Harry Weese-University of Wisconsin-Madison Humanities Building

[Loopy]

This building is part of a pair of Weese buildings constructed on campus circa 1966-69. There are plans being discussed to demolish it to make way for a new facility.

There were some budget problems that prevented Weese from entirely realizing his vision, but the cutbacks were mostly in finishes and did not affect the basic form of the structure. To get an an idea of what this building could have been, you will see the much more richly appointed Elvejhem building in the background of the latter photos.

I apologize for the overkill, but given this building's uncertain status, I think that it deserves a rigorous documentation on the Web.

Enjoy!

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5473/dsc00103bk7.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/3379/dsc00104zf2.jpg

http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/2618/dsc00105cm7.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/339/dsc00107gf3.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6305/dsc00108cb0.jpg

http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/369/dsc00110hp6.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6520/dsc00111kg4.jpg

Weese's pedestrian bridge.

http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/4209/dsc00112dr0.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3830/dsc00114ke7.jpg

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/4140/dsc00113ws0.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7577/dsc00115ol7.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5559/dsc00118ek6.jpg

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/4811/dsc00119ld7.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4109/dsc00120co1.jpg

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/4107/dsc00121lc9.jpg

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/2006/dsc00122sm6.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8761/dsc00123wa6.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3649/dsc00124sf2.jpg

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6340/dsc00126db5.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3258/dsc00127ic2.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3818/dsc00129pm9.jpg

Weese's Elvejhem Museum building in background.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/5584/dsc00133vf8.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3479/dsc00130vj3.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9339/dsc00137om6.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1307/dsc00139jg9.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9997/dsc00140sv4.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3764/dsc00148yr4.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/972/dsc00142ek0.jpg

[honte]

Loopy, thank you so much for this awesome photo essay, and for bringing this incredible building some long-overdue recognition.

What an amazing work! What can I say? I am especially taken with the bridge. I sincerely hope that the University has second thoughts of robbing itself of a masterpiece. I also hope that people in Madison will rise to the occasion and save this work of art.

If I might suggest alerting the Midwest Chapter of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, as well as Docomomo in Chicago. They are probably aware of the issue, but it can't hurt to try.

Thanks again.

[honte]

Here's the University of Wisconsin's "public dissing" of the building and the timeframe for demolition. http://www.uwsa.edu/capbud/Capbud/07-09cap/msn/PRD-MusicPerformanceBldg.doc

[EDIT - On second glance, I am not certain if they are discussing the same building. I am not too familiar with the campus up there... sorry.]

Also, here is a link to a hilarious anti-Brutalism essay on the Boston City Hall. He's done everything he can to make it look terrible, but I still think it looks good in the photos. :) I think the visual connections between Weese's UW work and BCH are pretty overt, although Pei had a lot to do with that project too, and Weese and Pei were of course close friends. http://www.waltlockley.com/boston%20city%20hall/bostoncityhall.htm

One other thought: The top of this building looks highly similar to the top of Rapson's work at the University of Chicago. Any possible connection there? They were friends too.

[Loopy]

The document you posted definitely is referring to this building. Good find.

This building and it's sibling, Vilas Hall, across the street were never loved in their time. A combination of anti-establishment values and a local mistrust of Modernism in general contributed to their poor reception.

Now that the building is going through a re-evalution, it's low suitability to purpose seems to be trumping any value it has as a seminal work of architecture. And the long history of bad-mouthing that has plagued it will likely preclude any consideration of retrofitting it to meet the current program requirements of the Music School.

[BigKidD]

Interesting building, I certainly do not mind it or believe it's the worst imaginable building ever. Also, that online piece relating to Boston's city hall was insightful. I found this paragraph hilarious,
This would have been news to the original client. The Mayor of Boston at the time, John Collins, reportedly gasped in involuntary horror when the scale model of this competition winner was unveiled in 1962. Somebody else in the room blurted out, "What the hell is that?" That's truly enthusiastic praise.

