House

Amherst, MA Architect: Sigrid Miller Pollin Year Completed: 2008

The Miller Pollin house sits on a sweeping lot in a rural section of Amherst, Massachusetts. The open, sloping space provides a view of the Holyoke mountain range from this structure, built in 2008. Sigrid Miller Pollin, the architect and resident of this “live/work” structure, incorporated the house into the landscape and designed it to enhance the natural views. The house rests naturally on a slope, and intrigues the viewer without being overly conspicuous and dramatic. One of the goals of this house is to provide a sustainable living space. The studio, or workspace, is separated from the home by an arch that serves as both a passage for cars and an extended patio. The curved roof that connects the living and working spaces is one of many aspects of this home that makes it sustain- able. The roof is designed to catch rainwater and disperse it to irrigate the property and the vines that climb the sides of the arch. Other sustainable aspects of the structure are radiant heating so that heat only rises to the level of a standing person, the use of materials like bamboo, the use of cross ventilation, furniture that is designed such that it is made of less material, and heavy insulation. Indeed this house accomplishes its goal of being a sustainable structure. While the overall design of this house is decidedly modern and progressive in its use of green methods of construction, the house is an inter- pretation of the old New England barns that are dispersed throughout the area. Part of the roof is sloped much like a barn and the paneled siding is both reminiscent of a barn and gives the building a down to earth, homey quality. This use of material makes the building accessible and not cold as other modern structures sometimes are. Local Goshen stone is used for the outdoor spaces and paths. The landscaping of this site flows with the landscape and is manicured without being overly structured or unnatural. The roof slants up toward the back of the house so that the structure seems to come out of its site and open up to the landscape behind it. Clear geomet- ric sections in the back of the structure evoke a cubist feel. The main living room, which seamlessly flows into the kitchen, is open and airy. The entire room opens out toward the view of the landscape. The architect made the lighting in this room soft by placing lights in the ceiling in recesses so the light can bounce of the sides and not hit the residents directly. Alvar Aalto’s work influenced the design of the interior of this home., as Miller pointed out. The space connects with the nature around it and creates a quiet, intimate, comfortable setting, channeling Alto. It does not shock the viewer with dramatic features. The staircase is ornamented with a rich Aalto-esque wooden sheet. Some of the furniture, like the dining room table, is designed by the architect to go along with the ideas of the architectural design. Overall, the house builds on the idea of incorporating function into design, or as Le Corbusier, a promi- nent Swiss-French architect put it, “form follows function.” There are various nuances of the design that intend to serve the preferences of this particular family. For instance, the kitchen floor is made of cork so that it feels good to walk on, the edges of the stairs are curved so that they are comfortable to climb, and there is a small breakfast nook in the kitchen because often the family does not want to eat at a large dining table. Another functional aspect of the house is that the architect designed the entrance so that there is a separate room before the main house to trap all the cold air that comes in when the door opens. Also, the bed in the master bedroom faces a large East-facing window so that one can wake up to the rising sun. The house compliments and enhances the way its residents live. Also, this house continues the work of Frank Lloyd Wright both by connecting to nature and its surroundings and by using design to centralize and enhance family life. This house is a wonderful example of the power of design to make a space feel a certain way. The architect wanted to veer from the tendency to make extremely spacious master bathrooms, so for the master bath she used a very limited amount of square footage. She designed the ceilings to be high so as to use up a large amount of volume and prevent the room from feeling claustrophobic. She also designed a room on the lower level that she wanted to feel more quiet and intimate. To accomplish this she made the ceilings relatively low and filled the room with bookshelves and furniture. She did not want the bookshelves to make the room seem like a storage space as one enters, so she designed a tunnel-like structure in the shelves that is made of consecutive eye level square-shaped holes in every shelf from the entrance to the opposite side of the room. This simple tunnel gives perspective to how open the room actually is. Overall, this house embodies the idea of creating a space to live in rather than a cookie cutter suburban house. It is also proof that a modern building does not have to be unfamiliar or cold, that it can really serve as a home. Hanna Schutt Eric Carle Museum

