Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Hating the Ohio Union

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Hating the Ohio Union

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 151 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #357368

    Sethers33
    Member

    John – take a tour of the building with one of the Union staff and listen. Yes, listen – go on the tour w/o the protest signs and attitude and then make a more informed decision. It’s pretty spectacular inside, especially considering what was there before.

    And for the record, the union is funded by student fees (not taxpayer money) and donations…

    #357369

    Wickham
    Member

    Rick Carraway wrote >>
    Why sad?
    I would agree with you if the building wasn’t functional (think Columbus Police HQ downtown) and ugly. But it is a boon for the student body.
    External architecture could be a lot better. It’s not. OSU’s plans for the new medical facility = A++
    And if you’ve seen them and don’t like them, get your voice heard!

    How can one see these medical facility plans?

    #357370

    John McCollum
    Participant

    Rick Carraway wrote >>
    Why sad?
    I would agree with you if the building wasn’t functional (think Columbus Police HQ downtown) and ugly. But it is a boon for the student body.
    External architecture could be a lot better. It’s not. OSU’s plans for the new medical facility = A++
    And if you’ve seen them and don’t like them, get your voice heard!

    Nice building. No complaints from me.

    #357371

    John McCollum
    Participant

    Sethers33 wrote >>
    John – take a tour of the building with one of the Union staff and listen. Yes, listen – go on the tour w/o the protest signs and attitude and then make a more informed decision. It’s pretty spectacular inside, especially considering what was there before.
    And for the record, the union is funded by student fees (not taxpayer money) and donations…

    I never said the building wasn’t functional. I never said the inside wasn’t “spectacular.” What I said is that the exterior of the building is ugly, boring and uninspired. The minimal standard for a landmark building on a key piece of curb should not be “But it’s really nice on the inside.”

    #357372

    John McCollum
    Participant

    Rick Carraway wrote >>
    Why sad?
    I would agree with you if the building wasn’t functional (think Columbus Police HQ downtown) and ugly. But it is a boon for the student body.
    External architecture could be a lot better. It’s not.

    The last line quoted is why I’m sad. If this was the Drake Union, I wouldn’t care. It’s not a prominent piece of land, it doesn’t have the potential to add significantly to the streetscape. I think that a functional AND beautiful building would be a greater boon to the student body and to the community at large.

    #357373

    byJody
    Participant

    I think the union is a really nice building and I am looking forward to seeing it inside. I attended OSU during the 80s and I think most of the development since then has been really positive. I wish they had Fisher Biz campus when I was there, instead we had a mishmash of classrooms in several buildings.

    Funny, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if this conversation went on back in 1967…

    I have a giant death wish for these pimples on the river.

    #357374

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    Yep. The university built a mostly basic, impressively functional building just to troll pretentious architecture snobs into posting hate-mail on CU.

    And they have clearly succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

    #357375
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    I’m not wasting my time with this argument because tastes vary and an argument of taste just cannot be won on either side.

    My opinion, the interior looks quite impressive from the pics I’ve seen. I’m sure it will be confirmed tomorrow when I get my first tour.

    The exterior……completely uninspired, brick faux traditional crap. At least spruce the lawns up around it with some signature, eye catching art sculptures. The site doesn’t have to be a total loss.

    I guess my biggest beef is with the lack of visual stimulation in this city. The architecture is “safe” most of the time and there is a severe lacking of public art. The city should be a canvas…..paint it.

    #357376

    gramarye
    Participant

    Rockmastermike wrote >>
    Yep. The university built a mostly basic, impressively functional building just to troll pretentious architecture snobs into posting hate-mail on CU.
    And they have clearly succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

    ROFL. Thread winner.

    For what it’s worth, I am an OSU alum and a small-potatoes donor to both the new union and to the Thompson Library renovation, and I think I got my money’s worth in both. Those other “architecturally impressive” museums and other complexes from the original post look like origami projects on growth hormones. (The only one that looked inviting to me was the second one.) We’ve got contemporary, avant-garde architecture on campus already with buildings like, ironically, the Knowlton School, which I can’t believe we use to attract architecture students.

    I’ve heard great things about the inside of the Union, and quite honestly, if the consensus is that the outside is the weak point, I’m perfectly fine with that, since the outside doesn’t look half bad to me.

    #357377

    futureman
    Participant

    byJody wrote >>
    I think the union is a really nice building and I am looking forward to seeing it inside. I attended OSU during the 80s and I think most of the development since then has been really positive. I wish they had Fisher Biz campus when I was there, instead we had a mishmash of classrooms in several buildings.
    Funny, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if this conversation went on back in 1967…
    I have a giant death wish for these pimples on the river.

    Rumor has it they are to be renovated, interior and exterior!

    Right now they look like a minimum security prison … which at the time this style might have been considered cutting edge?

    That’s why I don’t like Knowlton Hall (confusing as all hell once you get inside too) or the Wexner center. I doubt they will stand the test of time. Just look at the the buildings on oval, very nice style why couldn’t OSU just stick to that?

    And a classic blunder, RPAC, is covered in hail damage due to some Starchitects idea to cover it in metal. Great thinking!

    #357378

    swan
    Participant

    this conversation took place back when they released the original renderings and elevations of the proposed design.

    also, by a significant margin, it is the most expensive student union in the country. in case that exacerbates anyone enough to continue with the always entertaining design-inspired ranting which without fail, follows every development in columbus, regardless of scale.

    #357379

    shadytree
    Member

    The union looks like it belongs there. It’s functional without looking like something the Politburo thought up.

    Think of it like this – The facade of the Union is to the pretty nice and useful interior as a generic bird tattoo[/url] is to the touching personal story behind the tattoo[/url].

    #357380

    killian.15
    Participant

    The visual appeal is in the hand of the beholder. Looking at the union with an architecture eye is different than if you haven’t studied architecture. Is there anyone that has studied architecture that would want to venture out and critically support or defend the Union? I will defend Knowlton Hall if needed, but it isn’t the topic of the thread. Also, before you hate, understand it first then have a critical answer to hate other than you can’t find the bathrooms.

    My opinion, you have buildings that are monuments and others that are fabric. The Union should have been a monument but it acts more like fabric.

    #357381

    howatzer
    Participant

    I think it’s gorgeous. It exudes self confidence – a statement that we don’t need a crazy design to call attention to ourselves.

    The nice thing about a conservative design is that it’s more likely to look good (not impressive, astounding, etc., but good) forever. How many avante garde buildings of the 60’s-80’s were torn down in the past 20 years because tastes change.

    Another issue is that an objective of the union design was to maximize square footage for that rectangular plot of land, and must house very large conference rooms. This limits the practicality of some of the irregular shapes in the examples. The union is basically a mall, and the use limits the design just as you don’t see strange-shaped malls.

    #357382

    gramarye
    Participant

    I have trouble with the notion that only those who have formal architectural training are qualified to “critically support or defend the Union.” If the issue is how well it meshes with the other campus buildings nearby and its aesthetic effects on High Street, I don’t see why one would need an architectural degree for that.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 151 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: