University of Cincinnati by David Zubenko

David Zubenko The University of Cincinnati: Then and Now Introduction !

Over the years the University of Cincinnati has experienced a dramatic

transformation from a collection of odd, mismatched buildings to a modern campus that responds to both the needs of its site as well as the needs of its students. This transformation began in 1984 under the guidance of new university president Joseph Steger and landscape architects George Hargreaves and Mary Margaret, as well as many noted architects who provided buildings for the campus. This new design has found a way to embrace the campus’ somewhat eccentric past, while still providing the university with a campus that addresses its needs and will allow it to prosper well into the twenty-first century. History !

Throughout its history the campus had developed three main “force fields” that

conflicted with each other and prevented a sense of unity. The first was a row of buildings along Clifton Avenue that became known as the “academic ridge”. When a Beaux Arts quad was added in the proceeding years, however, it was placed at an odd thirteen degree angle in relation to the academic ridge. The later addition of the football

(Note: A good deal of general information has been paraphrased from The Campus Guide: University of Cincinnati by Paul Bennett. To avoid constant citations I have decided to place this note instead, and any uncited information should be considered as having come from this source. In addition all financial figures are from “Meet me on Main Street” by John Bach. See the footnotes for information regarding the Steger Center)

stadium (Nippert Field) and Schmidlapp (now Dieterle) and Memorial Halls added a third angle that made the campus look like, “three different campuses joined in a haphazard way” (Bennett 2001). The post World War II explosion of college students necessitated additional dormitories on campus. Unfortunately these dormitories exhibited the same general lack of judgment that characterized the campus as a whole. Ugly buildings such as Crosley Tower, “The Three Sisters” (Morgens, Sciotto, and Sawyer Halls) and most notably Sander Hall came to dominate the campus in the most negative of ways. Traditionally the university had been a commuter school, and so ugly parking lots and parking garages sprung up wherever there was space, further ruining the flow and feel of the campus. Clearly change had to occur, and occur it did in 1984 when Joseph Steger became president and set in place a remarkable transformation of the university that turned it into the institution it is today. The Master Plan !

Upon becoming president Steger realized (at least more so than his

predecessors) that the physical aspect of the university (i.e. campus) had as great an effect as anything else regarding the university’s continuation and success. High quality students would not want to come to a university with a poor campus, especially when other outstanding schools such as Ohio State were also in-state and relatively nearby. In addition, the type of world class faculty the university wanted to attract would not want to come to a depressing, run-down looking campus, especially when their abilities allowed them to teach wherever they wanted, more or less. To begin the seismic change that was the overhauling of the campus Steger organized a planning committee and put himself in charge. Working with Steger, vice president of finance Dave McGirr

withheld money for any of the existing building plans until a new vision for the campus could be articulated. To articulate this vision Steger brought in numerous planners to offer a new outlook for the campus, however, none of them proposed the drastic change the campus needed. Except one, George Hargreaves. Together with his partner Mary Margaret the two offered a basic three step plan to get the campus back on its feet. Step one was to think of new buildings in terms of infill. In short, this means maximizing the usable space, which flowed nicely into their next idea, architecture as a way to create open space. They felt new buildings needed to be as close together as possible to create large, green areas. These green areas could then be intertwined with the buildings to create a series of interior and exterior spaces that flowed together. This concept feeds into their final idea, a “spine” of landscaped spaces that would attempt to connect the west campus that is the focus of this case study to the disconnected east campus, in addition to creating a greater sense of unity within the campuses themselves. While this master plan addressed the issues associated with the layout of the buildings, it did not address the buildings themselves. For that to happen another key player, Dean of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning (DAAP), Jay Chatterjee, would have to step forward. Signature Architecture/DAAP !

The poor architecture that had permeated the campus for several years required

many buildings to be either renovated or replaced. However, rather than just bring in architects to design buildings, per say, Chatterjee proposed that these new buildings by designed by noted architects as part of a “signature architecture” program. Not only would this provide quality architecture by quality architects, it would also bring positive

attention to the school. Logically enough Chatterjee thought that DAAP, currently dispersed among three connected buildings, should be the first one to get a new home. To that end he orchestrated an invitation only contest for proposals featuring the likes of Frank Gehry, Michael Graves, Caesar Pelli, Charles Gwathmey, Elisabeth PlaterZyberk, and Peter Eisenman, amongst others. In the end Eisenman was offered the commission due to his fresh approach and outlook on architecture in general and what could be done for DAAP in particular. Specifically, he would design a complex addition that would tie the three existing buildings together into one unified structure. As noted in the University of Cincinnati edition of The Campus Guide: !

Eisenman used the strange conjunction of the three existing buildings,

specifically where they came together on their north faces, as his starting point.

In a series of working drawings the jagged shape formed by the buildings, which

he referred to as a ‘chevron’ (as in the logo of the oil company by the same

name) was inscribed and re-inscribed as if repeating itself outward from the

building. Already an essentially complex shape, the chevron was then shifted on

its various axes to produce a multitude of shapes, creating a parti, or basic

scheme or concept. After interpreting and magnifying the chevron parti on paper,

Eisenman then translated it into three dimensions to design the building.

The interior of the building features the programmatic elements clustered around a large, open space in the middle that is created by the chevron shape. In addition to providing for the needs of the program, the building fits in well with the site, exemplifying Hargreaves‘ and Margaret’s infill idea. Although it may have been the first, in the proceeding years other buildings on campus would join it as examples of outstanding

architecture that became a part of the new University of Cincinnati, which would eventually be highlighted by a “Main Street” concept that would directly marry the master planning of Hargreaves and Margaret with Chatterjee’s “signature architecture” concept. Main Street !

Following the completion of the DAAP building, officially known as the Arnoff

Center for Design and Art, the signature architecture program continued with DAAP runner-up Michael Graves designing a new Engineering Research Center, Henry Cobb creating a “village” for the College-Conservatory of Music, and David Childs of SOM (Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill) producing the Edwards Center, a “swing” building that housed departments as they got new homes. In addition, Frank Gehry designed the Vontz Center for Molecular Studies on the east campus. However, all of this would be secondary to the ultimate jewel of the campus redesign, the “Main Street” that would run through the heart of west campus and serve two main purposes. The first is to try to further connect the somewhat disjointed elements of the campus. The second is to provide a sense of community, a place where students will “hang out”, so to speak. The “heart” of “Main Street” and the focus for the rest of this paper is composed of three buildings, the Tangeman University Center, the Campus Recreation Center, and the Steger Student Center. Tangeman University Center !

The original Tangeman University Center was dates from 1937, and all-in-all was

one of the better “bad” buildings on campus. However, as part of the campus redesign the building received a $50.8 million dollar renovation/addition from Gwathmey, Siegel

and Associates in which much of the original brick building was wrapped in a modern, zinc skin (Bach 2004). As Jayne Merkel notes in Architectural Record: !

Charles Gwathmey and Gregory Karn, working with GBBN of Cincinnati, turned

the University Center into an institutional version of the kind of house that people

often describe as ‘Queen Anne front, Mary Ann behind.’ They preserved its

Federal Style facade but sheathed its large-scale, drum-shaped rear elevation in

black zinc paneling and glass. This dramatic space encompasses an

amphitheater overlooking athletic fields and a 600-seat food court; a game room

on the lowest level opens to the newly created Stadium Plaza. A south wing

houses a new multipurpose Great Hall that accommodates 1,000 people, the

central campus kitchen, a restaurant, and the campus bookstore on an interior

corridor leading to the visitors center in Leers Weinzapfel’s University

Pavilion (Merkel 2007).

In addition she says: !

The school wanted the architect to maintain a continuity of image with the

existing campus, bring natural light into the interiors, and expand the number and

size of facilities. It aimed to preserve an 800-seat, multipurpose hall, restaurant,

and game room, while adding facilities for food service, a campus bookstore, a

200-seat movie theater, convenience store, credit union, conference rooms, and

student lounges. The program also called for connections to a new visitors

center, student services building, and Hargreaves’s “MainStreet” corridor, which

links academic areas and recreational facilities in an attempt to create a lively

center of student activity.

So far it appears as if the new Tangeman Center successfully contributes to the “Main Street” idea, as does its even more complex neighbor, the Campus Recreation Center designed by the architectural powerhouse Morphosis. Campus Recreation Center !

Under the direction of Kimberly Graves what started as a simple rec center

morphed into a programmatically complex building that also features “224-bed residence hall, an award-winning dining center, a convenience mart, six auditorium-style classrooms, stands for the adjoining football stadium and varsity football locker rooms” (“The Main Street Vision” 2007). Inside these spaces are open and connect to each other. As Graves noted: !

We wanted the program to have opportunities where you look from one space

through another. We didn't want to isolate those program elements. We wanted

them to interact and visually connect with one another. You can sit in the food

court and look down into the gym. You can run around the track and look across

through the workout spaces. We were trying to create wonderful opportunities

where spaces aren't contained by four walls, but the windows allow views into

other parts of the building.

In the same article Kendra Violet, Associate Director of Facilities and Operations discussed the building in general and commented, “Students love it. It's great because before, you could have a senior who didn't even know there was a rec center on campus. Now we're the number-one tour spot for prospective students.” At a cost of $102.5 million it was the single most expensive component of the $233 million that was spent on the Main Street project overall, but, like the Tangeman addition/renovation, it

was most definitely worth it. Across the street from the Campus Recreation Center is the final component of the heart of Main Street, the Joseph A Steger Student Center. Joseph A Steger Student Center !

million, the Steger Student Center sits on an odd site that has a fifty foot elevation change along its five hundred foot length. In addition it is a narrow site that is only forty feet wide in most places. Despite these limitations it is a dynamic building that houses shops, offices, gallery space, student organizations and student support functions. At one end it narrows to a point like the prow of a ship, while on the other end it connects to the nearby Swift Hall by virtue of covered bridge. A gap in the middle connects Main Street to Mew Gardens, a series of gathering spaces featuring various forms of plant life. Back on the Main Street side stadium-style seating carved from Carnelian granite provides numerous places for students to sit and converse with friends, enabling the kind of social interaction that was a key goal of the Main Street project.1 (Kull 2012). Like all new construction on campus, the Steger Center complies to at least some degree of LEED certification standards. Specifically, a white roof membrane reduces both heat build up during the summer and the monetary and energy expenses associated with air conditioning.2 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Here is a Green Buildingâ&#x20AC;? 2012). Furthermore, a 20 percent annual savings on water is achieved by efficient flush and flow fixtures. For instance, the automatic sinks in the restrooms run for twelve seconds instead of fifteen. In addition, fifty percent of the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction materials are recycled content. Finally, seventy-five percent of the interior spaces receive natural daylighting. 1 2

All information about the Steger Center up to this point is from this source Information regarding sustainability is from this source

Examples like these further demonstrate the dynamic nature of the Steger Center, which adds to the vibrant feeling created by Main Street. Combined with Hargreaves and Margaret’s overall master plan and Jay Chatterjee’s signature architecture program, it has helped drastically transform the campus of the University of Cincinnati from a disheveled mess to a world class campus that can serve as an example of how campus design can be done in today’s increasingly complex world. Conclusion and Further Information !

Under the guidance of Joseph Steger the University of Cincinnati underwent a

massive transformation from a poorly designed and laid out campus with poor architecture to a campus that embraces its history while providing a solid, unified experience for the user. Although the signature architecture program brought many great architects and works of architecture to the campus, the most important component of the change is the master plan designed by George Hargreaves and Mary Margaret, particularly the Main Street concept. After reviewing its goals and what is has been able to accomplish, I feel it is a success. Individually the buildings that compose it posses architectural value, while at the same time contributing to the overall goal of the space. Students are using the various facilities as predicted, solving the university’s “after 5 pm” problem where all the commuter students would go home. Instead students are staying and populating the area, creating a sense of community that was previously lacking and is necessary for any university. At the same time Main Street serves to better connect the various parts of campus and provide a true corridor along the eastwest axis of the west campus. For all of these reasons I feel Main Street, the most

important part of the transformation, is a success, as well as the transformation as a whole. !

Additional information regarding the past, present, and future of the campus at

the University of Cincinnati can be found in the very detailed Campus Heritage Plan, located at: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/pdc/campus_heritage_plan/Campus %20Heritage%20Plan%20(13mb).pdf

Outline of the various areas of campus, courtesy of the Campus Heritage Plan

Bibliography Bach, John. 2004. “Meet me on Main Street”. UC Magazine !

http://magazine.uc.edu/issues/0904/mainstreet.html

Bennett, Paul. 2001. The Campus Guide: University of Cincinnati. New York: Princeton !

Architectural Press.

Kull, Ron. 2012. “Cincinnati Student Center by Moore Ruble Yudell”. Architecture !

Week, February 22. http://www.architectureweek.com/2012/0222culture_1-1.html

Merkel, Jayne. 2007. “Tangeman University Center”. Architectural Record http:// !

archrecord.construction.com/projects/bts/archives/universities07_

TangemanUnivCenter/

“The Main Street Vision”. Recreation Management, May 2007. http:// !

www.recmanagement.com/200705aw1j.php

University of Cincinnati Campus Heritage Plan !

http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/pdc/campus_heritage_plan/Campus

%20Heritage%20Plan%20(13mb).pdf

University of Cincinnati. “Here is a Green Building – Joseph A. Steger Student Life !

Center, University of Cincinnati”. Published October 30, 2012. !

http://green-cincinnati.com/here-is-a-green-building-joseph-a-steger-

student-life-center-university-of-cincinnati/