Hampshire College Architect: Earl Pope Year Completed: 2002

The Eric Carle Museum for Picture Book Art elevates children’s books illustrations to an art form. Opened in 2002 at Hampshire College, it was designed by Earl Pope of the Juster Pope Frazier Architects, and founded in part by Eric Carle, the author and illustrator of many beloved children’s books. The architecture of the museum invites youngsters to explore and create while still demanding that adults consider picture book drawings sincerely. The building is in no way a playground, but a serious museum with adaptations in its con- struction for its young audience. The entrance on the west side of the 40,000 square feet museum leads to the main hall that stretches back the length of the building. The hall looks like a page out of one of Carle’s books: Four massive mono- chromatic collages, made to look like the tissue paper art of Carle, hang from the northern wall. They break up the crisp white of the walls and ceiling. The room is flooded with light from the wall of glass on the southern side and the ribbon windows on the other, brightening the walls and paintings. The floor is made of rough, lightly colored grey granite that radiates heat to allow children to sit on it without getting cold. Off the main hall there is an auditorium for performances, three galleries, a children’s library, a shop, a café, and an art studio. The galleries are located in the center of the museum. They exhibit the work of different children’s books illustrators that rotates every few months. The walls are white and the floor is a lightly colored wood; the only color comes from the picture book art on the walls. There are no windows in order to protect the illustrations. The galleries present the art in a manner meant to capture the mind of young and old alike: though the art is hung slightly lower than in typical museums to accommodate young viewers, it is still exhibited seriously. No words from the books are on the wall, but each gallery contains boxes holding the books of the author whose art is on display for perusal. The emphasis is clearly on the illustrations, not the books them- selves. The auditorium at the museum is used for performances, puppet shows, films, and storytelling to complement the art in the galleries. It has seating for 130, as well as ample floor room for youngsters. Once again, the architecture adopts simply adaptations that accommodate the young patrons, but that preserve the functionality of the museum. The reading library offers a comfortable place to read or listen to stories, and the art studio allows young artists to engage in projects of their own. The building is U-shaped, wrapped around a large central terrace that faces the street. The only curve in the exterior comes from the arched steel roof. White columns bear the weight of the roof and the upper wall, and allow the façade, set back from the columns, to be a simple membrane of steel and glass. The entrance is hidden on the side, permitting the glass to stretch across the façade. This provides significant light to the café, the main hall, and most importantly, the art studio. To reflect the importance of nature in Eric Carle’s books, Pope designed the museum to interact with nature. The modernist exterior may make it seem isolated from its surroundings, but the building actually em- braces the nature around it. It is nestled in a 7.5-acre apple orchard, separated from the rest of the Hampshire campus. The architect situated the building so that the shadows of the gnarled apple trees form silhouettes on the white exterior; emphasizing their presence and making the building look like one of Carle’s works. In addi- tion, the curved roofs mimic the peaks and valleys of the nearby Holyoke range. The interior of the building continues this emphasis on nature. Traditionally, once inside a museum, the main focus is inward onto the artwork. Yet in the Eric Carle museum, the focus is outward as well. In the main hall, the large windows on the south side are situated so that on entering, one looks diagonally out the win- dows through rows of apple trees to the Holyoke range in the distance. The building was also constructed with nature in mind. It is very energy efficient, and has a high ther- mal mass so that the temperature doesn’t fluctuate and less heating is needed. This is important for the sur- vival of the art as well. There are certainly influences of the modernist giants Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier in the design was the museum: the steel and glass façade, white exterior and ribbon windows are the most obvious modernist attributes. However, the spirit captured by Earl Pope in his design is more in line with the work of Alvar Aalto and Louis Kahn. Like these two architects, Mr. Pope embraces the relationship between archi- tecture and nature. In addition, in the tradition of Kahn and Aalto, Pope has a humanistic approach to archi- tecture. The design brings dignity to the illustrations and provides the building with a quiet serenity, while still keeping children in mind. Catherine Knuff National Yiddish Book Center