[Loopy]

^Thanks for taking a look at the building, BigKidD. This "brutal" form of Modernism has never really caught the public's imagination. But, I remember, as a UW student, loving crossing the bridge into this magical, almost medieval, world of columns and narrow walkways. I knew many other students who felt the same way. Unfortunately, the ruling wisdom around campus and the City of Madison, was that this building was a trainwreck that didn't deserve to exist.

Let's see if they feel that way 30 years from now.

Anyway, here is a good example of the kind of building that is considered acceptable by today's University community:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7500/dsc00157wl5.jpg

So, can they really say now that THIS is ugly?

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5893/dsc00151vm0.jpg

[honte]

^ Ah, it's nearly enough to wish one had a different career.... something has gone seriously wrong. Americans seem to have lost their understanding for most fine art - not just architecture.

[Rizzo]

For what it is, I think it's a good building. But I dunno, it seems like as years pass, these things don't seem to age well in terms of materiality.

What I mean by that is there are certain materials that hide the effects of neglect and weather over time. Brick for example, tends to age well, and so does limestone. They are also easier to replace when damaged. That's why its acceptable for universities to use them.

Concrete on the other hand, will require a large amount of patching, or expensive replacement. This building while it looks fine now, will look horrible 50 years down the road. Do realize how ugly all the patchwork will be? What's going to happen if one of those reinforced concrete colums or beams gets water infiltration? The building will lose its intended appearance.

Don't misunderstand me. I love this building, but I just wanted to raise the question.

This point doesn't justify its demolition, but it does raise the question of its ongoing maintenance. How much are they willing spend to actually preserve it?

[LyndaleHoosier]

Hey...not all new university acrchitecture is crap...

Check out Simon Hall at Indiana...

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/1405_h.jpg

[honte]

For what it is, I think it's a good building. But I dunno, it seems like as years pass, these things don't seem to age well in terms of materiality.

What I mean by that is there are certain materials that hide the effects of neglect and weather over time. Brick for example, tends to age well, and so does limestone. They are also easier to replace when damaged. That's why its acceptable for universities to use them.

Concrete on the other hand, will require a large amount of patching, or expensive replacement. This building while it looks fine now, will look horrible 50 years down the road. Do realize how ugly all the patchwork will be? What's going to happen if one of those reinforced concrete colums or beams gets water infiltration? The building will lose its intended appearance.

Don't misunderstand me. I love this building, but I just wanted to raise the question.

This point doesn't justify its demolition, but it does raise the question of its ongoing maintenance. How much are they willing spend to actually preserve it?

I'm not sure I agree. Leave anything alone for 50 years, and it is going to look pretty bad.

It's true that brick buildings are easier to make look "decent" by tuckpointing, but to actually keep them exactly as intended (repointing) isn't a cheap process by any means. The general public tends to be very forgiving of incorrect brick masonry.

There are people out there who do excellent concrete repair jobs. It's a kind of myth that concrete must be painted and that patches will always look bad (witness Weese's poor correctional center in Chicago as an example of the myth perpetuating).

I agree that exposed, traditional concrete has serious problems as a material. But one of the most major issues is its novelty, and relative newness as a historic material, meaning that there is an absence of knowledge out there on its maintenance. I think if it were something that were 1) respected and 2) more prevalent / older, we would find that routine upkeep and maintenance come much more in line with brick. After all, it's a pretty cheap material, unlike, say, that expensive piece of stone you have to replace and rehang.

[Rizzo]

^ I know it's not cheap. I just finished a $50 million masonry restoration, that took 2 years. But at least it didn't require ripping down entire walk sections. It was alll piece by piece, and the difference is hardly noticeable.

What I hope is that the university, if dedicated to preserve this building, would actually do so through constant maintenance. Not a whole lot of universities are willing to do that. Seriously. I worry that there would be sloppy patchwork to just temporarily fix the problem if no long term solution is present.

I'm still waiting to see some outstanding patchwork or replacement that isn't distracting. If people have examples, please post.

