Sun 12 Oct 2008
Eph Football / Weston Field in Boston Globe
Posted by jeffz under Alumni, Athletics
Posted at 7:22 amCongrats to the Ephs on their record-setting 50-45 victory over Middlebury on Weston Field yesterday. The Sunday Boston Globe has a timely feature on New England small college football, including a section on Weston Field (which, in November, hosts its final home game vs. Wesleyan before being torn up and rebuilt this winter). The Globe story also features this video of Eph players getting pumped up for the “Bates” [sic] game:
October 12th, 2008 at 9:11 am
As we all know, in this cruel and transitory life it is better to be lucky than good.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Well, it could have gone either way with Trinity as well, so maybe it was, fairly, our guys’ turn. What a game. I hope they’ll settle down now and play the game they showed they have in them.
It will be a challenge for the coaches, after all that mass of action, to distill out a simple, effective plan for getting where they need to go.
I am excited about the field renovation project. I found it disorienting to sit on the “wrong” side of the field and I’m looking forward to sitting on the other side, with a better view of the mountains. We’ll once again be able to let our opponents’ fans squint into the sun.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I will miss a lot of the charm of Weston — I hope they do everything possible to keep it a charming place to watch a game (the natural setting can’t be beat, certainly, and I am glad they are maintaining the historic grandstand and of course the stone gate … I just hope they do all in their power to make it feel somewhat rustic despite modern conveniences like artificial turf, new lights, and extra parking).
October 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I hadn’t thought of that. I sure hope the recent “Hey look at me” style from Paresky and the ‘62 Center doesn’t creep in over at Weston. Sadly, there is a chance to blow it badly. The building that holds the restrooms, etc. is being replaced. I hope they are going for something efficient but very low-key.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Hope for the best but fear the worst. I’m ambivalent about football on artificial turf.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Agreed with Franks’ sentiments.
I will say this Larry. After my last visit to campus a few weeks back, my view of recent additions has evolved. The theater which I initially thought was OK, I now like less and less. It is just so obstrusive and unsuited for its location, totally ruins the charm of the entrance to campus on route 2, which used to be very graceful and poetic. I also hate the material they used for much of the exterior — sort of a glossy slate, it feels very unreal / Disney-fied, I would have much rather seen a warmer brick, stone, or a more muted slate rather than that polished surface. While I still like the interior, I am beginning to really dislike that building exterior.
Paresky, on the other hand, has really grown on me. First, because of its siting, it doesn’t stick out the way the theater does — it still works to draw the eye to Chapin, and it doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb given its proximity to other large buildings. Second, the materials blend in much better to surrounding buildings than the materials used for the theater. Third, I thought Baxter was an awful building, so it replaced something far less valuable than the staid but very attractive old Adams Memorial theater. Fourth, Paresky works really, really well with the new academic buildings — which I absolutely LOVE. Once Sawyer is gone and the new library is built, the center of campus will be gorgeous and very coherent. A lot of Paresky’s extravagance is echoed, in a more subtle, understated way, in some of the flourishes on the new academic buildings, and suddenly Paresky, overhang and all, makes a lot more sense in its context.
As for the new academic buildings, both are very contemporary without the showiness of some of the other contemporary architecture on campus, and without being boring, inferior echoes of the buildings around them (such as Hopkins addition — uggh). They also don’t try to call undue attention to themselves. And they provide spectacular spaces and light on the interior. Of course, they will feel crowded until Sawyer is gone, but the new center of campus will be spectacular. I also like the new, smaller quad created in front of Lehman. Special kudos to whomever was responsible for the landscaping around those buildings — far and away the most creative and attractive newer landscaping on campus, just really cool with the ferns and somewhat wilder feel, love it. The only downside to the new quad is that Bernhard music center is now fully exposed, whereas it used to be more or less tucked away, and that is one hideous building. I imagine that if any other building on campus goes on the chopping block after Sawyer, it would be that one, as in my view, no others warrant replacement at this point.