Hampshire College, Amherst, MA Architect: Allen Moore Year Completed: 1997

Allen Moore’s National Yiddish Book Center (1997) lies silently in a far corner of the Hampshire Col- lege campus, bordered by fields, woods, and a parking lot. The building was designed to house a large portion of Yiddish-language books being collected by Aaron Lansky from all around the world, and also serves as a resource for Yiddish culture education. Throughout the building are various museum-style rooms and displays explaining the history of Yiddish culture and language. Currently an expansion is being built that will add a large climate-controlled storage warehouse, as well as more office space, classrooms, and a large multipur- pose room. The building itself was designed to resemble a shtetl, the Yiddish word for the small pre-war villages of Eastern Europe. It is wide, sprawling, and only one story high. The front of the building is formed by an assort- ment of hut-like structures, jutting out from a discrete rectangular frame. Each of these structures has its own triangular roof covered in large wooden shingles, which often comprises more than half the height of the whole “hut.” This emphasizes the “village-ness” of the whole and distracts from the unifying building in-between the huts. The overall effect is that of a community of smaller buildings rather than the much more unified work one finds inside. After approaching the building, one crosses a small wooden bridge across a ditch to enter the center hut. It is an understated entryway: the door is hidden in the shadow, and set back quite far from the facade. The bridge compounds this effect, extending the distance between the start of the ar- chitecture and the doorway entrance. Visiting for the first time, it would not be hard to mistake it for a back en- trance, especially because there are no surrounding buildings clarifying which way we might expect the Center to face. Most of the building is one large open space, organized around the lower level Book Center stacks, accessible by a ramp wrapping around the far right wall. Immediately to the left and right are the “huts” seen from outside. Each of these is a small high-ceilinged room used for the museum displays. Allen riffs on the Jewish Star of David throughout the building, incorporating its shape into his interior design. Most overtly, it is seen formed by the high wooden crossbeams of several of the hut-rooms. But the hexagonal shape and its angles are prominent everywhere: in the visitor’s desk, the design of the doors, even in the subtle angling of the skylight that runs across the length of the Book Center. In keeping with its pre-modernist rural theme, much of the building is made of wood: wooden siding, wooden columns, wooden edging on the walls, and a wooden ceiling. The overall effect is very brown, but the wide variety of patterns and finishes ensures we aren’t bored by a monotony of materials. The slanted, striped design on the doors in particular is striking. Because the effect lies from the positioning of the wooden boards comprising the door, it doesn’t seem garish or overly ornamented. It is similar in effect to some of H. H. Robin- son’s more subtle brickwork. Moore uses as much natural lighting as possible. There is a long skylight that stretches the length of the stacks above the main aisle, and a long row of rectangular windows stretches across the top of the wall, hugging the ceiling. These high outward views draw the eye upwards, highlighting the structure’s high ceiling, which is further adorned with brightly colored flags inscribed with letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The bright- ness of the flags, flattered by direct natural light, sets off the neutral tones of the rest of the room. Unfortunately, one thing does get in the way of the attractive and thoughtful interior design: the books themselves. The shelving chosen for the stacks is cheap and strictly utilitarian: generic metal shelves, painted beige. Currently (although this may be due to the current ongoing expansion work), the books themselves are disorganized: there are many large gaps on the shelves, and plenty of carts piled high with books to be shelved lie around. The setting evoked is less of a library as it is a storeroom. It is disappointing that in an institution meant to venerate and exalt Yiddish language traditions, the books themselves are not housed with respect. Allen’s work is striking at times, and there are clearly parts of the design which have been treated with care and attention. The rich wooden interior provides an appropriate but modern and attractive complement to the exterior’s shtetl vibe. In addition to the prominent hexagon, Allen uses many solid, regular shapes in his work including symmetrical right triangles formed by the crossbeams above the entrance and square window- panes and columns. There is a sense of order and balance created in the upper level that is unfortunately not matched in the stacks. It is a great regret that though the Center was created to be a beautiful home for endangered Yiddish-language texts, their immediate locations – their shelves – are merely functional. Where the purpose of the building lies, the attention of the architect has waned. Phil Dupont Brown Fine Arts Center

Smith College, Northampton, MA Architect: John Polshek Year Completed: 2003

The Brown Fine Arts Center is an elegant and new gateway to the campus of Smith College in Northampton. It was designed by John Polshek and was completed in 2003. The museum was actually built to replace John Andrews’ original 1970s ensemble of the Museum of Art, Art Department and Art Library. Polshek expanded and reconfigured Andrews’ Center to create a new state-of-the-art facility. A central atrium unifies the Center and creates a place for interchange between students, faculty, museum staff and visitors. The newly re-configured building includes galleries, studios, library reading rooms, an imaging center, stacks, a 120-seat auditorium, art storage facilities, a café, Museum store and display classrooms. Renovations to the remaining academic spaces address natural lighting conditions in the studios, reconfigure faculty offices and create a new secure student gallery. Since 2003, this building has won numerous awards, including the Award for Excellence in the Built Environment, granted by the Northampton His- toric Commission Preservation. In terms of design, the Fine Arts Center takes cues in form and material from the architectural context of both the campus and the immediately adjacent historic district in the town of Northampton. The building’s primary materi- als - brick, zinc, glass and metal - reinforce connections to the texture and quality of the surrounding historical con- text, though mostly through its use of brick, which domi- nates the style of the Smith campus. The building’s design plays with the dynamic visual balance between the transparency and reflectivity of glass and the opacity of brick. Articulated planar brick walls in combination with large expanses of glass shaded by an aluminum sunscreen define the overall mass of the building. Selected to match College Hall, the brick, which envelopes the entire building, is laid in a rich variety of tex- tural patterns. Linear recesses and projections animate the wall surface. The additional layer of the metal sunscreen serves to soften the impact of the glass surface when viewed from the exterior as well as to filter natural light inside the studios and library. It also marks the building as belonging to a more modern architectural era. As an art museum, the Brown Fine Arts center is quite successful. With the exception of the basement level, each of the museum’s three stories follows an identical floor plan. Each floor is then connected by a staircase that hugs the atrium joining the museum to the Fine Arts center and library. This ensures that while the galleries are lit with artificial light, the viewer emerges into a main hall / stairwell that is bathed in the bright, natural light of the atrium. The effect is pleasant and cheerful, and unusual in art museums. The basement level of the museum, though lacking the light of the above-ground levels, is an ideal space that is used to house the museum’s temporary exhibitions. The main room of this level has high ceilings and an open floor plan, with two smaller wings branching off of it. The visitor moves easily from room to room, and the openness of the space facilitates a more leisurely appreciation of the art. Certainly worth visiting are the museum’s bathrooms, which rival Smith’s permanent collection in both creativity and craftsmanship. Deciding that ordinary restrooms simply would not do for such a new and innova- tive building, Smith decided to enlist the help of artists Ellen Driscoll, an installation artist and photographer, and Sandy Skoglund, a sculpture professor at the Rhode Island School of Design, to customize one of the museum’s women’s and men’s rooms, respectively. Supplies were provided gratis by the Kohler Co., which also offered access to its production facilities, so the artists could transfer their working sketches into decals for firing into porcelain. As a result, the bathrooms boast fancifully appointed sinks and toilets as well as walls embellished with pastiches of famous paintings and images culled from ancient mythology. The Brown Fine Arts Center is both modern and traditional; it blends into the traditional New England campus of Smith, while simultaneously launching it into the future. It is both proud and humble. It is a pleas- ant, and warm building that is in every way a tribute to ingenuity and creativity, right down to the very last bath- room tile. Lia Tsarnas Campus Center

Smith College, Northampton, MA Architect: Weiss Manfredi Architects Year Completed: 2003

The Smith College Campus Center goes above and beyond in the resources that it offers. It is home to over 120 of the college’s clubs and is actually utilized for lounging, studying, and as a place to meet up with other students. I believe that the Smith College Campus Center was well built and designed for its fundamen- tal purpose, a student commons. The Smith College Campus Center is an illustrious example of what a col- lege’s meeting place should be and look like. The Campus Center is located at 100 Elm St in Northampton, Massachusetts near the intersection of Route 9 (Elm St) and Prospect St. It lies south of Route 9 with its entrance on the building’s south side, facing the main portion of the Smith College campus. The closest and most convenient visitor parking can be found directly across the street from the Campus Center on Route 9. The Campus Center was built in 2003 by Weiss Manfredi Architects of New York. The structure is 56,000 square feet and is made up of 3 internal buildings connected by internal walkways and the main com- mons. The building is constructed primarily of glass, with cement, steel, and wood as well. Much of the build- ing’s exterior has board and bat siding. The building is two stories tall in most areas, although some spots on the inside are three stories tall. However, from the outside its height is not noticeable due to the long glass panes and varying outer geometry. The inner commons has a large s-shaped atrium with a large curved wall and a skylight that make you feel both outside and inside at the same time. The right of the main entrance is very angular while a protruding curvy segment lies to the left. On the right side of the building, the right angles quickly change to a long curve. Though the left side does just the opposite and is at first curving but quickly turns into right angles. At the back of the building the two sides converge to form three joint rectangles. The square footage of the building is maximized due to the curves of the building, which avoid a nearby transformer station. From a birds-eye-view, the building resembles a grand piano with an elongated soundboard and a long but subtle S curve. In a campus that is full of red brick, nineteenth century architecture, the modern style of the Campus Center is sure to catch students’ and visitors’ eyes. In almost every aspect of its architecture and function the building is un- precedented. Most importantly, it is the first Campus Center to have been built on the Smith College campus. Additionally, the roof is a flat surface unlike almost all of the other buildings on campus, which are angled; cur- rently, there are only four other buildings with flat roofs on the college’s campus. Lastly, it is the only building on campus that does not have a true geometric right angle shape. The Campus Center has influences from both Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye and Mies Van Der Rohe’s Villa Tugendhat. Villa Savoye is the international symbol of modernism due to the use right angles, long glass windows, and white color. Additionally it is elevated off the ground and has curved structures on its roof. Villa Tugendhat is also greatly geometrical, all white, uses glass in creative ways, and uses rich materials. The Campus Center is purely all white, has geometrical influences in some parts but also has curvature in others, and has very large original glass windows and a skylight. The skylight in the main commons greatly relates to Villa Savoye’s roof deck glass door, to create a blending effect of the inside and outside. Additionally the back of the campus center is raised off the ground just like Villa Savoye. The board and bat siding is very similar to Villa Savoye’s first floor ribbed glass exterior. The Campus Center lies relatively in the center of campus while also being at the edge of Northamp- ton; it is a bridge between the college and the town. The structure has various outdoor terraces that connect much of the building with the landscape. The building overlooks Paradise Pond and forms a quadrangle with several small educational buildings. Nearby are the college’s Brown Fine Arts Center and the Neilson Library. The Campus Center fittingly is host to the Office of Student Activities, various meeting rooms and lounges, a community art gallery, the student mailroom, the student radio station, a dining hall, performance rooms, and the Grecourt Bookshop. The Bookshop sells textbooks/books, college apparel, and school supplies like almost every conventional college/university. The Smith College Campus Center goes above and beyond to fulfill its role as a campus meeting place. The atrium is a key aspect of the building that can be easily overlooked. For much of the academic year it is too cold out for students to fully enjoy the outdoors. The skylight and glass walls allow students to feel like they are outside while being sheltered from the cold and the winter elements. The atrium allows students to meet up with one another, enjoy the surrounding scenery, and have a link to the different functions and offer- ings of the Campus Center. The Smith College Campus Center offers a lot more than the nearby Amherst College Keefe Campus Center, for example a bookstore that sells college apparel. Many students of Amherst College at first find it baffling that there is no college merchandise or books sold on campus. Students must go toA.J. Hasting’s for apparel and a non-college associated store for books. Although Smith Students might not realize it at first, the bookstore proves to be a luxury. The bookstore guarantees that the student’s books will be available nearby and also makes college apparel and school supplies readily available. The Smith College Campus Center also has a much better food available inside of the building. The Keefe Campus Center has a small sandwich/coffee shop while Smith’s Campus Center offers a food court with a much bigger selection of food. The students of Smith College use their Campus Center to the fullest poten- tial and during all hours of the day, no matter what day of the week it is. Sam Jakimo LA Fitness