[honte]

^ There have been some very, very good ones here in Chicago. The old BCBS building on Wacker has had patching done, and they matched not only the color but the brushed concrete look too. Marina City has had work done on some of the balconies. Unity Temple also comes to mind - and that was actually a rather strange Shotcrete job done back sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, I believe.

I am trying to think of other ones. There actually are quite a few good jobs out there - you just don't notice it because they were done really well! I can think of quite a few others that were done to top-notch standards, but unfortunately they were always painted concrete, so it doesn't really illustrate the point as well. But even on the painted ones, with bad patching you would expect to see changes in texture, depth, or some other indication that work had been done.

The trick to doing excellent concrete repair work is to analyse the material very closely, and then to match those material properties as closely as possible. Similar to how a top-notch brick masonry repair would match not only the mortar color, but the strength of the mortar, the sand that went into it, the type of mortar joint, etc. It's a very tedious process to get started, and not too many owners or contractors are enlightened enough to put up with it.

[Alliance]

:haha: I can't believe this building has its own thread. I thouhgt I'd put this one in the ulgy buildings thread.

Honestly though, its one of the more entertaining buildign on camps, it can look real nice at night with lit glass in the roof and exotic windows. A lot of the building was very forward thinking, with clear, unpaned glasswork and some stone too. its like the little deformed orphan that no one loves and that makes me more fond of it.

However, the building is a disaster on the inside and a pain in the ass to get around in. It sohuld be knocked down, but mroe infill cr*p will replace it.

Anyway, here is a good example of the kind of building that is considered acceptable by today's University community:/QUOTE]

Isn't it horrible, at least there is actually going to be a semblance of a wall in Madison now. However, the city is sh*t for urban planning. With all the new constrcution the university is doing, none of it is big enough and all of it is backward. So many buidings like Hummanities and Ogg were built with the future in mind, now we get cr*p.

I got so pissed, i designed my own masterplan for the SE dorm rennovations and campus development.

[QUOTE=honte;2888089]^ Ah, it's nearly enough to wish one had a different career.... something has gone seriously wrong. Americans seem to have lost their understanding for most fine art - not just architecture.

Americans never had it.

[Mr Roboto]

Its not a bad looking building from the outside, especially in the pics. But it is brutal, and an extreme bitch to navigate. The inside has cramped hallways, is cold and dark, and very illogically set up. Some floors are accesible in one stairway wing, and not in another. It is not a comfortable place to work in or attend classes.

Basically, its never been loved at that school. Ive always thought its cool looking from the outside though, as well as its sister, Vilas Hall. Meanwhile, UW-madison builds a lot of ugly buildings lately, but they cant help it. The city hasn't fared too much better either. Anyways, I miss that school, thanks for posting Loopy.

[CGII]

I think brutalism isn't given it's proper credit. Granted, it did often give developers and university's excuses to skimp off on mediocre buildings, but there are also many beautifully thoughtful brutalist works out there. One just needs to look at this kind of architecture by eyes that don't swoon to shiny blue glass or victorian detail. Brutalism is the modern art of architecture, not everyone will get it, but those who do will be rewarded.

[brian_b]

Hey...not all new university acrchitecture is crap...

Check out Simon Hall at Indiana...



Architecturally, I'm not so sure it's notable.

Anyway, you have to understand that most Universities in the US don't have the best limestone quarries in the country pretty much down the street...

[jetsetter]

A sketch of the finished Simon Hall.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7987/250hvi8.jpg

A like it.:)

[Loopy]

Here is a nice essay on the building that someone recently sent me. It is no longer available online, so no link.


The Capital Times
HUMANITIES BUILDING A PRODUCT OF MODERNIST MOVEMENT OF 1960S

Date: Saturday, July 2, 2005
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: ALL
Page: 9A
Type: Column
Column: GUEST COLUMN

Byline: Arnold R. Alanen

Recent comments about the G.L. Mosse Humanities Building in The Capital Times make an important contribution to the public discourse that should accompany decisions about the fate of this much-maligned structure.

Given the pejorative terms ascribed to Humanities as justification for its razing, it is noteworthy that previous campus planners wished to demolish several buildings now regarded as UW icons: Washburn Observatory, Education ("very unsafe"), University Club ("world's worst rat hole"), Red Gym ("obsolete"), and Dairy Barn ("extreme fire hazard").


Humanities may not be in the same design league as the above buildings, but it is a step above the other architecturally bland, poorly constructed campus structures of the 1960s-70s -- the Peterson Office and Extension buildings, Ogg Hall, Weeks Hall, and so forth. Humanities has many shortcomings, including its maze-like internal organization and lack of architectural embellishments, but the building also represents the application of Modernist design principles as interpreted by two sophisticated practitioners of the movement: European-trained campus architect Leo Jakobson and Chicago architect Harry Weese, one of the nation's leading Modernist designers.
In 1959, Jakobson called for a campus based on "the advanced architectural thinking of the day," a campus that would embrace a synthesis of architecture, landscape architecture and urban design. To carry out this mission, Weese was selected to design a section of the "South Lower Campus" district that accommodated Humanities.

Weese immediately grappled with a key problem: "How much building can be put in a given amount of land without destroying values of the surroundings as well as causing congestion and loss of amenity?" Unlike many Modernists, who seldom considered context or history, Weese sought to develop a design that would "co-exist happily" with the nearby Wisconsin Historical Society and the buildings flanking Bascom Mall.

His proposal considered the ratio of required floor area space to the height and mass of the new building, resulting in a rectangular, block-like structure. Since the UW units housed in Humanities -- art, history and music -- had such significant space demands, the building footprint covered much of the block between University Avenue and State Street. Had a tower block been built instead, the linear shaft of space and sense of scale that define the eastern side of Park Street would not exist today.

Funding limitations unfortunately eliminated many design details that Weese proposed for the building, including the application of plaster on bare concrete surfaces, the construction of stone entrances, and the installation of interior carpeting. The more elegant amenities that distinguish the privately funded Elvehjem (now Chazen) Museum of Art, also designed by Weese, indicate how Humanities might have avoided acquiring its infamous nom de plume: "Inhumanities."

Many Modernist structures are difficult to love, especially "Brutalist" buildings such as Humanities. Modernist environments, in fact, are disappearing throughout the nation. This is not a unique phenomenon; other design periods have been neglected and even despised some 40 years after their heyday.

Recognizing that the vicissitudes of fashion and taste can result in the sudden removal of signature buildings, Gordon Orr, the erudite campus architect of the 1970s and 1980s, gave "first priority" status to 18 historic and contemporary UW structures in 1978. Orr identified these buildings as having "a high degree of architectural or historical integrity and whose retention is essential." Included in that group was Humanities.

I myself much prefer the Revival-style buildings that define the UW of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but I feel that large universities should retain the best examples of major design styles represented on the campus. These buildings and their associated landscapes serve as landmarks that link generations of students to one another and to the university, and they represent and symbolize the ideas and events that have influenced a campus over time.

Ideally, the interior of Humanities would be reconfigured, refurbished and renovated to accommodate new functions and activities. Although this will require considerable investment, so too will the monetary and material costs associated with the demolition of such a solid building. But since it appears that Humanities will be removed in the future, I offer two modest proposals to precede its demolition: offering guided tours that give information about Modernist design and organizing a symposium that features the experiences and events associated with the building, along with discussions about campus design issues.

* Farewell, Humanities Building! You may have not realized all of the ambitious goals put forth at your genesis, but thank you for reminding us of the intellectual fervor, excitement, turmoil, experimentation, and chaos of the 1960s, a most eventful era in campus history.


Arnold R. Alanen is a faculty member in the Department of Landscape Architecture. He has taught historic preservation and cultural landscape courses at UW-Madison for three decades.

[Loopy]

Heres another one:

http://www.nationaltrust.org/Magazine/archives/arc_mag/mj06essay.htm

Embracing the Brute
A much-reviled architectural style has its admirers.

Essay By ANNE MATTHEWS

Since 1969, the George L. Mosse Humanities Building has housed the departments of history, music, and art at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. I all but lived there as an undergraduate in the 1970s, but now that this seven-story hulk of rough limestone and unfinished concrete is slated to be turned into rubble, I am trying to be sorry.

