ArchGuide ARHA36 09S PDF

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 journalist describe Frank Lloyd Wrights Taliesin as sitting atop the
landscape like a shining brow? What types of visual markers 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 evolution of culture through the dual modes of style and building
type; and the ways in which human beings generate a sense
of place.

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 settlements along the Connecticut River from Springfield in the
south to the Vermont border in the north. The northern reaches 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 physical structure of our communities, but also the way we live our
lives. The framework we relied on for this exploration included masterworks by Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies
van der Rohe, Louis Kahn, Frank Gehry and others. Studying 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 historically significant architects of 19th and 20th century buildings.
From the Fine Arts Center building at the University of Massachusetts 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 readers understanding of how space is defined and encourage you to look
twice at your surroundings. The guidebook explores some of
the regions most significant institutional buildings and houses, both large and small. Each entry includes a photograph,
an identifying number keyed to a tour map, as well as historical, descriptive, and critical commentary. The broad range of
buildings and urban conditions that this guidebook documents
will appeal to historic preservationists, scholars of twentiethcentury material culture, architects, historians, and tourists.
Introduction
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 Academy, 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 insides 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 levels 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 largest 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. Although 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 SOMs
other buildings. For example, Harvards Northwest Science 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 calendar 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 building 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 enormous 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 everyday experience creates a truly holistic learning experience, a building, that as Deerfield hoped, teaches students when no teacher is present.
Terence Lee and Alex Miller
New Residence Hall

Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA
Architect: SLAM Collaborative
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 womens 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 students place a great value on the intimate scale and historic character of the campuss original buildings. The
challenge for potential architects in designing the new residence hall was to create a modern, high tech building, 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 neighboring 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 Residence Hall as a modern reinterpretation of the colleges classic forms. Its overall appearance is bright, incorporating 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 architecture firm behind the design and construction of the building.
Much of the firms 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 priority. 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 University, 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 buildings.

The New Residence Hall is a bold attempt at representing the seemingly competitive goals of creating
a modern living space that doesnt 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 complex. 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 clich, and staying relevant
with some intriguing modern twists.
Nate Hopkin
Village Commons
South Hadley, MA
Architect: Gund Partnership

In May 1986, the Village Commons of South Hadley was reduced to ashes following a devastating
arson attack. A majority of the town centers 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 commissioned to design the new center. He faced an interesting and unique challenge to reconstruct the very buildings that had originally influenced and given birth to the town as a whole. In doing so, however, he had to decide 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 buildings site, context, and purpose.
In keeping with this principle, Gund considered his commission from the outside in, taking the Commons former 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 villages future. The result is
unpretentious and relatively unannounced, not what youd expect of a towns 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 windows, the Village Commons external
appearance is neither shocking nor out
of place, but, rather, surprisingly familiar, 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 welcome visitors to the Village Commons.

In contrast to other nearby
shopping areas such as the Hampshire Mall, whose purpose is strictly
commercial, the Village Commons
was conceived as an intimate meeting
place for the towns 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 complexs
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 incorporates 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 natural surroundings, but
is not required to.
These very bridges,
in addition to the
extensive layering of
the land on which the
complex is built, contribute 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 attachment and separation
imply interaction and
movement.

Adding to
the spaces already
complex design,
the buildings themselves 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 vantage points inside any of the Commons courtyards, one can spot up to ten differently shaped windows. Several 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 Goldberger from the New York Times, who states that Gunds 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 doctors 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 successful 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, Gunds 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

The Fine Arts Center, located at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, was built in 1973 by the innovative 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 Universitys 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 faade and exposed steel make the building dynamic and surprisingly animated, despite the flushness of the faade. 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 entrance to a large theater lies at either end of the foyer. The use
of color on the faade 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 predominately one color, creating an enveloping unity that accompanies 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 Corbusiers modernism are
included in the construction of the building: the flush concrete faade, the grand ramp leading to the architecture 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 Corbusiers
work. The monumentalism of the Fine Arts Center speaks to Louis Kahns 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 performances and products experienced by visitors to the building.

