Wed 10 Dec 2008
Blasphemy
Posted by Ronit under Advice to Undergraduates, Alcohol, Blather, Paresky Center at 10:07 am
I was shocked and disheartened to read this in a WSO discussion thread about the (probably mythical) “South of the Border” sandwich:
Way back in the good ‘ol days when snackbar was in Mission it was some combination of grilled chicken, ciabatta bread, avocado and some kind of cheese. From what I understand they don’t make it anymore, and I know someone who is very upset by this fact.
Kids these days.
Those who remember the real good ol’ days will probably recall the Mission snackbar as a dingy and forgettable temporary exile for the snackbar from its rightful location at the center of campus. The place had very little personality (except a tiny bit gained through the addition of the original Baxter snackbar chairs), and making the long hike out to Mission on a wintry night was a terribly depressing experience for those of us who lived on the other side of campus.
I think the class of 2007 was the only one to experience all three iterations of the snackbar during their time at Williams (Baxter -> Mission -> Paresky), and I personally am still prejudiced in favor of the first one. The Paresky snackbar might acquire some of the personality and charm of the Baxter snackbar in a decade or two (if it lasts that long).
I realize that the paragraph above makes me sound like a crotchety old man, and yes, it does feel good.
In another snackbar item, current students should note that no, you should not be paying any tax at the snackbar. We used to pay tax, but Godfrey Bakuli on College Council got it repealed – and students should be watchful for any backsliding on this issue.
Print • Email| « Faculty Compensation | Please “Speak Up!” » |
81 Responses to “Blasphemy”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
lgeorge says:
Pretty ugly story on the former improper charging and its repeal. Neither Ronit nor the Record article cited the law that made that sale tax charge improper (if anyone knows it, please share, to help the current generation of students). What really got me was that no one was mentioned as having apologized or as showing remorse or contrition, there was no mention of any effort at restitution (such as a temporary discount for all students — hard to make anything fit well because most of the overcharged were long gone), and the administration seemed to be taking it pretty lightly that they apparently had been violating the law.
So maybe the law has changed now and that’s why the College is again charging students sales tax at the snack bar. Given the apparent attitudes before, maybe not. Maybe they just misprogrammed the cash registers or wanted to use that key/function for something else. If the law changed, I would have thought the manager would have been informed and a sign posted (“Notice: Due to changes in the Mass. sales tax law, students will be charged sales tax at the Snack Bar beginning X/XX/2008″ or something of the sort would be the usual practice).
Ronit – Baxter snack bar was, indeed, the best. I loved sitting there, watching the world outside and chatting with friends and professors who dropped by. It was a mellow place, unlike its more glitzy replacement (of course, there was just the tucked away lounge, not the central great room, as an alternative public hang out space in the room).
Are there any readers from other Massachusetts colleges or universities? Are you having to pay sales tax at your colleges’ snack bars?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:59 amRonit says:
Actually, LG, if you read the WSO discussion it seems like the current issue is more a case of errors by individual workers rather than any systematic change. Seems like it has been brought to the attention of Dining Services administrators and they should have informed workers by now.
I seem to have some vague recollection of getting snack bar points on my card or free food in compensation after the repeal. But I could be wrong. Does anyone else remember?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:05 amlgeorge says:
Thanks, Ronit. I don’t read WSO very often, and just looked at the Record article you linked. The easy way for students and the administration to avoid having the error recur is to post a consumer protection notice by the register saying that Williams students with a valid ID are exempt from sales tax at the Snack Bar. That should end any misunderstanding and take care of every new employee being trained very quickly on this point.
I hope you did get compensatory points.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:27 amChotch says:
The students definitely got something – I think the amount of overpayment for a couple years was estimated, and then that money went towards an event of some sort.
And while Mission snackbar was nowhere near as nice as Baxter’s, the sandwich they are talking about was amazing. At least in the beginning they only had it one night a week, and each week I would look foward to that one night.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pmParent '12 says:
Well, to those from the good ol’ days-
Anything else you miss? I’m wondering about Baxter & its snack bar. Is that the building that had the floor collapse?
And, are there any other sandwiches of yore that were so memorable?
December 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pmRonit says:
@5 – no, the floor collapse was after a concert in Goodrich Hall (not to be confused with Goodrich House).
I can’t think of too many many items that disappeared – I think they made a conscious effort to preserve old favorites while adding new things like freshly made gelato and pizza, which we never had in the old Baxter. I think the toasted cinnamon buns did disappear for a while but they were brought back.
One long-gone dining option is the all-you-can-eat hot dogs (and chips and soda) which they used to have in the basement of Baxter, as a regular lunch alternative to Grab ‘n Go. It disappeared, never to be brought back, when they tore down Baxter.
I tried it once. Terrible idea. Three hot dogs for lunch before a lengthy philosophy discussion is not advisable.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pmParent '12 says:
Ronit- I guess you’re not one for the hot dog eating contest at Coney Island.
And, a-h-h, I see why I kept thinking .. Baxter.. Baxter..
So, where was it? Did it stand where Paresky is now?
December 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pmRonit says:
Where was Baxter? Yes, it had practically the same footprint as Paresky.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pmfrank uible says:
Before Baxter in 1952 there were tennis courts.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:45 pmsophmom says:
I saw an old photo somewhere that said Baxter was inspired by the shape of a steamboat.
Anyone know the story behind this?
It looked like an attractive building. Hard to believe it was torn down.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pmlgeorge says:
@5,6 – My favorite Baxter item was grilled honey buns. Even better was slipping into Baxter early in the morning during an all-nighter, when a sympathetic cook (for the dining hall upstairs there) would usually offer a honey bun up, fresh from the baking oven. Strange how my tastes have changed: such a sugary item would have no appeal to me today (but those hot dogs wouldn’t have appealed any more today than they would have then — can’t imagine a class with a bellyful of that).
Parent ‘12: Baxter was the red brick student union that preceded Paresky. It was designed to look like a boat. People had divergent views about the architecture, but the snack bar, a rounded room with lots of wood and windows, was a beloved spot.
It was the building to the left in this picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acordova/220165242/in/pool-williamscollege
The best part of Baxter was sitting in the snack bar looking out. I can’t find a picture of that.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pmhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/ledges/2501358200/in/set-72157605114730636/
sophmom says:
Here are another couple of photos where you can really see the shape. Note the reference to the steamboat.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pmParent '12 says:
Cinnamon buns.. grilled honey buns… were sticky buns ever served on campus?
Now, this is off-topic & I know it must be a touchy subject.. but, what was the rationale to replace Baxter?
Is it a conscious or unconscious desire to be seen or known? I ask because I don’t recall really noticing Williams when I would drive on the main road before the recent building construction. I’m not making an architectural judgment. I’m only saying that both Paresky & the ‘62 Center are striking.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pmParent '12 says:
post-script: Thanks for the photos.. they led me to my comment @13.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pmRonit says:
Well, in spite of the wonderfulness of the old snack bar, Baxter was in many ways an inadequate student center. The offices for student orgs, in what seemed to be a basement constructed to withstand direct nuclear strikes (makes sense… it was the ’50s) were small and cramped and hadn’t kept up with growth of the college.
While Paresky retains the same footprint, it makes a much more graceful use of space, providing a central communal study/meeting area that Baxter never provided, and the theater and pub in the basement are, I think, valuable additions.
The major downside is that we lost the Baxer North + South dining halls, and the loss of these centrally-located dining seats has never been fully offset. Now, all the dining areas are either inconveniently located (really, who goes to Mission or Dodd in the middle of the day?) or crowded (cf: current Paresky/Whitman’s space). Baxter North (which specialized in a simple menu of soup, salad, and sandwiches) and South were enormous dining halls that were usually full to capacity at lunch time.
(Actually, I’m not sure the student orgs ever got their offices back. WOC and the Record were dispersed to random outlying buildings when Baxter was torn down, and they’re still their for all I know; the only offices I can recall being opened in Paresky were for Campus Life. Could be that the administrators were counting on no one remembering the old centrally located offices by the time Paresky opened.)
December 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pmlgeorge says:
Baxter was too small (but many thought something could be done beyond tearing it down — turning Goodrich Hall, long ago the chapel, into a sort of performance area/coffee house was part of that). The footprint is the same, but Paresky is taller (I think it has a bigger basement and a third floor) and the space is greatly reconfigured. The decision was quite controversial and would be even more so in today’s “greener” environment. I have been told that the main rationale was to keep up with Middlebury, which had just built a gorgeous new student center and other common spaces, full of light and native wood and stone (hence, I think, the ski lodge atmosphere in the great room, including the stone fireplace that, sadly, turns out not to work).
December 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pmlgeorge says:
I think I saw the Outing Club office on the second floor, and isn’t the equipment room back in the basement? And I think the Record is in Paresky. I don’t know about College Council and other organizations. I think I heard that the performance space was designed in consultation with/largely for Cap and Bells because the ‘62 Center (Trump’s Pompadour) wasn’t really intended so much for them as for the summer theater, etc.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pmlgeorge says:
I had forgotten about there being both Baxter North and Baxter South dining halls. They were a great source of unity at breakfast and lunch.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pmRonit says:
Of course, one should note that some orgs – like WCFM – gained tremendously by losing their old subterranean hiding places. WCFM now has a shiny high tech studio in Prospect, vastly superior to their old Baxter location. No one at WCFM is going to want to give up their “new” location (not so new anymore, but new in the sense that they were broadcasting from Baxter for the previous 40-50 years).
December 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pmParent '12 says:
Could Goodrich Hall’s space be used as a dining hall? Isn’t it in a relatively central location.
I know the Record has office space in Paresky. I don’t know about the WOC.
Keeping up is hard to do. I haven’t been to Middlebury’s student center, but I have been in Amherst’s, which also seemed fairly new & had a working fireplace. What I remember most about Amherst’s facility was that it needed better ventilation. I recall the aroma of stale donuts.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pmRonit says:
Apparently, it’s now branded as the “Lee Snack Bar”:
http://www.williams.edu/admin/dining/places/
Who on earth is Lee?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pmlgeorge says:
That would be Jimmy Lee ‘75. The very, very wealthy Jimmy Lee who made a killing on the Street. Think JP Morgan/Chase. I knew him when he was just an ordinary guy who hung around in the snack bar, so the naming is kind of appropriate, from my perspective.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pmlgeorge says:
Goodrich has a student-run coffee bar and snack place (just reopened recently after the renovations) that is open in the mornings and up to midnight, so it supplements the snack bar and is a venue close to the Odd Quad, Morgan, the art studios and museum, and the gyms. It’s not big enough to replace the hot meals space either of the Baxter dining rooms provided, and using it for that purpose would necessitate eliminating its performance/coffee house function, which is an important one.
Ronit put his finger right on it, though. Whitmans’ (the dining facility in Paresky) can’t begin to handle the volume the Baxter dining rooms did, and they were an important source of cohesion during the day (and then many people faded back to the other dining halls and dining rooms in their dorms and row houses at night). It made for a strong center, near classrooms, Stetson and then Sawyer, etc.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pmJeffZ says:
I will say that the interior of Baxter, other than the dining hall and snack bar, was a nightmare and I am not sure if any amount of renovation could have saved it. Paresky is far, far, far more functional. Baxter first of all had no central student space akin to the great hall in Paresky — not even close. There was a small, crappy, lounge, the crowded mailroom area, and that was it. There was also no theater, no pub, no quiet reading room, a dark and dreary basement, tiny outdated offices for only a few orgs (Paresky has a lot more, including gorgeous new college council, outing club, and Williams Record offices, among otehrs), and just very little space for students to congregate / walk through.
The old snack bar did have a lot more character and I thought, apparently incorrectly, that the college was going to work harder to replicate that vibe by using many of the same materials and furniture. Sometime atmosphere just can not be manufactured, it takes time to develop, hence why I pray the college never gets rid of The Log even if it is often underutilized. As for the dining hall, Baxter was central which was nice, but it was always a mob scene and I think it is a good thing that dining is a little more spread out to the satellite dining halls, a few of which themselves have great character (Driscoll and Dodd in particular) or are interesting architecturally (Mission). Also, students now have a LOT more variety in terms of dining options than we did in the 90’s, and Whitman’s seems pretty cool. I think the old one-size-fits-all model of dining epitomized by a massive Baxter dining hall is, or is fast becoming, obsolete as students want to eat very different diets, at very different tiems, due to dietary restrictions, vegetarianism, sustainable eating practices, just varying tastes, as student bodies continue to diversity more and more and as kids become more health and environmentally conscious. The current set-up allows for a lot more flexibility.
While the exterior of Paresky is certainly not to everyone’s taste, Baxter was built to support a student body half the current size and well before student centers were envisioned as the cross-roads of student life. The interior of Paresky is, functionally and aesthetically, a dramatic, dramatic upgrade, and one which no amount of renovation of Baxter short of a total gutting and adding a floor (and Baxter, in contrast to, say, Adams Theater, was not in my view a building worth saving in any event) could have accomplished.
The recent building binge on campus was certainly not perfect (the 62 Center being the worst example, notwithstanding the WSJ’s contrary — and historically uninformed — view). But I think, while the architects could have done a slightly better job imparting charm to the exterior and character to the snack bar and pub, overall it is a great building, which serves its purpose beautifully, and will age gracefully as it gets a little more worn …
December 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pmJeffZ says:
Just to update, I do believe the college used a lot of the same furniture in the snack bar, but something was definitely missing … hard to put my finger on it without seeing pictures of both spaces side to side.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pmRonit says:
JeffZ – actually, the aging question is one I’ve been thinking about a lot recently. Do modern materials age well, at all? I mean, the timber and slate are nice, but I seem to recall a fair number of formica-like surfaces in Paresky, and I can’t imagine those holding up too well.
I really don’t know if any of the buildings we create will hold up very well 50 years from now. What I do know is that there are a great many buildings from the 50s and earlier which have held up very well, while buildings from the 70s and 80s regularly seem awful and dreary by comparison.