Although it stretched a full city block, Humanities, as it is known for short, had no main door. I remember the exterior being as gray as Madison's winter skies, the interior menacing and incoherent, a Piranesi maze of low, sunless corridors, cell-like offices, unventilated art studios rich in toxic fumes, and music practice rooms with miserable acoustics. The inmates who attended classes there called the place "Inhumanities." It dripped and grew moss, and its designer seemed to have scorned ventilation and storage space. It also grabbed and shook you on a daily basis: Even when you felt most lost, most trapped, you never forgot you were wandering inside a gigantic work of art.

The medieval historian William Courtenay has taught in that space for 36 years. "I have longed for the demolition of the Humanities Building," he says, "and only my sense of civil responsibility kept me from helping initiate the process." His colleague Philip Hamilton has spent years breathing the fumes as Art Department chair. "I do have a lot of bad memories from teaching there," he says, "yet I still think the building should be preserved and a creative, adaptive reuse found for it."

The university thinks not. As Alan Fish, the associate vice chancellor for facilities planning and management, explained at a recent planning meeting, "I don't usually say demolish, but it's so much fun with the Humanities Building." It is scheduled to be razed sometime in the next two decades so that a new arts district on the east end of campus can be created. Official sketches display well-mannered towers, and practical shoeboxes bland as buttermilk.

Humanities is a classic example of the architectural style known as brutalism, which championed massive block forms and raw concrete, or béton brut, as best realized in Le Corbusier's thrillingly unfinished Marseilles housing block, Unité d'Habitation, started in 1947. From the 1950s to the '70s, brutalism sought to make buildings plain, but also understandable. Naked pipes snaked along bare corridors, and loading docks trumped grand entrances. A brutalist structure typically was constructed by pouring concrete into a wooden form; when the form was removed, the rough patterns of the wood were proudly visible on the concrete walls—often the only ornament on the building. "No mystery, no romanticism, no obscurities about function and circulation," exulted the British critic Reyner Banham, who is often credited with coining the term brutalism.

For more of this essay, look for the May/June 2006 issue on newsstands or e-mail us to purchase a copy.

[blockski]

Ah, the inhumanities building. A lovely sight for this Wisconsin alum.

I personally very much like the exterior aesthetics of Humanities. It's far better than a lot of the hastily constructed crap from the 60s.

Unfortunately, Humanities is functionally obsolete. The departments stationed there need more space, and many were never given enough space to begin with. How, exactly, should an art department function when it has no gallery space? Even if the galleries were there, you'd still have to find them. I spent 15 minutes wandering hallways and stairwells trying to find a professor's office once.

Furthermore, the building's condition has deteriorated rapidly. There's lots of water damage, deteriorating concrete, as well as functionally obsolete classrooms that lack the needed IT connections, projectors, etc.

I'd agree with one of the opinion pieces posted: Ideally, money could be invested in the building, reconfiguring the horrible interior to better serve the building's tenants, while preserving this great example of brutalist architecture. However, given the fiscal realities, as well as the pressing needs for more space, demolition is far more likely.

I haven't yet seen anything more than rough concepts for what would replace Humanities. Furthermore, Weese's LVM museum (now the Chazen Museum, a far more functional building) will remain, preserving at least a piece of that architectural style.

However, the average student trying to take notes while dodging a steady stream of drips from the ceiling during a class sure won't miss it.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

This is kind of interesting...is this that Weese museum?

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8761/dsc00123wa6.jpg

...I have to say i actually like this building, this in-humanities building. It is a lot of fun, actually somewhat a rich design. I like what he is doint with the windows, too.

Harry Weese was a really prolific architect. His office did things all over, during the late 1960s/early 1970s. I think he is pretty much unknown outside of architectural circles (and even there not really appreciated much).