One more point on campus planning — the athletic facilities. There is, in my view, ample room for expansion of the fieldhouse in that back part of campus … there is a ton of parking back there, the old B&G building, plus the huge amount of space that used to be the town garage. If some parking is made dual level and/or placed underground, B&G is resituated, and the town garage space is utilized, the college will have all the space it needs to expand athletic facilities behind Chandler. Speaking of athletic facilities, if you get a chance, check out what they did with the old dance space in Lasell … turned it into a ridiculously cool cardiovascular gym (looks like an LA Sports Club or something) with tons of new machines, plasma tv’s everywhere, and a gorgeous setting under the old beam roof of Lasell. I hadn’t realized what an awesome job the college had done with that — and it simultaneously opened up a lot of extra space in the weight room, where the cv machines used to reside in very cramped quarters. Well-done!
October 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Architects’ rendition shown here ,,,
http://1956ephs.blogspot.com/2008/10/we-shall-gather-on-pratt-field.html
October 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Dick — awesome.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Glad to hear some good news. Eager to see the new fitness area. Reserving judgment on Paresky, pending seeing how the new buildings make/help it fit, but what you say makes a lot of sense.
I too like the ‘62 Center less each time I see it (and I hated it from the get-go, so that’s saying something). This last time, I noticed how it presented a really ugly north-south wall to those walking over towards Rt. 2 from Greylock. So much glitter on Rt. 2 and to the east and such a dump on this side — and it is something that someone who had any notion of neighborly siting could easily have avoided. Maybe someone will come up with an eye-catching but appropriate solution to that. It wouldn’t solve the glaring way the building’s glitziness doesn’t fit in on the other sides (esp. on Rt.2) but it could eliminate a lot of just plain ugliness (seen mostly by students but seldom if ever by theatre goers from outside — another way the building wasn’t really built for the students, to my mind, and thus further sticks in my craw).
If someone can fix that problem, we ought to put them on the job of making the music center facade more palatable post-current Sawyer.
The photos of the new academic buildings look good on the inside. I’ll be interested to see how the buildings look from the outside. I was charmed by a photo of Lehman taken from inside one of the buildings and I am delighted to hear that the landscaping around that little gem is particularly appealing.
Keep your fingers crossed for the Weston appurtenances.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Re: your link, Dick - I think you picked the wrong Beijing building for a model. Think of he natorium (sp.?). Make it purply, shape it like mountain ridges, and figure out a way to light it that makes it look as though the shadows of the clouds are racing over it. Add yellow touches somehow, perhaps in the form of yellow leaf-shaped signage and banners. Most important, plunk down a barn for cows and then use the methane to create energy to help power the press box, restrooms, and concession area. This way, we could have some living mascots (sponsored by the Zilka Sustainability Center?), need to keep a lot of the area in real grass, and have a whole “green” signature project. (And the Weston Gate would stand out in a striking way with a smooth purple blob behind it.)
October 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Larry, agreed re: the Center. The side view is indeed ugly. It is pretty well established that that project was a mess from the start, and was always about the theater festival more than the college. I mean, how often does the college need THREE concurrently operational theater spaces? Another perfect example of the anti-student emphasis is the enormous parking garage (which is better than three times as much asphalt, but still an eyesore) which apparently sits vacant most of the year while students in Greylock have no place to park. Ridiculous. As for the new academic buildings, I am curious to hear your feelings when you see them. Although I had seen many pictures, I didn’t understand their true impact on campus, and just how massive they are, until I saw them. Unfortunately we have to wait three years before Sawyer is demolished and the full visual impact of the new central quad is realized.
Also really looking forward to checking out the badly needed reconstruction of Water Street (with sidewalks and lighting, both crucial) and the expansion of downtown Williamstown (which has already started with an expanded parking lot downtown) to include the new Pub, etc.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Larry -
About the use of methane …
ttp://1956ephs.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-workin-on-it-im-workin-on-it.html
October 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Oooops …
http://1956ephs.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-workin-on-it-im-workin-on-it.html
October 12th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Larry, be careful what you ask for…the ‘master’ obviously takes it to heart!
Nice post, Jeff. I always enjoy hearing your commentary on architecture. I must say, that ever since the last Theater discussion, and of course, the ‘pompadour’, I have a different regard for that building, albeit one that now brings a chuckle, rather than substantive critique. Probably not the reaction the achitect would desire…
October 12th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Thanks Soph Mom! And I agree, the theater will never be the same for any of us …