Springfield, MA Architect: Kuhn Riddle Architects Year Completed: 2008

When the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame moved into a new building in 2002, it left behind an attractive venue in downtown Springfield. In 1983, the prestigious architectural firm Cambridge Seven from Boston won a competition to design a building for the Hall of Fame and completed the project in 1984. The three-story building was built parallel to the Connecticut River on the western side and Interstate 91 on the eastern side. The architects designed the building to optimize the scenic view to the west, choosing to use mostly glass paneling, as compared to the façade facing the highway which was constructed entirely of concrete to block the noise. A number of different businesses considered moving into the building after the Hall vacated it, but the eventual tenet was LA Fitness, a national health club chain that wanted to open its first location in Western Massachusetts. Kuhn Riddle Architects of Amherst, Massachusetts was hired to transform the old Hall of Fame building into a full operational health club, complete with physical therapy facilities and an adjoining restaurant. The Springfield LA Fitness building, completed in the spring of 2008, fits squarely into the tradition of modern architecture as it demonstrates the primary concepts of the movement. The building has a mod- ern style in that it uses geometric rather than natural, organic forms. The building consists almost entirely of right angles and straight lines which are most obvious in pylons that run along the eastern side of the building and the main entrance. The pylons extend the height of the building and stick out of it like flaps. Dur- ing construction, LA Fitness decided to keep the pylons, which originally depicted basket- ball players in action, but repaint them in their corporate colors, ranging from yellow to orange. The column-wall is part of an addition that Kuhn Riddle designed to create space for a pool and basketball court. The addition juts out of the south end of the original building towards the river and one of its walls extends farther out than the others creating a funnel-like space that calls attention to the main entrance of the club. This wall is divided into columns of glass and concrete covered by square metal tiles painted yellow. Across the top of the wall is an LA Fitness sign. Creating space for the basketball court and pool was an important part of the renovation project be- cause they are main attractions of the health club. LA Fitness wanted the facilities to some how be highlighted by the new architectural design. Kuhn Riddle considered putting the facilities on top of the original building be- fore deciding to build the addition. The entrance to the club now has not only an impressive three-story lobby in the original part of the building, but also a clear view of the court and pool from the lobby, as they are en- closed only by glass and steel walls. Transparency is another distinctly modern feature of the LA Fitness build- ing. Not only is the addition mostly glass and steel but Kuhn Riddle also added glass to the original structure, removing columns of the concrete wall facing the highway and replacing it with glass and steel in between the pylons. The building’s function is apparent just by looking at it as you can clearly see people playing basket- ball, swimming in the pool, and working out on exercise machines. Steel, glass, and plastic were the important new materials of the modern movement which idealized industrial production and advancements in technology. The architects at Kuhn Riddle do not design strictly modern architecture – as they have designed and built a number of private homes and public buildings in a va- riety of styles across Western Massachusetts. However, they decided the modern style of the LA Fitness build- ing is appropriate because of its location: LA Fitness fits in with the surrounding modern steel and glass high rises of downtown Springfield. LA Fitness can be considered modern in two other important respects. First, the building was designed for a social purpose. The architects of the modern movement were intent on im- proving society through architecture and a building for social exercise and health certainly falls under this goal. More importantly however, LA Fitness represents a significant step towards revitalizing Springfield’s slumping economy. After struggling with corruption and almost going bankrupt, new businesses such as LA Fitness are a comforting sight for the people of Springfield. Most notably, LA Fitness obeys one of the most important axioms of modernism, espoused by archi- tect Louie Sullivan: form follows function. The building was renovated with its function clearly in mind as open spaces were created for exercise machines, the addition was built for the court and pool, and some of the floors of the original building were moved and rearranged to create space for the adjoining restaurant. The renovation and addition were not about redecorating the building with ornamentation, but rather it was about restructuring the building to fulfill its new purpose. The LA Fitness building in downtown Springfield is certainly a unique health club. The pylons grab the attention of passers-by on the highway, and the orange and yellow color scheme create a pleasing visual effect as well. While LA Fitness is consistent with its corporate surroundings, the bright colors of the building bring to life an otherwise sterile environment, creating the feeling that a bit of the west coast has been transplanted into Western Massachusetts. The most intriguing part of the building is the entrance where lines and right angles cross one another and give the building structural clarity. LA Fitness in Springfield is more than a health club: it’s one of Western Massachusetts best examples of successful modern architecture. Evan O’Roark U.S. Federal Courthouse