Dayton has a Harry Weese skyscraper, believe it or not. It is prehaps the most minimalist, almost Miesiean building downtown, but in concrete, not steel.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Jeff59c/Dayton%20Downtown/DDSS23.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Jeff59c/Dayton%20Downtown/DDSS25.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Jeff59c/Dayton%20Downtown/DDSS28.jpg

...Weese did do a pretty good take on Miesian design in cor-ten with that Time-Life Building in Streeterville part of Chicago (the one with the copper-colored mirror glass)

In this part of the US, down the road, Middletown, Ohio city hall is by Weese. That one was in brick, but has a lot of interesting interlocking double-height spaces inside.

Cincinnati has the Formica Tower and arcade. I think its faced in white marble (one wants to say Formica, but I dont think so).

Louisville has the renovation and new additional to Actors Theatre..renovation of an antebellum bank, and excellent new theatre in the round...Harry Weese is a pretty good theatre architect, based on my experience with that space.

[honte]

^ Thanks, Jeff. As you say, Weese's work is all over the place, and due to the glaring lack of a book highlighting his entire career, it's very hard to locate some of them. I really appreciate knowing about these other works.

[blockski]

This is kind of interesting...is this that Weese museum?

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8761/dsc00123wa6.jpg

...I have to say i actually like this building, this in-humanities building. It is a lot of fun, actually somewhat a rich design. I like what he is doint with the windows, too.

No, that's the main concert hall within the Inhumanities building. Most non-music students enter that space for attendance in the popular one credit course Music Appreciation, better known as 'Clap for Credit.'

http://lh5.google.com/alex.r.block/Ro7njHJm3iI/AAAAAAAAADQ/jKFoolgwzzo/s800/Humanities.JPG

Link to Map (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=43.074102~-89.399633&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&encType=1)

The Humanities Building is outlined in red (sorry for the small image), while the Chazen Museum is outlined in blue. The red 'v' is roughly the viewing angle from the picture in your quoted post above, looking at the concert hall from across the courtyard. The other 'courtyard' in the northern part of the building has the main lecture hall within.

A pic of the Chazen exterior is here (http://www.memberservicecenter.org/webclnt/wimadcvb/IRMWeb/214.JPG), and the interior here (http://www.madison.com/communities/chazen/library/files/inter.jpg).

You can also see the pedestrian bridges that connect to the building. Bridges over University Ave and Park St. bring people to the building's third level, which is only the second level above grade. The third level is almost entirely open to the elements, with outdoor walkways crossing the entire structure. The second level is at grade, and the courtyard opens up to the first level. The first 2 levels are mostly classrooms, with entrances to the larger elements (the aforementioned lecture hall and concert hall). The 3rd level features the outdoor walkway (in the original post, note the giant numeral 3's on the doors, indicating you're on the 3rd floor, even though it seems like it should be the 2nd), 4 and 5 are predominantly offices, while 6 and 7 feature art studio space.

[Loopy]

Here is a Journo piece on Humanities published today in The Wisconsin State Journal. It recites the usual litany of complaints against the building. But still, I think the UW has to decide whether it is a significant contribution to architecture or not. If it is, it should be preserved, regardless of the hardship.

Frank Lloyd Wright houses are absolutely impossible to live in and maintain, so should they be torn down to make room for McMansions? Hell no!

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=200549&ntpid=3


UW building stirs contempt

My brother visited Madison recently, and he spent a morning photographing a Madison architectural landmark.
The Capitol? No.

A Frank Lloyd Wright design? Definitely not.

No, he was documenting the wonders of the George L. Mosse Humanities Building, the most maligned structure on campus. UW-Madison officials can hardly wait to knock it down; the chancellor himself has joked about auctioning off the privilege of pushing the demolition plunger.

But to my brother, a building engineer and architecture buff, the building at the corner of Park Street and University Avenue is an excellent example of an architectural style known as "Brutalism." It was designed by one of Chicago's revered architects, Harry Weese.

Since this is the same kid brother who put me off chili for years by convincing the me that kidney beans were rat kidneys, I thought I'd better check it out.