The Fine Arts Center, an architectural masterpiece, draws many visitors by virtue of structural ingenuity. Its scale is remarkable, and the sheer number of things to see, whether architectural details of the building 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 Universitys decision to put
the main bus stop out front. This draw of the community to the building likely has a positive effect on the number of students who get involved in the arts who otherwise would not, whether it is through attending performances, 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 buildingit is unlikely that a visitor would be able to locate it without asking for directions. Similarly, getting 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 buildings 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 students film, is a fun way to pass an afternoon for a visitor, but unfortunately 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

Architect: Gund Partnership

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 complement 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 stateof-the-art space in which to work, UMass has paved the way for a new era of artistic achievement and collaboration. Thus far, the building has garnered rave reviews from UMass students and faculty, and the reasons for
the buildings 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 buildings main entryway on the first floor and a gathering and exhibition space on the second. Constructed of glass panels with metal frames and supports, the atrium seems a literal interpretation of the Modernists glass box. The atriums 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 loadbearing, 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
buildings defining features. When
viewed from the V-shaped buildings
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 surrounding buildings, but it also plays
with perspective: When viewed from the wings outer corners, the roofs sharp angle exaggerates the way in
which the building would normally recede perspectivally into the distance. Though the buildings 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 Buildings unconventional geometry, it is a highly functional and adaptable
space for creating art. Here, form follows function, as the buildings 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
Partnerships body of work and trends already detectable in twenty-first century architecture. According to the
Gund Partnership website, the firms 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 statement, 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 weekday visit, when the building is busiest, gives the best sense of how students and faculty use the space.
Annie Dolmatch
Mullins Memorial Center

Architect: Cambridge Seven Associates
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 universitys 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 Center 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 buildings. 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 similar 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

Architect: Marcel Breuer

Marcel Breuers Lincoln Campus Center stands prominently located in the heart of UMass Amhersts
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 Breuers career,
and is primarily composed of reinforced concrete.

Like many other buildings of Breuers 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 movements stylistic characteristics. In fact, at this time Breuer was known as one of the movements 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 Breuers modernist beginnings. As a member of the Bauhauss
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 architectural past, many of the movements practitioners retained subtle nuances of the classical,
particularly when construed in terms of a sharp
delineation of bottom, middle, and top segments of a building, as in Mies van der Rohes
Seagram Building. In Breuers Campus Center
these clearly defined sections are manifest.
The bottom, marked by ambiguous load-bearing columns and a recessed, nebulous entryway are reminiscent of Le Corbusiers Villa
Savoye, while the middle and top segments are
marked by Breuers trademark soft, gently recessed 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 eschews ornamentation in the structurally articulated ornamentation and texturing of the buildings front and back
facades.

One aspect of the building that is hard to ignore is its positioning atop a large plaza. Besides contributing 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 buildings 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 campuss central dining hall, and even hotel rooms. Beneath the plaza, which
actually marks the entrance to the

buildings third floor, lies a labyrinth
of underground passageways that
connect the building to a nearby
parking garage and the UMass Student Union. Breuers conceptualization of this building reflects a strong
intention to define it as the heart of
the campuss vascular system.

With respect to the rest of
UMass Amhersts 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 modernist or strict Brutalist classifications.
The Fine Arts Center, which was
designed by Kevin Roche, is often touted as a prime example of
1960s Brutalism, while I.M Pei, who
designed the campuss library, studied under Breuers 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 building 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 entirely 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 UMasss 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 Breuers 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
Architect: Sigrid Miller Pollin

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 nameGlen
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 building 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 vshaped, double triangulated atrium. The rural barn
faade 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 physically 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 institution. 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 seriousness and calming tranquility. The 20,000 square foot building is complete with conference rooms, administrative 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 Pollins other work, Gordon Hall is continuous with her philosophy. Most of Pollins
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 Pollins other work follows this philosophy, 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 ones
natural environment, the aesthetics of light, and design, guides Miller Pollins work and is exemplified in Gordon 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 sustainability 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 Pollins 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 buildings 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.

The Amherst Police Station is located on the corner of Churchill and Main Streets, just east of Town
Center. Before the station was built, Amhersts police headquarters were less than a block away, in the basement of Town Hall (Main Street at Boltwood Avenue). The force worked out of the outdated and cramped facility 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, 80room 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 criminalsit 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, Amhersts
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 areaSt.
Brigids 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 neighborhood. The firm views architecture and construction 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 Police Station. It is at once an open and modern civic
centeranyone can walk in for a tour or informationand a high security facility. Its exterior is
aesthetically pleasing, but it doesnt call attention
to itself. It is clean and understated, and makes
reference to Amhersts architectural history.

