ArchGuide-ARHA36-09S - Amherst College

53 Pages·2009·14.63 MB·English

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 journal-
ist describe Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Taliesin” as sitting atop the
landscape like a “shining brow”? What types of visual mark-
ers 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 evolu-
tion of culture through the dual modes of style and building
Introduction
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 settle-
ments along the Connecticut River from Springfield in the
south to the Vermont border in the north. The northern reach-
es 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 physi-
cal structure of our communities, but also the way we live our
lives. The framework we relied on for this exploration includ-
ed masterworks by Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies
van der Rohe, Louis Kahn, Frank Gehry and others. Study-
ing 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 histori-
cally significant architects of 19th and 20th century buildings.
From the Fine Arts Center building at the University of Mas-
sachusetts 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 reader’s under-
standing of how space is defined and encourage you to look
twice at your surroundings. The guidebook explores some of
the region’s most significant institutional buildings and hous-
es, both large and small. Each entry includes a photograph,
an identifying number keyed to a tour map, as well as histori-
cal, descriptive, and critical commentary. The broad range of
buildings and urban conditions that this guidebook documents
will appeal to historic preservationists, scholars of twentieth-
century material culture, architects, historians, and tourists.

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 Acad-
emy, 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 in-
sides 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 lev-
els 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 larg-
est 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. Al-
though 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 SOM’s
other buildings. For example, Harvard’s Northwest Sci-
ence 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 cal-
endar 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 build-
ing 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 enor-
mous 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 every-
day experience creates a truly holistic learning experience, a building, that as Deerfield hoped, teaches stu-
dents when no teacher is present.
Terence Lee and Alex Miller
New Residence Hall
Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA
Architect: SLAM Collaborative
Year Completed: 2008
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 women’s 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 stu-
dents place a great value on the intimate scale and historic character of the campus’s original buildings. The
challenge for potential architects in designing the new residence hall was to create a modern, high tech build-
ing, 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 neighbor-
ing 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 Resi-
dence Hall as a modern reinterpretation of the college’s classic forms. Its overall appearance is bright, incor-
porating 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 archi-
tecture firm behind the design and construction of the building.
Much of the firm’s 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 prior-
ity. 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 Univer-
sity, 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 build-
ings.
The New Residence Hall is a bold attempt at representing the seemingly competitive goals of creating
a modern living space that doesn’t 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 com-
plex. 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 cliché, and staying relevant
with some intriguing modern twists.
Nate Hopkin
Village Commons
South Hadley, MA
Architect: Gund Partnership
Year Completed: 1991
In May 1986, the Village Commons of South Hadley was reduced to ashes following a devastating
arson attack. A majority of the town center’s 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 commis-
sioned to design the new center. He faced an interesting and unique challenge – to reconstruct the very build-
ings that had originally influenced and given birth to the town as a whole. In doing so, however, he had to de-
cide 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 building’s site, context, and purpose.
In keeping with this principle, Gund considered his commission from the “outside in,” taking the Commons’ for-
mer 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 village’s future. The result is
unpretentious and relatively unannounced, not what you’d expect of a town’s 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 win-
dows, the Village Commons’ external
appearance is neither shocking nor out
of place, but, rather, surprisingly famil-
iar, 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 wel-
come visitors to the Village Commons.
In contrast to other nearby
shopping areas such as the Hamp-
shire Mall, whose purpose is strictly
commercial, the Village Commons
was conceived as an intimate meeting
place for the town’s 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 complex’s
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.