Sure enough, Weese has a long list of modern buildings to his credit. They include our Chazen Museum, right next to the Humanities Building; the Washington D.C. Metro System; the cape-shaped Seventeenth Church of Christ Scientist in Chicago; and the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, with its narrow slit windows.

Humanities was featured in a 2006 article in Preservation magazine, titled "Embracing the Brute."

But while campus building czar Al Fish is aware of Weese's achievements, he practices his own version of brutalism when talking about the Humanities Building.

"(Weese) has made some mistakes, and we have one of them here on campus," Fish said.

How much does Fish hate the Humanities Building?

Let us count the ways.

It's a maze and an "energy hog." The concrete has "spauled,'' meaning it has chipped and cracked from heat and cold. It has leaked since the day it opened. The poor music department is largely underground, where wildly fluctuating humidity and temperatures wreck the instruments.

And, said Fish, "Who would build a building with empty space under the sixth floor, so the floor is always cold?"

The heating and ventilating systems have never worked right, leading those forced to work in the building to refer to it as "Inhumanities."

Fish said UW has spent more money maintaining the building (upward of $10 million) than it did to build it back in the 1960s ($8 million).

UW has embarked on a 15-year plan -- starting with the construction of a music performance building near the Chazen -- to find new homes for the building's departments. Within 15 years, Humanities will be history.

Not everyone is applauding.

"There is an architectural backlash,'' Fish said. "We've received eloquent pleas asking that it be spared."

Milwaukee architecture critic Whitney Gould has suggested nominating the Humanities Building for landmark status, saying it incorporates a historical style of architecture that might not be appreciated now, but may be in the future.

Arnold Alanen, a UW-Madison landscape architecture professor, notes that beloved campus buildings such as the Red Gym, the University Club and the dairy barn endured similar eras of disrespect. Humanities is a link to the modernist period and shows the influence of European-trained campus architect Leo Jakobson, who worked with Weese on the area's design. He thinks the university should preserve the best elements of different historical styles as a way of linking generations of students together.

"Especially when it's a building by such a leading architect," he said. Alanen advocates gutting the building and rebuilding it from the inside.

But UW-Madison doesn't think it's worth the trouble.

Fish said it isn't about the style as much as the function. While well-built century-old buildings such as Chamberlain Hall and Education are worth renovating, most of the buildings from the '60s aren't.

"The campus buildings built in the 1960s were built with 20- to 30-year life spans,'' he said. "They were built fast and cheaply, to stay ahead of the wave of Baby Boomers entering college. ... Now it's all falling down around us."

But modern architecture fans will mourn the fall.

Oh, the Humanities.

Contact Susan Lampert Smith

at ssmith@madison.com

or 608-252-6121.

[Loopy]

Oh, and speaking of McMansions:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7500/dsc00157wl5.jpg

http://la.curbed.com/2006-08-mcmansion25.JPG

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

No, that's the main concert hall within the Inhumanities building. Most non-music students enter that space for attendance in the popular one credit course Music Appreciation, better known as 'Clap for Credit.'

Oh, ok...I was wondering about that, as it looks somewhat archaic- classical..one could imagine a frieze in that band at the top of the facade, near the roof (which has an interesting slope).

And it almost could be faced in large stone blocks.

[honte]

^ Sure. Weese was one of the few modern architects who actually appreciated his art form, its origins, the continuity of design through time. He was a devout modernist, but at the same time a radical preservationist and a great enthusiast of the arts.

And he achieved these results without resorting to post-modern tackiness. That's part of why he was such a genius.

[Nowhereman1280]

It seems that most major universities have a building similar to this as a relic of the 1970's

The Northwestern Library reminds me of Humanities:

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/archives/exhibits/architecture/images/SQ001213.jpg

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/archives/exhibits/architecture/images/SQ001209.jpg

^^^ I just love these open, column filled, Brutalist Beauties... They are such a clash of playfulness (the open, almost fanciful atmosphere) juxtaposed with the heavy authoritarian angles of the concrete... So much more interesting than 90% of the crap they build on Universities today...