I’m not really speaking of architectural style (yes, Brutalism was a fad, but we’re past that now), as much as choice of materials. We tend to cover large surfaces in plastic or plastic-derived material, and plastic simply doesn’t age well.
Thing is, I think we’ve gotten used to an era where capital is cheap and thus replacement costs are low. One possible aesthetic benefit of heading into a long recession (or at least an era when capital is comparatively scarce) might be that we once again start building things to last.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pmlgeorge says:
So there you see the two sides. Jeff has one side. I clearly would have been in the reconfigure model, adding looking for shifting some functions; it would have been very difficult. And, given the expanded size of the College, having moved the College’s pub function out of the Log and into the student union, the creation of the theater/performance space which I think should have been in the theater building (so see there was a lot of room where the pub and theater/performance space are, and that could have been used for student offices, etc.), and the change in the nature of student entertainment so that a big screen and the provision of other electronic devices are expected, it could be that it was an impossibility.
But I would be a whole lot happier with Paresky if 1) they had done a lot better with recreating the atmosphere of the old snack bar (instead of some outsider’s misperception of it), 2) they had made a much more successful effort to make the pub appealing, and 3) the fireplace worked (adding a wonderful new feature to the student union).
December 10th, 2008 at 6:31 pmlgeorge says:
“I really don’t know if any of the buildings we create will hold up very well 50 years from now. What I do know is that there are a great many buildings from the 50s and earlier which have held up very well, while buildings from the 70s and 80s regularly seem awful and dreary by comparison [meaning the materials, not the architecture].”
“Thing is, I think we’ve gotten used to an era where capital is cheap and thus replacement costs are low. One possible aesthetic benefit of heading into a long recession (or at least an era when capital is comparatively scarce) might be that we once again start building things to last.”
Brilliant. That’s a lot of what sustainability is about.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:36 pmDiana says:
Here are some pictures of the snack bar in Mission for everybody’s viewing pleasure.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pmParent '12 says:
Thanks all for giving perspectives on Paresky & ol’ Baxter.
Ronit’s comment about a long recession brings to mind the gorgeous pre-war buildings circa 1930s.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:45 pmJay says:
One of my favorite things about the old Snack Bar in Baxter was breakfast points … and the glitch in the card reader system that allowed you to go get breakfast points at the Snack Bar (loading up on Nantucket Nectars and Pepperidge Farm cookies) and then go right upstairs to the dining hall for a normal breakfast. As long as you went upstairs within ten minutes.
Those were the days!
December 10th, 2008 at 7:33 pmRonit says:
@Jay: breakfast points were awesome! I’m glad they brought that back for Paresky (they weren’t available during the Mission interregnum). Literally the only good thing about going to Econ 110 at 8:30 in the morning (which I rarely did… but still) was that you could get an egg and bagel afterwards (there was no chance I would wake up early enough to get food before class). I did not take another 8:30 AM class until senior year, after Paresky opened.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pmJeffZ says:
Larry, I certainly agree with points 1,2, and 3. The pub in particular could have been suchhhhh a cool space and it is so blah. Maybe over time, and with help of some creativity by the art department or something, it can become more interesting.
It is, as Ronit says, hard to project how buildings will age. (Although I can’t imagine anyone liking the exterior of Sawyer when it was built.) Mission is the one building from the 60’s through 80’s that I actually like; Greylock is OK as well, I just hate the low waffle ceilings, but the quad is attractive. I didn’t when I was in school, but post-renovation the interior is much more appealing (it used to be 1950’s era East Berlin in its aesthetic), and I think it is perfectly suited for its location (just feels right seeing Mission inobstrusive and rooted in place as you walk down that hill), and functions really well as a dorm. Plus the dining hall is fantastic. Bernhard is a hideous tumor appended to Chapin (I guess that it is fairly inobstrusive is a plus, but just so ugly) which will become more exposed after Sawyer is gone. It is the one remaining building on campus that I hope is demolished once we are once again in flush economic times.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pmlgeorge says:
Jeff – We agree about a lot of things. Maybe some alum will get inspired someday to make a great space out of the Paresky pub. And maybe someone will insist that that fireplace be made to work, rather than sitting there, taunting like a big fat dumb broken promise.
I agree about Mission, post-renovation. The renovation really made the building work (although the long corridor hall on the first floor is still not what it could be, for reasons I can’t put my finger on). The open, upgraded lounge at the juncture in that corridor does help a lot, so maybe it’s those little offices; the laundries don’t bother me.
The ceilings in Greylock bother me, too. The massive shadowing by the Norway spruces/pines(?) that have grown up so much since my day bothers me more. It also bothers me that, other than the dining room, Greylock doesn’t have shared social spaces except the kitchens and in the suites. Those points, except the ceilings, could be fixed fairly easily,as there are rooms on the first floor that could be redone and the trees are actually an invasive non-native species that cold gradually e replaced with something that won’t get so massive and block so much light in the winter.
I like Bronfman, which you did not mention. It is dated now but was refreshingly still a bit edgy in my day, and I maintain a deep affection for it.
Berhard is a sacrilege and also doesn’t function very well. I’d be glad to see a really extreme makeover some day. I deeply fear the exterior will be even more intolerable when Sawyer comes down.
The dance and theater building I really don’t like (except that breath-taking dance studio, and the lobby is okay too). I think the terribly ugly mechanical side it turns toward the path from Greylock on the west is an insult to the students.
I’m not sold on the exterior of the New Academic Buildings yet, but I am reserving judgement until Sawyer has come down and the rest of the plan has been executed. The interiors look pretty good from the photographs I’ve seen.
I don’t remember liking or disliking the plans for Sawyer or my thoughts about what it looked like when I saw it new. All I remember much about it was that the interior was so different from the tables up in the Stetson stacks (which remind me in an odd way of the quiet area tables in Paresky, but were more isolated), and the monkey carrels generated constant delighted buzz.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:59 pmeph '07 says:
I think one of the differences in atmosphere between the Baxter & Paresky snack bars is due to openness vs. enclosure. The Baxter snack bar had relatively low ceilings and a doorway into Baxter that was fairly wide but could still be hard to squeeze through when it was crowded in the evenings. The Paresky ceiling is incredibly high and you can see into the dining hall and lounge from within the snack bar, although the counter is a barrier. For me, that made Baxter feel much cozier. I’m glad they kept the round windows looking out on the lawn and Route 2, though, I missed that vantage point.
Ooooh nostalgia. We are the only ones who can bear witness of that transition, Ronit! (Well, besides all the faculty, staff, and local residents. But you know what I mean.)
December 10th, 2008 at 9:44 pmlgeorge says:
@35 Yep – lower ceiling and there was a sense of a visual barrier beyond the door (because you saw the wall across that hall). I’d have to see photos to see more differences but those two features made a big difference. It felt cozy and yet warm and open and light-filled at the same time..
December 10th, 2008 at 9:53 pmJeffZ says:
Ahh, the coziness factor, that indeed sounds right.
And Larry, I do think we agree on almost everything. The new theater as I’ve said before I’ve grown more and more averse to for reasons I’ve explained before; the mechanical side is one I hadn’t thought of before, but also a good point (and symbolic of the bigger issues with the project in many senses — a college theater and massive parking complex built for the needs of an outside organization rather than college students itself — I mean, something so massive should have been able to include rehearsal space for the dance program and fill all of Cap & Bell’s needs, and that parking lot should be filled with student cars except during the summer season).
As for Greylock, more common space would be nice, although, if memory serves aren’t there communal common areas next to the kitchens on the ground floors of at least a few of the Greylock buildings? There are a few classrooms in the Greylock complext as well — with teh new academic buildings, I imagine those may no longer be needed and perhaps used as social space of some kind. Too bad the ceilings are the one thing that can not be remedied. But, the four singles and one common room set-up is really ideal, and at least that will never change.
I agree that Bronfman is actually a pretty good building, and works well to compliment the older science buildings in the quad.
I think the only point we differ on at this point is the exterior of the new academic buildings, which I really like. Just a lot more variety of materials, and a lot more glass, than the gigantic, monolithic Sawyer which feels even more massive than it is because of its design, and just destroys the logical and visual flow of the campus. (I do hope they put monkey carols in the new library — easy enough to do!) Other than Bernhardt, that massive area between Stetson, the new academic buildings, Chapin and Paresky should look amazing, and finally provide a true campus center feeling, once Sawyer is finally gone.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:48 amlgeorge says:
Jeff, I wasn’t thinking of the parking garage (north side), but of the hideous western side of the ‘62 Center (lots of exposed mechanicals — wish I had a photo) that is such a contrast with the rest of the highly finished and luxurious skin of that building. The parking garage, its non-student use, and the way it mars the view towards the mountains from the Greylock quad compound the (already woeful) sins of the theater project.
Still reserving judgement on the academic buildings but I may well come to agree with you.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:06 amJeffZ says:
Oh, I must have been unclear — I agree with you re: the western side, I was just adding (in fairly stream of consciousness fashion) the parking garage to the list of sins of that project, and another example (along with the very symbolic ugly face of the theater facing students that you note, and the issues with space for dance / Cap & Bells) of how this project was not, as it should have been, student-oriented.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:23 amRonit says:
The ‘62 Center might just be the most passive-aggressive building, ever.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:28 amsophmom says:
So, I still want to know why the architecture of Baxter was inspired by a steamboat.
Was Mr Baxter III (Phinney) a steamboat lover? (Ohhh…that sounds funny. Dick would have a heyday with that!)
December 11th, 2008 at 10:50 amJeffZ says:
Well said, Ronit.