The Police Station is reminiscent of Amhersts Town Hall, completed by H.S. McKay (Boston, MA) in 1889exactly 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 Halls Romanesque conventions with
modern and post-modern influences. In place of a rough granite base, the Police Station is anchored in smooth
concretea building material popularized by International Modernist architects in the early twentieth century.
Its main entrance is not cut as deeply into its faade as Town Halls, whose recessed, arched entryway is reminiscent of H.H. Richardsons style. Instead, two brick plinths invite you toward the Stations 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 faade give the building a New England-y, residential feel. Even
though it is a police station, it doesnt feel out of place amongst nearby residences, churches and a cluster of
restaurants that Amhersts many college students patronize. However, the building isnt 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 Corbusiers Villa Savoye, which
gives the Amherst Police Station a contemporary relevance that the towns many historic buildings lack.

The Amherst Police Station is worth going to seenot because its design is stunning or groundbreakingbut 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 Amherst. It wasnt thoughtlessly plopped down on the site of a razed apartment building; its reference to Town Hall
integrates it into the community. Furthermore, the exterior faade 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 faade 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 faade 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 created a building that truly feels as though it belongs to the community.
Maddie Tamagni
Arms Music Center

Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Architect: Benjamin Thompson

The Amherst College Arms Music Center was constructed in the 1960s by Benjamin Thompson and Associates. The center was built to house the colleges 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 buildings faade, giving
those inside dynamic views of the campus and town, while also providing those outside of the building glimpses of the action inside. The buildings 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 applied these terms in Bostons Faneuil
Hall, where he reused three blocks of
old markets and warehouses. His firm
is also well known for other productions throughout the United States.
BTA collaborated with developer
James W. Rouse in the development
of Faneuil Hall, along with Harbor
Place in Baltimore, New Yorks South
Street Seaport, Miamis Bayside Marketplace, and Jacksonvilles Jacksonville Landing.

The exterior of Arms Music
Center resembles a number of buildings designed by Thompson. These
include Harvard Law Schools Griswold and Pound Halls, the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts in Minnesota, 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
buildings faade. The juxtaposition of these two materials calls attention to each ones surface. Also in each of
these building, the brick and stone accentuate the buildings large glass windows. The Arms Music Center mirrors 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 buildings 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 Centers 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 buildings 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 buildings edge. The constriction of rooms
and gathering spaces to the periphery of the building leaves a wide-open space at the buildings 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 ones eye to the sun lit ceiling. A second
notable inadequacy is the buildings wheelchair inaccessibility; there arent 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, Ive seen it plenty of time.

Despite the inconvenient aspects of the building, its aesthetic complements the colleges other buildings. 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 buildings large windows help to illuminate the Arms Music
Center, making it into a shining jewel. When walking past the building, one cant help but be transfixed by the
light that shines out from the buildings interior.
Porsche Dames
Keefe Campus Center

Architect: Perry Dean Rogers | Partners Architects (PDR|P)

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 colleges 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 colleges post office and their Center for Community Engagement. Although it doesnt house classrooms, Keefe
Campus Center acts as a key aspect of every students 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 center of campus, next to McKim, Mead, and Whites Fayerweather hall, and a short distance from the colleges
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 brilliant 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 buildings symmetrical faade, which feels
repetitive and boring. The circles,
as the only curved lines seen on the
faade of the building, feel forced and
out of place and give the building an
uncomfortable feel.

The main entrance of the building 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 rectangular windows to provide natural lighting.

The buildings 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 buildings 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
Architect: Payette Architects

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 museum 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 specialized 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 Amhersts geology faculty to develop a unique program
and design for the building that seamlessly integrates teaching and research. In the facility, each faculty members office
serves as a hub surrounded by a teaching laboratory/classroom, scientific instrumentation and faculty research laboratory.

