TribLIVE: The situation at Carnegie Mellon University isn't pretty.
Sure, it's a world-renowned research institution that has been at the forefront of integrating robot technology into everyday life.
Yes, its School of Drama alumni include such Hollywood notables as Ted Danson, Holly Hunter and Zachary Quinto.
The university obviously has much about which it can boast. But its impressive achievements are at risk of being overshadowed by an overwhelmingly glaring negative.
Its Oakland campus has a growing reputation for being unattractive.
17 comments:
As much as I love CMU as a school, I do agree that the campus is not the prettiest campus I've seen. But referring specifically to the art piece: Walking to the Sky, it always felt a bit "off" as I passed it. It wasn't until my mother pointed it out that I realized what wasn't right. This iconic art piece was basically the only one in plain sight on campus. When you are walking down Forbes and you see the campus of CMU, you see Walking to the Sky, then a field, then the library.
Having such a striking piece on campus by itself is very distracting and a bit random.
In my opinion if Carnegie Mellon is at all interested in hearing advice on prettying up its campus, all they need to do is add more, well placed, well designed, sculptures. There are plenty of art students and alumni who would be happy to design such a sculpture and it would not make the only major sculpture on campus stand out so much.
I'll give credit to the article where it is due, as CMU's campus is by no means gorgeous. I agree that the "walking to the sky" sculpture is more than a little phallic, especially to students of college age. I will even go as far as admit to my own bias towards CMU as a school, particularly because I pay a decent amount of money to attend classes there. However, I feel I have to point out that to me, none of the outside aesthetics are intrusive to my day as a student. There is at no time where I feel that the architecture around campus makes me feel worse about a bad day, or otherwise amplifies my stresses. This being said, being a student at CMU has so many things to offer a person that the positives completely outweigh the petty negative of a lackluster campus. CMU students like to do what they do, and want a high level of education in those interests. If anything, I would say that the campus weeds out people who wouldn't be willing to contribute to the academic community at Carnegie Mellon.
I have to disagree to some degree with this article. The Greco-Roman architecture combined with the train motif adds a great feel to the buildings. The fact that the buildings are almost all the same color binds them together since the different majors are so separate from each other.
I do agree, though that some of the statues are quite odd and off-putting including the "Walking To The Sky." Other buildings are bland and boring.
But, the different style of each building makes the campus interesting to walk through. The architecture reflects the people in each building. Although not all of the statues are my favorite, they are all art. People seem to over exaggerate the aesthetic displeasure of the campus. Overall, I enjoy the randomness of the campus.
It is pretty ironic that a school known for such a great College of Fine Arts is being recognized for the lack of aesthetics in this article. Overall, I think this article may be exaggerating a bit. Yes, CMU is not the prettiest campus I have seen. However, I think there are many beautiful parts of campus that could be appreciated. Also, it is important to keep in mind that CMU's campus is in a city. It is difficult for city campuses to achieve the same aesthetics as, say, a school like Cornell or Duke. With that said, I do think that the architecture on campus could have been a bit more thought out. While it is nice to have some diversity between the different buildings on campus, I think part of why our campus seems so displeasing to the eye is because of the vastly different styles of buildings in close proximity to each other.
I have been told from school of architecture students that it is on purpose; It is to teach them what not to do when they get real jobs. I find it hard to believe that CMU is the nations 5th ugliest college, maybe the 5th ugliest in western PA. If it is true in any case, the fact is surprising to me. Sure, wean is terrible, but the rest of the campus is nice enough, and I actually think that Gates is pretty.
I believe what Carnegie Architecture shows is the progression of time, how long CMU has effected America and the World. The earlier buildings portray the time when grand hallways, attention to detail, and elaborate carvings and tiles symbolized the power and wealth of Andrew Carnegie. Gates represents post modern architecture and what we have to look forward to in the future. Even Wean represents the architecture style during the 1960s and 1970s. Although these styles may no longer match our thoughts of beauty and design they do show the history of the CMU campus and further represent the varying effects that CMU students have had on history.
Other than Gates, I'm fairly underwhelmed by most of the CMU buildings in general, especially the exteriors. Sometimes it feels like I'm just staring at bricks for miles and miles. Don't even get me started on the "Wean is a maximum security prison" analogy.
Granted, a lot of the newer buildings have very stylish and highly functional interiors, but the older ones are simply hideous and confusing.
No seriously, Wean is just a catastrophe.
Yes Carnegie Mellon is not the most beautiful place to be but it is not as ugly as this article makes it seem. Some of the buildings are a little out dated but so most everything in Pittsburgh. As a student I do not feel like the poor architecture is really getting in my way or would change my decision to attend this university. That type of learning that I am getting out of this is well worth spending time in some not so beautiful buildings. This feels more like a bitterness towards CMU then actually finding the campus to be unappealing. There are plenty of days when I am on this campus and can see beauty in what is around me.
I wonder which buildings specifically the author found so incredibly ugly. Yes, Wean looks like a turtle eating a cheeto, and "Walking to the Sky" is pretty bad, but the rest of the buildings seem just fine to me. I actually love the interior of Baker/Porter (the slanted hallways are just so cool!) and the exterior architecture of almost all of the buildings here have never really bothered me. Are they going to win any beauty contests? Probably not, but they're certainly not so hideous as to be worthy of comment. Considering we're in the middle of the city, the fact that we have plenty of grassy areas is just lovely (and part of the reason I was initially attracted to CMU's campus) and while the sculptures on campus are kind of weird, at least they're trying. It would be cool if the school would have art from the CFA kids or something, since we are such an amazing art school. There are definitely things that could be improved, but I don't think we're the ugliest school ever by a long shot.