And one other bonus of Mission that I forgot to mention — shaped like an eagle from the sky … much cooler than a steamboat!
December 11th, 2008 at 10:57 amlgeorge says:
Google arial:
http://wso.williams.edu/wiki/index.php/Mission_Park
I don’t know why Baxter was shaped that way. I seem to recall that, in an earlier era (the ’30s), many buildings had elements inspired by fast luxury liners, but Baxter was definitely on the steamboat model instead. And that was fun (it didn’t take itself so seriously, the way the modern “Hey, look at me!” buildings do).
December 11th, 2008 at 11:14 amlgeorge says:
Google arial:
http://wso.williams.edu/wiki/index.php/Mission_Park
The only trouble with the eagle design is that we can’t see it a a day-to-day matter. I like Mission a lot, including the way it tucks in and is rather self-effacing for such a big hulk.
I don’t know why Baxter was shaped that way. I seem to recall that, in an earlier era (earlier than Baxter — the ’30s), many buildings had elements inspired by fast luxury liners, but Baxter was definitely on the chunky steamboat model instead. And that was fun (it didn’t take itself so seriously, the way the modern “Hey, look at me!” buildings do).
December 11th, 2008 at 11:17 amsophmom says:
LG:
What a funny, (and openly opinionated) description of Mission. Says the shape is a phoenix.
I wonder if Jonathan wrote that?
December 11th, 2008 at 11:41 amlgeorge says:
“Phoenix” goes better with the Haystack Memorial, the Mission Park, and the area’s history, though.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:54 amJeffZ says:
Not to mention, unlike Mission’s architect, the WSO authors grew up reading Harry Potter, and thus have the phoenix drilled into their subconscious. Architecture as evolving interactive conceptual art piece? Perhaps …
December 11th, 2008 at 2:20 pmlgeorge says:
Wow. What a connection, Jeff.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pmsophmom says:
Yeah, interesting point Jeff.
Because, to be perfectly honest, this…is what I was reminded of when I saw the overhead view of Mission.
Geez, what does that say about me? :-0
December 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pmJeffZ says:
And I didn’t even have to take a class with Mark Taylor …
December 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pmsophmom says:
I mean really!
Here’s Mission…
and here’s the stealth bomber.
Egads.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pmParent '12 says:
Amusing visual associations defined by collective history:
Harry Potter for a younger generation, & Stealth Bomber for those brought up during the Cold War.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pmlgeorge says:
Rorschach inkblot test…
And the next generation?
December 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pmParent '12 says:
LG or Eph history buffs–
In the Williams/WSO Wiki the links provide no information about the names of three sections in Mission Park: Dennett, Armstrong, & Pratt. Who were they?
December 11th, 2008 at 4:17 pmlgeorge says:
All were alumni.
Dennett was Tyler Dennett (Class of 1904), who became a Williams President and had a short, controversial post largely due to a dispute over whether to purchase the Greylock Hotel, which formerly stood on the site of the present Greylock dorms. http://www.williams.edu/home/presidents/#Dennett
Mills is named for Samuel J. Mills (Class of 1809), one of the four students who sheltered under the haystack in the event that ultimately led to the founding of the American foreign mission movement (hence the Haystack Monument and the Commonwealth’s Mission Park).
Samuel Chapman Armstrong (Class of 1862) was born in Hawaii. He commanded the 9th U.S. Colored Troops in the Civil War and then worked for the Freedmans’ Bureau. He went on to found Hampton Institute and have a role as a social reformer.
James Bissett Pratt (Class of 1898) taught religion, philosophy, and psychology at Williams for many years.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:01 pmJeffZ says:
I think some obscenely rich Amherst alum should offer to give 40 million on the condition that Williams name a major building after Zephania Swift Moore. Talk about a leadership test …
December 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pmParent '12 says:
Jeff- that’s very funny for a thread entitled “Blasphemy”!
LG- thanks very much for the bios… why were those alumni honored with naming rather than an alum touched by the development office? There must have been a lot of illustrious alumni, long gone, when Mission was built, so why these 4? I get Mills because Mission is so close to the Haystack Monument, but the others?
December 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pmlgeorge says:
As to Dennett, there is a College tradition that there is some sort of named honoring of each President (Zephaniah Swift Moore excepted).