Payette used brick to connect the contemporary Earth
Sciences Building and Museum of Natural History to its context. Red brick and gray stone dominate the existing architecture 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 veneer on the new building, relating materially to existing structures. 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 faade 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 Wrights 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 geological 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 buildings glazing provide shade while maintaining a visual connection
between the campus and the buildings 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 museums 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 faade of the building, while the interior included marble, and rich looking wood. This
reminded me of Mies van der Rohs Seagram building where only the best materials were used. Also Mies
was very specific about the window blinds on the faade 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 Payettes design of the screens on the
faade 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 students talking while they waiting in the hallway for their next class.

Regardless, Amherst Colleges 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 buildings 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

Architect: William Rawn Associates

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 Amhersts 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 individual 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 interesting aspect is that the floor tiles present
on the first floor common room extend
all the way up and down the staircases. 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 corridors 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 inside 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 recreation but it also creates the sense of having the building rising out of the ground, in many ways reminiscent
of Frank Lloyd Wrights 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 addressed 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 Corbusiers 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 appropriate that Wieland and King integrate these two aspects the formal geometric order that lends itself to ones
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 logical 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 providing an atmosphere for serious individual work and group collaboration.
Sam Sperling
Maria Chao House

Amherst, MA
Architect: Margaret Chao

Maria Chao built this two story home for her family in 2007. The overall theme was sustainability, executed 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 angled just right to keep the suns summer 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 expansion temperature thats 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 influences, 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. Theres 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 reminiscent of Robert Venturis post modern style. All of these architects seemingly most important ideals come
together to ornament this simple

house based mostly on sustainable architecture; and while the
subtleties of the plan are impressive, the appearance of the
faade, the wood juxtaposed with
the metal in a modern style, is
rather impressive.

Maria Chao has a commitment 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

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 Anmahian 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
faade 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 lengthwise. All of the plumbing runs on one
side of this wall, maximizing the efficiency 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 Wrights Usonian houses, the
layout of the Seterdahl house was designed 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 semitransparent 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, second 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 houses western faade.
The lattice rises to the second story of the house,

where it shields the windows of the master bedroom, both creating privacy and filtering sunlight
in the evening. The uses of the lattice pattern
both inside and outside creates a subtle continuity from interior to exterior, another facet of modernism.
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 materials, 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 comfortable 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 houses 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 single 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 houses 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

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 sustainable. 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 interpretation 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 geometric 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 Aaltos 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 prominent 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

The Eric Carle Museum for Picture Book Art elevates childrens 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 childrens 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 construction 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 Carles books: Four massive monochromatic 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 childrens library, a shop, a
caf, and an art studio. The galleries are located in the center of the museum. They exhibit the work of different
childrens 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 themselves.

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 faade, 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 faade. This provides significant light to the caf,
the main hall, and most importantly, the art studio.

To reflect the importance of nature in Eric Carles books, Pope designed the museum to interact with
nature. The modernist exterior may make it seem isolated from its surroundings, but the building actually embraces 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 Carles works. In addition, 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 windows 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 thermal mass so that the temperature doesnt fluctuate and less heating is needed. This is important for the survival 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 faade, 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 architecture and nature. In addition, in the tradition of Kahn and Aalto, Pope has a humanistic approach to architecture. 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

Allen Moores National Yiddish Book Center (1997) lies silently in a far corner of the Hampshire College 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 multipurpose 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 assortment 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 architecture and the doorway entrance.
Visiting for the first time, it would not
be hard to mistake it for a back entrance, 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 visitors 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 arent 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 doesnt seem garish or overly ornamented. It is similar in effect to some of H. H. Robinsons 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 structures high ceiling,
which is further adorned with brightly colored flags inscribed with letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The brightness 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.

Allens 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 exteriors 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 windowpanes 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

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 caf, 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 Historic 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 buildings primary materials - brick, zinc, glass and metal - reinforce connections to
the texture and quality of the surrounding historical context, though mostly through its use of brick, which dominates the style of the Smith campus.

