It may be a mistake to tear down the oft-maligned Humanities Building, said Gail Simpson, a Department of Art faculty member.
“Some of us in the art department feel that this building could be re-used rather than demolished,” Simpson said. “It seems expensive to tear it down and environmentally difficult.”
The Campus Master Plan envisions razing the massive structure and replacing it with a pair of academic buildings devoted to the humanities as part of the transformation of the East Campus.
2:37 p.m.
I agree with Gail. Don’t raze Humanities. Yes, it IS ugly as sin, and leaks like a sieve when there’s a heavy rain or snow is melting, but what is there to replace the space after it is torn down, and before the new buildings are ready for occupancy? The School of Music (SOM) and the Art Department were scattered around enough before the advent of the Humanities. Don’t do that to us again!! Sure, everyone says it won’t get torn down before at least one of the other buildings is ready, but if you believe that, I’ve got some fantastic ocean front property in Nevada to sell you, complete with a bridge!! We’re not only talking about getting through the state’s bureaucracy, but remember, THIS IS MADISON. How long did it take to get Monona Terrace built? A mere 50 or so years. Just because the UW is a state institution doesn’t mean it will be exempted from all of Madison’s restrictions. The SOM is one of the most vibrant spots in this campus, and one of the most well-respected in the country, if not the world. When I’m traveling in Europe, and people know that I’m a part of the SOM here, and by extension the UW, They’re impressed, and ask if I know such-and-such a professor (a lot of the time, I do!), even if they’re not in Music. Losing what we have now, with just the promise of something better in the future, will not advance the Wisconsin Idea very far. It’skind of like Wimpy promising, “I’ll gladly pay you next Tuesday, for a hamburger today.” It doesn’t work in the real world, and shouldn’t work here.
2:53 p.m.
Practically, the Humanities Building can’t continue to be used as it is. Ugly and leaky aside, the building’s deterioration has serious structural implications. New construction is being considered specifically because restoring the building would actually be more expensive and wouldn’t overcome the building’s other major fault, the fact that it’s too small. There’s no storage space, offices and studios are cramped and the concert halls have insufficient volume and no place to expand.
That being said, once new facilities are constructed for the Art Department and School of Music, Humanities would be of more than sufficient size to serve as a home for the History Department and Humanities Institute, though it would still need a massive overhaul.
If the money could be found, I think it would be fascinating to see what a creative architect could do with that building. Maybe some of the outdoor courtyard and concourse spaces could be turned into atria that the dark interior hallways and offices could be opened into. As a music alum, I’m amused to think of an architectural parody mass on the rugged frame of Harry Weese’s (the original architect) brutalist opus.
But this is a recession forum and it’s important to note that the Mosse Humanities Building is presently tearing itself down with no need of human assistance. It would be great to see the building preserved and revitalized but it was actually frugality that marked it for destruction in the first place.
5:42 p.m.
how about stopping the wrecking ball on the Union South? Sure the current building is ugly, but is it frugal to raze it now?
7:03 p.m.
I agree with the above comment. There are many buildings on campus, and Union South is a good example, where the University is tearing down a building that by all appearances, is quite nice, new, and functional. Of course, I don’t know of the University’s reasons, beyond the desire to make the facility more welcoming and larger, but frankly, tearing down a building in as good condition as it appears to be seems wasteful and unnecessary. If the issue is to make a space more welcoming and more popular among students, saving space for more outdoor green areas, park areas and sun rooms seems a simple, and much less expensive way to attract students to the sight. Perhaps expansion of old buildings with more features such as the ones I mention above would be a more economical solution to the problem.