Sat 16 Feb 2008
Recent pictures of the two new academic buildings going up on either side of Sawyer Library have been uploaded here. (The resolution is fairly high, so be prepared for a wait if your Internet connection is sluggish.) The construction is going well, and delivery of the buildings is currently expected to be on time: early July for the North Academic Building and roughly mid-July for its partner to the south. The expected move-in date for faculty and staff remains mid-August.
If you need to be reminded about what all this will look like when Sawyer Library is razed in 2013, click here.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Thanks, looks awesome! I really like the buildings, nothing too crazy, but definitely modern but complimentary to the older buildings in the area. all the natural light and the green roofs are a bonus. I love copper, but won’t those roofs eventually turn green? Or is my science on this outdated? I realize there are all sorts of legal regulations and logisitical issues, but I really, really, really hope when the new campus green is created, it truly is a green rather than dominated by concrete pathways … such as the area around the new Paresky. When this is finished, the center of the Williams campus will be far more beautiful, and flow far more logically, than it did with Sawyer plunked right in the middle of what should be the central gathering point on the humanities side of the campus. Only aesthetic concern … the Barnard tumor on Chapin will now be far more visually prominent. My suggestion: lots and lots of really big trees.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The copper roofs will indeed acquire a blue-green patina. That process will take anywhere from 8-20 years, depending (I’m told) on the amount of sulfur in the air and other factors. You can find more about that here: http://copperroofs.blogspot.com/.
Unfortunately, the amount of outdoor paving on the Williams campus is largely dictated by local codes relating to fire-truck access. The Stetson-Sawyer architects have worked closely with Williamstown officials to come up with creative landscaping solutions that minimize the amount of paving without compromising emergency access. The result will probably be less green space than you want but significantly more than we had in the earliest studies.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Thanks, Michael (if I remember your name correctly) for posting this. When we were there last fall, the construction phase made it difficult to visualize where it was all going. Looks beautiful.
Jeff, your point about Chapin Hall made me realize that I hadn’t really noticed the ‘attachment’ to it when we were there. Hard to believe that a decision like that ever passed. But, then again, I so love symmetry…especially when there is enough distance (like Chapin has) from which to fully appreciate it.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Thanks Michael. Seems like other college towns I’ve been to must just have less restrictive access laws because they seemingly don’t face the same issue, or at least not to the same degree. Overall, the new buildings look great and I’m sure humanities faculty can’t wait until the summer to escape the Steston additional nightmare.
Yeah, I imagine that gray addition to Chapin was originally designed to look as innocuous as posible (not exactly a formula for architectural excellence), which it sort of accomplishes hidden between Sawyer, Chapin, and lots of trees, but now it will be more exposed as the hideous piece of architecture (worst at Williams, in my view, well maybe in a tie with the Hopkins addition) that it is.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Thank you, Prof. Brown, for the link to the pictures. They’re especially welcome since it appears that the construction webcam does not always function properly. Is this a problem of which the committee is aware?
February 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Thanks for the heads-up on the webcam situation. Frankly, I hadn’t looked at the webcam image in many weeks because the camera is positioned so close to the North Academic Building that it doesn’t pick up much of the action. The building’s full tenting didn’t help either, but that is coming down day by day as the windows go in.
BTW, the College has just added a page about the Stetson-Sawyer project to the main Williams website. Check it out at http://www.williams.edu/home/focus/stetson-sawyer/ .
February 18th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Prof. Brown,
Thank you for posting all the information.
I am curious about why the College chose a copper roof and also about why it has decided to let it go green-blue rather than, say, coat/paint it the way tin roofs commonly are “finished” in some way. Won’t the green eventually stain the sides of the building the way the run-off from old statues stains their marble bases?
As an aside about the ugliness of the addition stuck onto the side of Chapin: once the whole Stetson-Sawyer Project is finished, I’ll bet that the College will be able to tone that down a lot. That nondescript addition troubles me far less than the two recent glitzy signature buildings (Paresky and the dance/theater building). Done’s done, tough, and I don’t expect your (Prof. Brown’s) response to my opinion of those two buildings.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Larry–
Funny, but I can’t reconstruct from memory how we settled on plain copper. I believe that the original intent had been to use a self-consciously “traditional” material, especially since we asked the architects for pitched roofs in the interest of maintaining a lively roofscape in this part of campus. The architects proposed a pre-patinated copper product that may have included a coating, but it was rejected for cost reasons. Even given recent high world prices, copper is considered a hundred-year roofing material and therefore a good value. I doubt that staining of the brick will be an issue because the buildings’ eves are quite generous.
Knowledgeable viewers of the photos will have noticed that the brick pattern on the new buildings is Flemish bond, which matches Stetson and Lehman but not Sawyer, which is sided in the simpler (and visually uninteresting) American or running bond. For background, check out http://www.bia.org/BIA/technotes/t30.htm.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Prof. Brown -
Thank you or the response. The brickwork link didn’t work for me, but I certainly approve of the Flemish bond. When I looked at the pictures you posted earlier, I was struck by how handsome Lehman is, partially because of the elegance the brickwork adds to the structure’s simplicity. I’m a fan of the choice to mirror that brickwork on the new buildings.
I hope the copper roofs work out as you envision. It wouldn’t have been my choice (although I might have gone for equally, or more, traditional treated or painted tin) just because I’ve seen too many green statues to find the look appealing. That’s just a personal choice. I guess that, if the green-blue patina seems overwhelming in years to come, a chemical processing and the addition of a coating could be accomplished.
It has been fun to watch the roof go in, strip by strip, on the webcam. I keep reading stories of people shutting down whole towns by stealing copper infrastructure, making it clear both how expensive and how durable copper is, so I was glad to see it installed apparently without incident.
Anyway, thank you for answering my questions. I will look forward to reading more.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am
This is an interesting conversation in that it reminds me just how subjective aesthetics are, and how complex design is, especially in architecture, and specifically, when trying to add to a campus as gorgeous and historic as Williams. And then you have the factor of the students and what really serves their needs.
Long story short, my frosh absolutely loves Paresky. It has played a big part in providing an easy and welcoming entry into a whole new life. I look at it now, with affection, which will, all too quickly, become nostalgia. For me, it is ‘imbued’.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Interesting. Does he love the exterior of Paresky, or does his fondness center mainly on the interior?
It is, indeed, a matter of personal preference. I just don’t like the way the ‘62 Center and Paresky are “Hey! Look at me!” buildings that seem to call for a lot of lighting to show them off and sort of suck the air out of the neighborhood in terms of demanding attention. I have a personal preference for more subtle charms and, for Williams, more of a village feeling, rather than an imported urban feeling.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
The link to the brickwork page works if you delete the final period. Sorry about the snafu.
http://www.bia.org/BIA/technotes/t30.htm
Or try this:
http://www.cmhpf.org/kids/Guideboox/brick.html
February 18th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Prof. Brown -
I should also have said that I was pleased by the interest in having a lively roofscape.
I’ve just realized that I do know buildings with older copper roofs and they really aren’t bad at all. They tend to be tall Beaux Arts buildings with white or gray walls and a much smaller roof area relative to the buildings’ volumes than will be the case with the new Williams buildings. It will be interesting to see how the material looks against brick in buildings with larger relative roof areas.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Larry:
So far, s/he has mainly expressed approval of the interior and how well it contributes to campus life. But, I am sure, if asked, s/he would say that yes, the exterior passes muster as well.
I know what you are saying about overall charm. And again, considering the history of Williams, that “village feeling” should always be a priority. But, it is nevertheless fascinating to me, how emotions play into the way we view things…what becomes beautiful to us and why.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Here are some wonderful passages (Dewitt H. Parker) re: emotion and the perception of beauty…specifically in architecture…
A quote: “…for the beauty of the Brooklyn bridge or Notre Dame in Paris is a matter of direct feeling, which no theory can disestablish.”
http://www.authorama.com/principles-of-aesthetics-14.html