A couple of years ago I sent the following letter to the Fullerton Observer. It caused a bit of a stir among the knee-jerk educrat supporters. I hope you Friends enjoy it, too:
Click here to read the letter.
Hey! Number two sounds good. This must be Wykoff.
Irvine Reddit feed re same story. https://www.reddit.com/r/irvine/comments/1k1i1vu/irvine_rejects_dirty_politics/
Currently, there is a 574 vote difference between the "selected" and Kuo. This is not a landslide, more of an…
Well it's only a year-and-a-half until voting starts in the full-term election for District 5, so it's nice to see…
Agran is the same putz that endorsed khan for supervisor after she threatened revenge on the county for withdrawing from…
This Kuo creep is just another Bilodeau. Why did Agran get into bed with this zit? Other than fellow zitness.
[REDACTED] Tammy has other more pressing things to worry about like her own liberty which may be in jeopardy due…
Two name Tammy has zero credibility regardless of Kuo’s shortcomings which seem aplenty.
Tammy Kim unloads a MOAB* of schadenfreude. Over Here. https://www.tammykim.com/irvine-special-election-results She sent it to me and I believe I will…
It was a reference to a bluffing card game. And Nooone defended the chair NAACP operative Amilcar Aaron or their…
It’s easy to throw stones, please provide your design and cost projections so we can make a comparison.
So anonster, did you actually read the whole post? Are you assuming that the District did a cost analysis between modern architecture and this crap and chose the latter because it was cheaper?
If so you are wrong on two counts. The District chose this stuff because they wrongly believed it would complement the original WPA buildings. The wasted floor area alone due to unnecessary furring and hollow walls is going make their fake-old selection more expensive – especially when the stick-ons start popping as has already started on the Library dome’s tile.
You are right about one thing, though. Throwing stones is easy. Hitting the mark is a lot harder – although the NOCCCD is marking it a little easier by providing a large target.
They should have stuck to the original architecture and construction methods. I mean constructed the new buildings with exactly the same building details, poured in place concrete, wall thicknesses, same tile, etc. as the original buildings. They should have reproduced them so exact that they could not have told them apart.
Many UGLY buildings have been erected in the name of “modernity”. Our U.C. campus’s are littered with them. Further more, I too expect that the WPA buildings will last longer (barring an earthquake) because we used to value public institutions, and budget accordingly. Just look at the flack any public project gets today, thanks to “fiscal conservatives” it’s all considered “pork”.
Your right, I have no idea if the district did a “cost analysis” but that wasn’t what this post was about, was it?
Again, in order to judge fairly, one has to compare the “creative” design(s) and their respective costs against, what was built.
anonster, the post was about good and bad architecture. You started talking about (and are still talking about) cost comparison, as if boring, banal architecture was the result of cost cutting. This is patently false. The District floated a $250,000,000 bond and has already demonstrated a pretty cavalier attitude toward economies by squandering huge amounts on mismanagement of their construction projects (perhaps the subject of another post?).
It is axiomatic in architecture that bad architecture costs as much as good – especially over time. The buildings at FJC waste untold thousands of dollars on interior and exterior metal framing, lath and plaster to HIDE the very structure that holds them up. They add foolish,
embarrassing, even meretricious details (like the fake concrete form patterns in the stucco walls). Now how can that be cost effective?
The post was also not about bad architecture done “in the name of modernity” either, whatever that means. Any formulaic building is bound to bad, regardless of “style” just as we see at FJC. You are right that bad modern architecture litters public campuses (check out the mess at CSUF – the newest building is unspeakably awful). That IS the fault of the govt. i.e. boards of regents, trustees, etc. But it has nothing to do with budgets – it has to do with lack of thoughtful design selection and review process.
The post was about the need for creative and innovative design in an academic institution; since the Trustees had a quarter of a billion dollars to play with, it was (and is) their responsibility to create a mechanism to ensure that design meets standards of excellence. They haven’t done this (yet, anyway).
Finally, blaming bad and stupid architecture on “fiscal conservatives” is completely misdirected and is, frankly, just lazy. Direct your chagrin rather at all the liberals who dominate school boards across the state and who are responsible for what is built on their campuses.
Mr. Zenger, it’s obvious that you know a lot more than I about these buildings and what went down with their construction.
On rereading Mr. Bushala’s letter, I have to agree with you, it is about “the need for creative and innovative design in an academic institution” and I agree with him and you on that.
But that being said, I personally can’t judge whether the NCCCD did a poor job or made poor choices without more information. I also disagree with you that cost is not a factor, there are always people sniping over the cost of public buildings and ridiculing “luxuries” like marble over tile and tile over vinyl, resulting in poor and shortsighted decisions ( yet rest assured these same people will also be the first in line to complain about the quality).
“I also disagree with you that cost is not a factor”
Sorry, anonster, but I never said that and neither did Bushala. In fact one of the key points of his letter is that good architecture is more cost effective in the long-run. There is a pernicious misconception that good architecture cost more than bad. Not correct – especially over time.