I just ran up that slanted wall on Humanities the other day when I was in Madison visiting friends... Hope it doesn't get torn down, but it will, its obsolete and it would be wayyyy cheaper just to build a new one instead of retrofitting this one...

[honte]

^ Interesting to see that pop up on here - one of my all-time favorite buildings.

I've also been thinking about the parallels between Netsch's under-appreciated work in Chicago and the poor Weese building. It seems like they made the same mistakes in a lot of cases. Luckily, I haven't heard anything about any UIC buildings being slated for outright demolition - UIC seems to be content to just screw around with them here and there, at least for now.

[harryc]

This would be a real loss, I loved that building when I lived in Madison almost stopped the van on the way back from camping last week to let the kids run up and down the side.

A way cool building to look at, many said it was designed, or chosen, to be impossible to take over ( as those crazy kids liked to do in those days ) ( too many doors to block them all ).

I always though it demonstrated the University's commitment to cutting edge design.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Is that Northwestern building by Netsch?

The only Netsch building in this area (SW Ohio) that Im aware of is the Miami University Art Gallery, which won Netsch an AIA honor award. This is one gem of a building, but not in that Brutalist mode.

There are some good brutalist buildings in Louisville. Concrete seemed to be a popular building material there in the 1960s, so there are some neat examples. I unfortunatly dont have pix of these, but some of the best was UofLs med school downtown and the Bingham Humanities (yes, humanities again) Building (which was more rough brick & glass infill in an exposed concrete frame.

[honte]

Is that Northwestern building by Netsch?


Yes, as are most of the buildings on the NW campus expansion from the 1960s. They are almost universally outstanding - some of the later ones are a bit more subdued, in the mode of the exquisite U. of Miami building you mention.

[Loopy]

Great shot of Humanities by "Madison Guy" at Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/madison_guy/

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/774907458_97bbcacdba.jpg?v=0

[ardecila]

They are almost universally outstanding - some of the later ones are a bit more subdued, in the mode of the exquisite U. of Miami building you mention.

No, U. of Miami is in Miami, FL.

Miami U. is in Oxford, OH.

Common mistake - it confused the hell out of me until I actually applied to both schools.

Luckily, I haven't heard anything about any UIC buildings being slated for outright demolition - UIC seems to be content to just screw around with them here and there, at least for now.

Well, it is difficult to navigate the campus, but that's certainly not unique to UIC... It adds idiosyncrasy to the campus, which is good. I blame UIC's horrid posted maps, not Netsch, for making the problem worse for visitors.

[honte]

^ OK, you got the point. Most people just say "Miami of Ohio." That's how Netsch referred to it.

[Loopy]

From Process Architecture #11
Harry Weese: Humanism and Tradition
1979

Photographs: Balthazar Korab


http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/9991/weese1001yv5.jpg

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/8094/weese2001ll8.jpg

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9472/weese3001hb5.jpg

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5470/weese4001wr0.jpg

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/8784/weese4002um7.jpg

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/2923/weese5001ah6.jpg

[Chicago Shawn]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but felt the need to comment. Great photos Loopy, this building looks like something straight out of a 1970's futuristic sci-fi film. This building is a gem, and I hope it is preserved so I can see it in person. Weese is an extremely underated architect.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Woah!. This is impressive. Thanks for postin that Process Architecuture experpt.

[honte]

Great, thanks Loopy. Glad you were able to locate a copy of the Process issue. I think seeing the building as the architect wanted it to be seen really helps illustrate how great the structure is.

[trschaefer]

I really love the look of this building. It is clearly one of the most unique buildings on the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. Thank you for documenting this great structure with your beautiful images of what might have been.

Unfortunately, I'm also extremely familiar with this building's shortcomings, and regretfully understand the UW's decision to replace the structure.

[Loopy]

I really love the look of this building. It is clearly one of the most unique buildings on the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. Thank you for documenting this great structure with your beautiful images of what might have been.

Unfortunately, I'm also extremely familiar with this building's shortcomings, and regretfully understand the UW's decision to replace the structure.

Hey, glad you enjoyed them. Welcome to the forum!