Springfield, MA Architect: Moshe Safdie Year Completed: 2008

The United States Courthouse in Springfield, Massachusetts is an award-winning building designed by architect Moshe Safdie. Completed in the summer of 2008 and located at the intersection of State and Spring Streets, it is a light and open building whose layers speak for the judiciary branch of the federal government. The structure elegantly curves around two trees, which originally included a five hundred year old black walnut that predated George Washington’s visit to Springfield at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. The outer- most layer of the Courthouse is constructed from classical concrete colonnades, followed by a three-story play- fully curvy glass shell and finally, two sky-lit Indiana limestone walls. Sol LeWitt’s black-and-white mural titled “Loopy Doopy” inlays the innermost limestone wall, delineating the entrances to the building’s four courtrooms. Each courtroom features a curvilinear roof constructed from European Steamed Beech panels and features large skylights, all of which culminate to form beautifully lit spaces with perfect acoustics. The building, and Safdie, received national attention when the U.S. General Services Administration honored the courthouse with an award for excellence in architecture in 2009. Safdie was born and spent his early childhood in Haifa, Israel, before moving to Canada in his teens. The architect is best known for his dramatic use of light and for the simple geometric and curved forms that were likely acquired during his apprenticeship with Louis Kahn. Since restoring and linking four major parts of the Old and New Cities of Jerusalem, Safdie has won several major commis- sions for museums, airports, and educa- tional and performing arts centers around the globe, including the U.S. Institute of Peace Headquarters on the Mall in Wash- ington, D.C., and the Skirball Museum and Cultural Center in Los Angeles, Cali- fornia. About this project, Safdie wrote, “The federal courthouse should bridge the authority and order present in histori- cal models with the pluralistic spirit of our time by creating an accessible place in the city that speaks of both community and authority.” In his creation of the Unit- ed State Courthouse in Springfield, Safdie achieves his goals. The courthouse, a brilliantly clean white limestone, stands out amid the buildings that surround it. Intended to rejuvenate the surrounding city, it brings a sense of hope and aspiration to the street. A massive but not intimidating building, the columns on the front facade exemplify the historical author- ity and importance of the building. Columns are an iconic symbol of the American courthouse, but here they are re-imagined in their square forms, curved layout, and seeming lack of building behind them. They are widely spaced and the façade is lined in glass, lending a sense of openness and transparency to the building. It is only when you walk around the back that you see the raw power in the walls of concrete protecting both the judges and the accused.

However, the courthouse is also a welcoming place. The curved colonnade in which the entrance is located reaches out to the public and heightens interest in the building. Behind the columns lies a glass pavil- ion, beautiful, inviting, and completely open to the public. This pavilion is intended as a venue for receptions, lectures, or small exhibitions, though it has yet to be used as a public space. The building’s focal point is the towering pair of historic trees, softening the building and making it more welcoming. Glass frames that entire front wall of the building, opening the interior and the views of those inside to the outdoors and the unexpected beauty of the trees in the midst of the city. Most of all, the courthouse is a place of justice. Both the staff and the visitors enter through a single, secure point, protecting both the accused and the accusers. A three-story high atrium with a wide ascending staircase welcomes visitors, making them feel comfortable and lifting their spirits despite the somber nature of a courthouse. The courtrooms themselves are finished in wood, the layout is traditional, but daylight spills into the rooms through an unorthodox skylight, allowing those within to hold proceedings by the illuminating light of day. The ceiling shape was chosen to maximize acoustics, dispersing sound so that it is more reflective near the judges, attorneys, and witnesses and more absorptive near the gallery. A quilt by Ann Brauer graces the rear wall of each courtroom, lending a final feeling of reassurance to the room. Tracy Montgomery and Blanca Myers Piening Hall

The Hartsbrook School, Hadley, MA Architect: Thompson and Rose Architects Year Completed: 1989

Completed in 1989 by Cambridge MA based Thompson and Rose Architects, the Hartsbrook School’s Piening Hall is located in Hadley, Massachusetts on a site oriented towards breathe taking views of the Holy- oke Range. The three-floored barn derived structure whose form pays homage to its location in the Pioneer Valley is primarily composed of long thin wood beams which panel the majority of the façade, two varieties of long and narrow windows, and a curved metal sheet that functions as the roof. The 20,000 sq ft building was originally intended as office building with an assembly hall, but the space was converted into its current state when the school’s founders decided to form the school. The interior contains a block of administrative offices on the first floor, multiple classrooms on all three floors, and two assembly spaces. The grander of the two meeting spaces is located on the second floor and contains a large arched ceiling, an expansive and grand view of the mountains, and access to a large terrace. The Hartsbrook School’s educational philosophy is based on the Waldorf education. This alternative educational system uses progressive teaching and a curriculum which integrates the humanities and sciences to mold students into moral and integrated individuals. One of the elements unique to a Waldorf education is Eurythmy, an art form usually integrating spoken text or music which including elements of role play and dance and is aimed at providing students with a “sense of integration and harmony.” Piening Hall, which houses half of the 150 student body, was designed with two multi-purpose spaces, a meeting space which is right next the main entrance and a grand large as- sembly hall on the upstairs floor, to allow students to properly participate in Eurythmy. The two spaces not only contain favorable acoustics but are also expansive enough to accommodate both students and teachers’ needs. While these spaces primary use is for Eurythmy, they also act as areas to hold a multitude of functions, and as a place for students to just relax. However, the space’s downside is that it become drafty during the numerous winter months as a result of the architects’ poor choice of combining large windows with a lack of insulation. As well as being an education space, Piening Hall is a piece of organic architecture, a less elaborate Villa Mairea of sorts for those seeking knowledge instead of a home. Organic architecture is a division of archi- tecture which seeks harmony between human habitation and the natural world. At its best, organic architecture integrates buildings, furnishings, and surroundings into one unified and interrelated composition, creating a sense of intimacy between the building’s inhabitants. Many elements contribute to Piening Hall’s organicism. First, the Hall’s numerous large windows and expansive outside balcony are integral in creating harmony between the building and its surroundings. Whether the students are in the classrooms, hallways, or assembly spaces, the windows create a transparent bridge between the building and its environment, allowing the oc- cupants to passively absorb and bring themselves closer to the immediately adjacent outside world. On the other hand, the second-floor balcony functions as an active platform for allowing students to leave the internal confines of the hall and to directly engage with the Holyoke Range.The expansive 20 ft long deck provides each student with the flexibility of deciding how he wants to interact with his natural environment. The idea of organic architecture also refers to a building’s ability to become a unified “organism.” For the Hartsbrook School, Piening Hall is the central and most important organism. The connecting offices on the first floor are the school’s and building’s internal critical organs. In this space, the head administrators who work on an equal plane to jointly run the school flow from one office to next advising, seeking advice, and deciding on the school’s critical issues. The building not only functions as the heart of the school, housing the people who keep the school’s blood continuously pumping, but also acts as permeable organism. Piening Hall is constantly alive as students, teachers, and faculty circulate throughout the building through its multiple entrances, levels, and multifunctional spaces, making it a pleasurable and energetic experience for all who spend time in the building. When considering Piening Hall’s main function as an academic space, the building should be consid- ered successful. Even though the building is not the most innovate or original creation, seeing as the building is influenced by Aalto’s Villa Mairea in its planning and landscaping, the building still serves the purposes of the school quite nicely. Excluding the location of the bathrooms on the bottom floor, the building contains all the element required for a school to properly function. The classroom and assembly spaces are open, adaptable and filled with light, providing the teachers with the necessary flexibility to plan numerable creative lessons in accordance with the school’s goals. Most importantly, the students, teachers and staff all believe Piening Hall is an ideal place to work, learn and study. Todd Lavine Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame

Springfield Architects: Gwathmey Siegel & Associates, Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype Year: 2002

Located on an 18-acre urban revitalization site near the Connecticut River, the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame can be viewed from the Interstate highway and the Amtrak rail lines that run nearby. Its exterior is defined by primarily three features: a 150 foot high basketball-topped spire that incorporates the Hall of Fame’s logo, a 120 foot diameter metal-paneled sphere, and an intersecting 100,000 square foot horizontal, curved-roof exhibition center located between the north and south parking plazas, which allows entry to the building and contains retail and lobby space. The ground floor of the exhibition center comprises 50,000 square feet of retail space and a 200-seat theater. The Hall of Fame includes exhibition galleries, a gift shop and administrative offices. After entering through the north parking plaza, you walk through a wide hallway towards the middle of the exhibition center (and the sphere) and pass by a number of restaurants and the offices of a local radio station. Large glass win- dows allow you to see the DJs at work. Slightly off center, and deeper into the exhibition center is the “arena-style” ticket booth. From here you can see the glazed entry to the sphere, which houses the Center Court Atrium, organized around a basketball court. Once you enter the sphere, you can view the atrium while ascending in glass elevators. The Honors Ring hangs on the first floor, suspended within the spherical volume. On the second floor, there are a number of galleries that form views into the atrium and Center Court. This work was a combined effort by two architectural firms, Gwathmey Siegel & Associates and Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype. GSA’s philosophy is twofold: 1) to understand and engage in the complex dynamic between context and change, and 2) to form a partnership with its clients and stakeholders, those who view, live in, and visit the space. Consider the first tenet. The founders of Gwathmey Siegel & As- sociates write, “Every new building, every adaptive reuse, every site must address and acknowledge a pre-ex- isting context. At the same time, however, every structure and every intervention-whether radical or reverential- ultimately changes the context. The only question, then, is whether the inevitable change will be for better or worse; whether context will become a synonym for stagnation or a spark that ignites redefinition”There are a number of ways to examine context: the Hall of Fame as compared to nearby buildings, to other major America athletic memorials, and to other works that engage in the postmodern school are among the most meaningful considerations of context. In its immediate context, one must consider the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame as part of a revitalization center in the city that founded basketball – Springfield, Massachusetts.The Memorial needed to be bold, to make a statement in the landscape of a decaying city. In that regard, it is effective in serving as a “spark that ignites redefinition.” The Memorial engages in postmodern architecture, atypical of many of the prominent Springfield buildings that one can see while driving by on the Interstate, through its design – a 120 foot tall metal sphere that replicates a basketball – and use of materials, particularly the silver metal lining on the outside of the building. Additionally, one must consider the geographical context: the Memorial is located next to a major Interstate highway. The majority of people who have seen the Hall of Fame are not visitors, but rather drivers passing by on the Interstate. When you drive past the building, you are captivated by the 150 foot tall spire and the spherical metal structure in the center of the exhibition center. It immediately catches your attention as a landmark in Springfield, a city that most pass as they travel between esternW Massachu- setts and Hartford, CT or New York – literally putting the city on the map. In the context of other major American athletic memorials, the Memorial is effective in its recognition of the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York and the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Can- ton, Ohio. The Baseball Hall of Fame is an orthogonal, brick building designed by McKim, Mead, and White, a preeminent firm at the turn of the twentieth century, which seems fitting due to baseball’s status as “the great American pastime.” The Football Hall of Fame, on the other hand, clearly influenced the Basketball Hall of Fame: the structure is curved rather than rectilinear and features a large football-shaped protrusion from the roof of the building. The Naismith Memorial does utilize more contemporary materials than the Football Hall of Fame, which distinguishes it from the forty-six year old building in Canton, Ohio. And finally, in the context of postmodern architecture, the building effectively combines the low-brow – a building dedicated to basketball that is shaped like a basketball – and the high brow – the complexity of its interior’s use of floating curved floors and intertwined volumes reveals the content and aspiration of basketball. Looking back to the second tenet of Gwathmey Siegel & Associates’ philosophy that the firm engages in a partnership with those who enter the space it shapes and creates, I recommend that you visit the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame – both to appreciate the building for its challenging design and wonderful basketball exhibits and to determine if GSA held true to its intention to engage those who perceive the space. Justin Holtzman