There's no denying that CMU has some seriously ugly buildings but I don't think that those few go far enough to warrant calling the whole campus ugly. There are so many limiting factors when designing a campus in a city, and considering how old some of the buildings are, it's understandable that people don't find them attractive anymore. One serious problem I have with the article is the part about trying to contact Stephen Lee, the head of the School of Architecture, for comment and that when he didn't get a response to call him out for purposely ignoring him. I'm sure Mr. Lee has much better things to do with his time than answer questions about the campus's architecture that I'm sure he had nothing to do with designing. It sounds like the author is actually blaming him for the design of the campus which is a completely unfair accusation. Frankly, when I decided that I wanted to come here, it had little to do with the campus architecture and more with the school as a whole. Saying having an ugly campus "overshadows" all of the achievements and great things this university has done and will continue to do is both absurd and insulting.
Thank you Trib Live! I don't think I really realized the "repurposed maximum-security prison" aesthetic until reading this article. Let's take a moment to think about Ween Hall, a building commonly described as "the tortoise eating a giant Cheeto." The building, and half the other buildings on campus are entirely concrete. It's a bleak scene, but I've grown to accustomed to it that it doesn't bother me on a daily basis! At CMU, it is no secret that 98% of the students are overworked and 95% feel as if they are in a constant state of imprisonment. If it is true that a person's environment can affect their well-being, then I'm afraid the "repurposed maximum-security prison" aesthetic is not helping. I would love to find out how drastically the CMU dynamic changes if all the building had as much character as Gates or CFA. I imagine students would feel a tad less like prisoners on a daily basis.
Poor CMU. Everybody's always picking on us. Sure, we're not the prettiest campus in the country. So what if we're consistently rated as one of the ugliest campuses in the country. Who cares if all those people are right. But they are, and we could use a beautification committee or two or ten. Maybe I just got used to it, but besides Wean, I don't think that our campus is that ugly. I kinda like the L shaped quad, and from the outside Porter/Baker actually reminds me of buildings at Harvard, except using yellow brick instead of red brick. I also think that we do an awesome job using the Hill as a place for buildings such as Gates. The people who write these things should really walk around the campus a bit before judging it so harshly. We have really pretty gardens and paths surrounded by all sorts of cool grasses, but nobody ever talks about that sort of stuff. People should acknowledge that Wean is really freakin' ugly and move on. The rest of the campus isn't that bad. Also, just to respond to the purchase example, yeah, it looks like a bunch of cinderblocks, but there are also parts of it that are pretty, and even if most of the campus isn't that nice it's set in the middle of woods that re safe enough to go walking around in. In the next few years CMU will be adding a more buildings, and although the rendering for the UC addition doesn't look terrible, I just hope it's going to be done by the time I graduate. I think that it could be a huge improvement if our street presence was more than just a parking garage and a giant penis statue. But please, quit calling us ugly. If you really want to insult something, go for the website. It's an easier target, but not enough people insult it.
Criticism like this KILLS me. I find CMU to be pretty darn beautiful, it has pullet off the look of having many different pieces not class so well! and on top of that you have to note that the whole college wasn't built at the same time, buildings were added piece by piece and in the style of the discipline that they would serve. And when its lit up? Gorgeous! Maybe I'm a little star struck, but I simply don't see this horribleness everyone is so convinced CMU holds.I think people should take the time to look at the individual architecture of each building before putting the whole thing together, maybe then they'll see it as I do.
I have to ask, slightly jokingly, but still: do students spend enough time outside to notice the ‘hideous’ architecture? Because, I have to admit, while I’ve never met anyone who actually thought ‘Walking to the sky’ was a lovely sculpture, I don’t spend enough time outside and on campus to notice the buildings. In fact, especially during the winter, I spend as little time outside as possible and get from building to building by as many underground tunnels or strange Doherty to Wean connections as I possibly can. And we do have a rather nice grassy area in the middle to sit in in the off chance we have good weather. So the look of campus has never really bothered me, jokes about Wean aside, as I usually have more important things in mind than to pay attention to the buildings. I do find it interesting how there is no real sense of unity between the buildings, as they all have different styles.
A couple things pop into mind when I read this article.
First of all, the author opened with a remark about the School of Drama notable alumni, which I though was very cool. Basically saying “Sure, the School of Drama produces famous actors, but the campus is ugly.
Second, the author clearly has never stepped into our building. The Purnell Center is beautiful on the inside, (and also bigger on the inside). Especially notable is our lobby and Phillip Chosky Theatre. Other notable buildings on Campus include the College of Fine Arts building, the Library, and the Gates building.
Third, and most importantly, while CMU may be ranked the 13th ugliest college campus, we have been ranked the 1st in computer science, 4th in Finance, 7th in Business, and Overall the 10th by the Wall Street Journal, and the 2nd in Drama by the Princeton Review.
What looks better on a resume:
University Ranked 1st in Computer Science
Or
University Ranked 1st in worlds best looking campuses?
I have to start off by saying I am one hundred percent bias because I love it here at CMU. I find it funny that the world I live in has such strong opinions about the beauty of the exterior of our school. When I look at CMU it always makes me think of the puritan ideal of "city upon the hill" to be model for everyone else. Besides the fact that the school is physically on a hill, I really like the fact that the school has kept to keeping the industrial design. I feel that while every building doesn't look like it goes with the other, every building tells a story not only about it's school but also about its students. Lastly, when I look at the walk to the sky statue I always see it as there being no limit to what students can do here.
Post a Comment