The buildings 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 textural 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 museums 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 museums 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 museums bathrooms, which rival Smiths permanent collection in both
creativity and craftsmanship. Deciding that ordinary restrooms simply would not do for such a new and innovative 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
museums womens and mens 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 pleasant, and warm building that is in every way a tribute to ingenuity and creativity, right down to the very last bathroom tile.
Lia Tsarnas
Campus Center
Smith College, Northampton, MA
Architect: Weiss Manfredi Architects

The Smith College Campus Center goes above and beyond in the resources that it offers. It is home
to over 120 of the colleges 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 fundamental purpose, a student commons. The Smith College Campus Center is an illustrious example of what a colleges 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 buildings 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 commons. The building is constructed primarily of glass, with cement, steel, and wood as well. Much of the buildings 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 unprecedented. 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; currently, there are only four other buildings with flat roofs on the colleges 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 Corbusiers Villa Savoye and Mies Van Der Rohes
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 Savoyes 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 Savoyes first floor ribbed glass exterior.

The Campus Center lies relatively in the center of campus while also being at the edge of Northampton; 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 colleges 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 offerings 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 to A.J. Hastings 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 students 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 Smiths 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 potential 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

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 faade 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 modern 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. During construction, LA Fitness decided to keep
the pylons, which originally depicted basketball 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 because 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 before 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 enclosed only by glass and steel walls. Transparency is another distinctly modern feature of the LA Fitness building. 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 buildings function is apparent just by looking at it as you can clearly see people playing basketball, 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 variety of styles across Western Massachusetts. However, they decided the modern style of the LA Fitness building 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 improving 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 Springfields 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 architect 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:
its one of Western Massachusetts best examples of successful modern architecture.
Evan ORoark
U.S. Federal Courthouse

Springfield, MA
Architect: Moshe Safdie

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 Washingtons visit to Springfield at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. The outermost layer of the Courthouse is constructed from classical concrete colonnades, followed by a three-story playfully curvy glass shell and finally, two sky-lit Indiana limestone walls. Sol LeWitts black-and-white mural titled
Loopy Doopy inlays the innermost limestone wall, delineating the entrances to the buildings 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 commissions for museums, airports, and educational and performing arts centers around
the globe, including the U.S. Institute of
Peace Headquarters on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and the Skirball Museum
and Cultural Center in Los Angeles, California.

About this project, Safdie wrote,
The federal courthouse should bridge
the authority and order present in historical 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 United 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 authority 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 faade 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 pavilion, 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 buildings 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

Completed in 1989 by Cambridge MA based Thompson and Rose Architects, the Hartsbrook Schools
Piening Hall is located in Hadley, Massachusetts on a site oriented towards breathe taking views of the Holyoke 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 faade, 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 schools 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 Schools 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 assembly 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 spaces
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 architecture 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 buildings inhabitants. Many elements contribute to Piening Halls organicism.
First, the Halls 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 occupants 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 buildings 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 schools and buildings 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
schools critical issues. The building not only functions as the heart of the school, housing the people who keep
the schools 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 Halls main function as an academic space, the building should be considered successful. Even though the building is not the most innovate or original creation, seeing as the building
is influenced by Aaltos 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 schools 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 Fames 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 windows 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. GSAs
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 & Associates write, Every new building, every adaptive reuse, every site must address and acknowledge a pre-existing context. At the same time, however, every structure and every intervention-whether radical or reverentialultimately 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 Western Massachusetts 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 Canton, 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 baseballs 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
interiors 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

ArchGuide ARHA36 09S PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ArchGuide ARHA36 09S PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

a guidebook to

images, history, and criticism of 25 modern buildings from

a guidebook to modern architecture

images, history, and criticism of 25 modern buildings

Koch Science Center

Terence Lee and Alex Miller

New Residence Hall

Rachel Shapiro and Oscar Bedford

Fine Arts Center

Brooke Berman and Brenna Kekst Brown

UMass Studio Arts Building

Mullins Memorial Center

Murray D. Lincoln Campus Center

actually marks the entrance to the

Betsy Critchfield and John Redmond

Amherst Police Station

Arms Music Center

Keefe Campus Center

Earth Sciences and

King and Wieland Dormitories

Maria Chao House

together to ornament this simple

The lattice rises to the second story of the house,

Miller Pollin House

Eric Carle Museum

National Yiddish Book Center

Brown Fine Arts Center

U.S. Federal Courthouse

Tracy Montgomery and Blanca Myers

Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame

You might also like