I’ve been in the public works construction business for over 25 years and have seen the cost of projects skyrocket. I am keenly sensitive of the cost to the taxpayers of construction projects and am convinced that a well-designed building – from structure to finishes – will cost less than a bad one. The out-year maintenance and replacement issue is a key part of the cost factor.
In the case of FJC, one need only look at the pictures – fake concrete impressions in the stucco, an unnecessary dome whose tiles have already popped off, useless decorative ironwork, who knows how many tons of useless metal studs enclosing fake Spanish hollow walls and spaces (oh we have to reference adobe!). I could go on all day – without even having to look at the construction drawings themselves.
If you and Mr. Bushala are so sure you could have gotten a superior building for the same money (and NOWHERE have I said you couldn’t), show some examples.
As most of us are not in the “public works construction business” we have no idea what 250 million buys today. Do you believe, if, as FJCer suggested, that these buildings could have been built to replicate the existing ones , right down to the tiles, within or nearly so, the budget? I live in an old house and I know how much lath and plaster, real rod iron and replicated hispano-moresque/malibu type tiles cost. Perhaps, I’m just ignorant on this count, but it has been my impression that public buildings have a more “practical” budget these days.
It is hard to sell people on long term v. short term benefit, and that is why I am not going to criticize people who have to answer for these decisions without A LOT more information. I guess that gets back to my original point, while Mr. Bushala’s
criticisms may have merit, he has not provided us with any comparables to prove his point.
Anonster, perhaps you will better understand the point after you read post. http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/02/fullerton-heritage-group-president-adores-fake-old/
FJCr, your idea of replicating materials is against the Secretary of the Interior Standards of Historic Preservation.
The idea of good architectural design is NOT to fool people. Fooling people is a bad idea.
Architecture is a statement; honesty is the answer. Unfortunately, there are so many dishonest (fake old) buildings “out there” that most people are confused.
David, thank you ! ! !
“If you and Mr. Bushala are so sure you could have gotten a superior building for the same money (and NOWHERE have I said you couldn’t), show some examples.”
Damn, anonster you do keep harping on the same (erroneous) issue.
Let’s see what happens if I go reeeeal slow: FJC chose fake Spanish as an aesthetic preference; fake Spanish wastes all kinds of materials on unnecessary fake walls and cheap detailing; FJC is abusing taxpayer money on cheap, derivative, phoney architecture.
Got it?
Anonster., every comment you have written seemed to suggest that the decisions the JC made were, or could have been made by cost decisions. I’ve already said that their preferences were driven by (bad) aesthetic choices
David Zenger, I stand by my point, anyone can tell someone who bought a Ford that they should’ve gotten a Rolls-Royce, cost matters.
All I’m asking for, is that Mr. Bushala (and now you) point to a few {or even one} modern,elegant,graceful and efficient buildings, built for relatively the same money, so I can judge fairly.
That is not to say that I don’t get your point that they used cheap materials and poor design, but again those are easy charges to level, without having to back them up with alternatives (and just because “I say so” doesn’t count).
Architecture like art is very subjective, Mr. Bushala’s honest architecture could be someone else’s butt-ugly eyesore.
Anonster,
“The Oceanside Museum of Art provides a clear example of how to approach a similar project the right way, and not the way apparently advocated by Mr. Dalton. OMA’s new central building was designed in a contemporary style compatible with, but not in imitation of, the two historical structures on either side of it. Designed by seminal California modernist Irving Gill, the city’s original Fire Station and City Hall buildings are accentuated by the simple lines of architect Frederick Fisher’s Pavilion instead of being buried by it.
Here is a link:
http://oma-online.org/expansion.html
The two strategies employed by OMA and Fullerton College could not illustrate a clearer example of the differences between choosing to respect the past and spoiling it by trying to live in it. The former embraces the challenges of creating the future while preserving and honoring the past. The latter clings to the past by creating grotesque caricatures of it instead of allowing it to age with the dignity it deserves.”
Matt Leslie
It’s freaking box! It’s not offensive, but it is utterly forgettable. It also seems to mimic architecture from the 60’s, is that not “clinging to the past”?
It’s hard to please everyone, but I appreciate the post and will try to drive by the Oceanside City Hall, as it looks interesting.
But it’s a box with interesting fenestration that does not overwhelm the historic original in size and doesn’t try to mimic its historic details (maybe helped by the fact that Gill avoided all detailing in the first place!). So there it sits making its own positive statement and getting along perfectly well the the two Irving Gill buildings on either side.
If you go to Oceanside to see you may also see another Gill building – the old elementary school that’s tucked away behind Oceanside HS.
Keep going to La Jolla and you will be rewarded with more Gill architecture including the building on the edge of the cliff that now houses the San Diego Museum of Contemporary Art with its (I think) fairly successful add-on by Robert Venturi – one of the kings of American Post-Modern.
And if you don’t want to drive all the way down there to experience Irving Gill you can visit the Clark House in Santa Fe Springs. It’s worth the visit.
Thanks for the tips.