When the dorms were built, the College asked for and received permission from the Commonwealth to put the tips of the wings within the actual boundaries of the state park. One of the conditions for that was that the names would have historical importance or significance (I suppose that means as opposed to being the names of rich alumni or other donors). Mills was a natural, being one of the haystack students. Armstrong, too, was a natural because he was a reformer (one might say that his “mission” was to blacks and Native Americans — Native Americans were educated almost from the beginning at Hampton, which was, of course, an important educational institution for blacks after the Civil War and going forward). Pratt was a natural as well in that he was at the heart of teaching religion and philosophy at Williams at a time when I think it would be fair to characterize it as a Christian college even though it was not affiliated with any denomination. If I haven’t made it clear, what I mean is that the park commemorated a religious event and the last three were seem as spiritual, religious leaders and examples.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pmlgeorge says:
“exemplar” not example
December 11th, 2008 at 5:57 pmlgeorge says:
Dennett had missed his honoring because he left in a controversy, so it was time to honor him finally. I don’t know enough about him to know whether there was some other reason to name one of those particular buildings for him.
I take it that Mills was the leader in the haystack group.
This all makes me think of the late Harry Payne. He got caught up in the controversies surrounding the proposals for and funding of what became the ‘62 Center (Trump’s Pompadour). He left rather precipitously (as had Dennett), and the only architecture named for him was the main room in Goodrich Hall. He was a very decent and extraordinarily bright man who did a lot for the College (especially in terms of the renovation and rethinking of the Science Quad), and I wish the College would find a more prominent monument (now memorial) to him. The science library might have been appropriate, but it is taken, and I can’t really think of anything else as the new academic buildings are too major for a short-termer.
Assuming he doesn’t mess up unbelievably (and I have every reason to assume he won’t) and assuming that some big donors don’t buy” the names for the new academic buildings, I assume one of them will be named for Morty. But we could use some BIG donors so I’m sure the courting is ongoing.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pmlgeorge says:
monkey carrels
December 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pmhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/acordova/1954486986/
Parent '12 says:
LG- Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
With the naming of the parts of Mission Park, as a whole, those individuals seem to transcend their time into the present. So, I would say the image of a phoenix is more than appropriate. Good foresight on the part of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, I have seen buildings renamed basically by development offices. I hope this doesn’t happen at Williams.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pmRonit says:
Parent ‘12 – well, of course that’s exactly what happened with Baxter (who was a former President and now joins Payne in having nothing significant named after him) who was replaced by Paresky (who is apparently nothing more than a wealthy landlord disliked by most local businesses in the Berkshire/Bennington area).
December 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pmParent '12 says:
Ronit- You’re absolutely right. Such a terrible loophole. Knock down. Rebuild. New Name.
Once, or if, Sawyer is gone. Do you predict a new name for the library. (Was Sawyer another Williams president or an illustrious Eph? And, do most Ephs know how buildings got their names?)
December 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pmRonit says:
Yes, Sawyer is another President, who served from 1961-1973, and is probably the most important one Williams had in the 20th century (among other things he oversaw the ending of fraternities and the beginning of coeducation). More about him here:
December 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pmhttp://archives.williams.edu/williamshistory/sawyerlibrary/jsawyer.php
lgeorge says:
The proper name for the great hall in Paresky is “Baxter Hall” but that’s not sufficient, particularly with its unusable fireplace (it should be the hearth of the College and, if it were, the naming would be more fitting), for a longstanding president who once had the central student building, a steamboat of a place, named for him. Many of us still call the College’s central lawn “Baxter Lawn” in his honor. I would like to see the new central library quad named for him, as it will replace Baxter Lawn as a sort of center/navel of the College.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:06 pmlgeorge says:
The new library is supposed to be named for Sawyer and I think it will be, preserving the name of what it will replace. He was reknowned as a person who trained other educational leaders and his name still means a lot in the field of higher education.
Sawyer succeeded Baxter, bringing in a modern era.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pmKen Thomas '93 says:
Manie? Pfft. Pour le plu(s)part, des Anglais ont reconnait le beton, et pas le bru(i)t.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pmPTC says:
Lol. In the vain of Ken, I love Paresky much more than Baxter because “yo quiero taco bell”
December 11th, 2008 at 11:30 pmsophmom says:
PTC:
My kid loves Paresky! I don’t know about the tacos, but I’ve heard a lot about the 2pm pizza…and the gelato, of course!
Ken:
O la, mon ami…vous etes un peu cynique cette soire. Trop du travail, peut-etre?
Oui, oui, c’est ca, je pense…
;-)
December 11th, 2008 at 11:48 pmsophmom says:
Correction to #70:
The 2 AM pizza, that is. Ugh.
(Although I vaguely remember the allure of Dunkin Donuts at that time of the night…in my youth…many moons ago….(sigh))
December 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pm'10 says:
2am pizza? I wish. The old Mission snack bar was open to 2 or even 3am on weekends; the Paresky snack bar is only open until 1am and the pizza place closes at midnight. Both of them are effectively useless for late-night snacking needs.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:18 amsophmom says:
10:
Didn’t they have later hours up until recently? I distinctly remember a discussion about how he was changing his meal plan…giving up breakfast in exchange for the wonderful late night pizza available till 2am.
Of course, I harped on the importance of breakfast.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:43 am'10 says:
As of a year ago, Paresky Snack Bar was apparently open to 2am, although even back then I think they only accepted dinner equivalency points until 1am (Mission snack bar always accepted points). It look like the ‘82 grill was open until 1am a year ago, but I don’t think they’ve ever accepted equivalency after midnight. I think both closing times got moved earlier sometime last spring, though I don’t recall exactly when. (also, there’s no meal plan that will let you give up breakfast in exchange for late-night food – as of last Winter Study even the 10 and 14-meal plans only allow you to use a meal at Snack Bar if you missed dinner that night).
The other really crappy thing about the Paresky snack bar is that when it closes, it closes. At Mission, if you were in line at 3am then you got to eat; they just closed the entrance so no one new could get in line. At Paresky, the registers turn off at 1am and they stop serving, no exceptions. This results in Security being called to Paresky pretty much every Friday and Saturday night to control a crowd of angry students who waited in line for 45 minutes only to be turned away because they finally got to the counter at 1:01am.
December 12th, 2008 at 5:24 amRonit says:
That’s tragic. 3 AM pizza was indeed quite wonderful.
Is the Paresky building at least open all night, like Baxter was (with card access)?
I think the late night aspect of the snack bar was kind of the whole point. I can’t believe they got rid of that.
December 12th, 2008 at 9:53 amDavid says:
I believe that, at least until 1900, most people would characterize Williams as being “affiliated” with Congregationalists, to a similar extent that, say, Swarthmore was Quaker.
I believe that College committees (including, of course, Professor Fred Rudolph ‘39) were tasked with coming up with the names for both the Mission and Greylock houses.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:44 amJeffZ says:
The snack bar hours issue seems like something college council could address, and in particular the ridiculous line policy. At least back in the day, we had Colonial’s on Spring Street and I think Subway open to 2/3, but now, and with no late night snack bar, sounds like there are zero late night food options, which on a college campus, is nuts.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:06 amRonit says:
I’m sure some genius in the administration figured there’d be less liability for the college if drunk students drove to McDonald’s in North Adams for late night snacks (yes, there is a senior thesis to be written here).
December 12th, 2008 at 11:16 amlgeorge says:
There are a lot of different models.
Swarthmore was actually Quaker — that is, probably founded by Quakers and certainly with a formal legal relationship with the national organization (as well as with the regional and local parts of the overall Quaker structure — the Friends having a rather unique organizational structure). They may have deaffiliated at some point for some reason, but I know that the college very much remains Quaker in nature.
Wesleyan was formally affiliated with (and I believe founded by) the Methodist Church, but I know they deaffiliated. Unlike Swarthmore, they do not continue to be Methodist in nature.
Sewanee is affiliated with and was founded by the Episcopal Church. Their property probably actually belongs to the church and there are other legal ties.
Williams was not founded by or within the structure of a religious organization, but was long “Christian” in spirit. Although the College did pay for the original construction of the Congo church on Main St., I don’t think the College had a formal legal relationship with the Congregationalist movement in the sense that Sewanee does with the Episcopalians, Swarthmore did or does with the Quakers, and Wesleyan did with the Methodists. I wouldn’t be surprised if the chaplains shared the pulpit with the Congo, if all the chaplains were Congregationalist, or if there were other more casual ties, but those alone would not be rise to the level of an “affiliation,” which connotes a special legal relationship.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:23 amDavid says:
I agree that there are “a lot of different models” and that Williams was not Congregationalist in the same way that Swarthmore was Quaker. I just want to point out that Williams was very Congregationalist (and not just generically Christian) for large parts of the 19th century.
Mark Hopkins and The Log has much on this, but let me just quote something from page 131.
I agree that Williams was “founded by or within the structure of a religious organization” but it was nonetheless much more Congregationalist than Christian during most of the 19th century.
Not there is anything wrong with discriminating against Episcopalians!
December 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pmlgeorge says:
Great quote! I need to get myself a copy of Rudolph’s book.
We agree vis-a-vis religious “affiliation” then.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who knows about the history of Catholicism at Williams, the College having been Protestant in orientation (although not official affiliation). I was told, second hand, that an alumnus from the early ’60s said that his roommate, who was Roman Catholic and from eastern Massachusetts, had received special permission from the Catholic Church (from his priest or bishop, presumably) to attend Williams rather than a Catholic institution ( I would imagine that he had to promise the Church that he would attend weekly services, and that he might have received some sort of exemption from mandatory — Protestant — chapel on the College’s part). Anyway, my source’s source said that Catholics were very rare at Williams at the time. I wondered whether that was true and what factors (Vatican 2?) led to the change, as it is my impression that Catholics were not rare a decade later, when I was at Williams.
I also wondered what Jewish students and the College did about the College’s mandatory chapel requirement.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm