I remember the grand plans for greening of CA during the McCormick administration and scores of talks of redevelopment, but it seemed like nothing ever happened. Now, there's such a flurry of construction activity with Lot 8 and the Honors College. What was the difference maker? And please don't say money because we didn't have money then and we still don't have money now. Not to mention there was plenty of development on Busch/Livington/Cook-Douglass campuses over the years. Just never anything major on CAC until now. Last major building on CAC I think was the Easton Ave Apartments in the mid-1990s.
What is the impetus for CAC development?
- Thread starter RUSK97
- Start date
Money. We got a big bond issue from the state that I think will go with the honors college. The Lot 8 thing needed Devcos help to get some kind of special tax treatment or something.
As for why CA now - because its time - the others have been been built up and redone.
You are overemphasize the amount of construction outside of Busch. Cook occasionally gets new science buildings, but nothing consistent (no new dorms since 1990 for example on Cook or Douglas I believe). Livingston basically got nothing for a long time, then it got so crappy that it was turning off kids. That was fine when RU didnt care if Livingston had low standards. But once they merged the schools and any RU student could end up there (thus creating a disincentive to apply to RU at all), it was either renovate it, or sell it (my solution back in the day). Dining halls get renovated and dorms built because each has revenue streams.
The powers that be in New Brunswick have been looking for Rutgers to spur some economic development in the town for a while. They were disheartened that the decision makers at Rutgers keep wanting to only build new on the other side of the river.
A few things happened.
NJ law changed to allow public colleges and universities to enter into joint private/public development projects.
Some of the decision makers at Rutgers changed and there was new interest in working on College Ave.
Enter DEVCO, with a mission to improve New Brunswick (not Piscataway) to marshal these joint projects and seek support with things like Transit Village funding via the State.
First you get Rockoff Hall, now the creative deal with the Seminary, Honors College dorm and new mixed use building at College & Somerset.
A few things happened.
NJ law changed to allow public colleges and universities to enter into joint private/public development projects.
Some of the decision makers at Rutgers changed and there was new interest in working on College Ave.
Enter DEVCO, with a mission to improve New Brunswick (not Piscataway) to marshal these joint projects and seek support with things like Transit Village funding via the State.
First you get Rockoff Hall, now the creative deal with the Seminary, Honors College dorm and new mixed use building at College & Somerset.
Also, keep in mind that some of the "plans" from the McCormick era were just visions. The "design competition" was just silly, in my view. Also Pres. McCormick proposed the "greening" of College Ave, got many excited about that, and then declared that it was actually not feasible. That was unfortunate and I think a lot of people got their hopes up.
Overall, I think what's happening now (the Devco projects) is quite good. The recent master plan is ambitious without being silly, from what I've seen of it. The plan addresses the Records Hall and Brower end of the campus, which is clearly the next step to make College Ave. what it should be.
Overall, I think what's happening now (the Devco projects) is quite good. The recent master plan is ambitious without being silly, from what I've seen of it. The plan addresses the Records Hall and Brower end of the campus, which is clearly the next step to make College Ave. what it should be.
Re: The B1G?
College Ave is a disgrace compared to the show places our new cousins live in. Maybe someone finally was embarrassed at the comparisons being made. Just like in basketball, we went through 3 decades of indifference/incompetence. But this is all nickel and dime stuff. The BB board is seething over facilities. In order to make a CAC a landmark worthy of a 250 year old university, we need a billionaire god father and then name the whole place after him/her. If this is not part of every BOG meeting then throw the bums out. CAC will always remain the heart of RU even if most of the real activity happens somewhere else.
College Ave is a disgrace compared to the show places our new cousins live in. Maybe someone finally was embarrassed at the comparisons being made. Just like in basketball, we went through 3 decades of indifference/incompetence. But this is all nickel and dime stuff. The BB board is seething over facilities. In order to make a CAC a landmark worthy of a 250 year old university, we need a billionaire god father and then name the whole place after him/her. If this is not part of every BOG meeting then throw the bums out. CAC will always remain the heart of RU even if most of the real activity happens somewhere else.
Re: The B1G?
nyc,
The stuff happening now is pretty substantial. You know I have been critical of CAC for a long time. I think this is good progress. If you look at the new master plan, I think you'll like what you see. It's encouraging. To me at least.
nyc,
The stuff happening now is pretty substantial. You know I have been critical of CAC for a long time. I think this is good progress. If you look at the new master plan, I think you'll like what you see. It's encouraging. To me at least.
Re: The B1G?
I think there is something to what rutgersnyc says because other than a small part of Voorhees Mall, the CAC didn't really fit in before but now...
If you take a gander at the new master plan as lawmatt suggests, IMO it does have a B1G-ish look to it.
I agree with both of you.
I think there is something to what rutgersnyc says because other than a small part of Voorhees Mall, the CAC didn't really fit in before but now...
If you take a gander at the new master plan as lawmatt suggests, IMO it does have a B1G-ish look to it.
Re: The B1G?
I've been to 5 Big Ten campuses (Mich, MSU, PSU, IU, and Purdue). Rutgers is not on the level of any of them - especially IU, which is absurdly good-looking.
But, if this plan is implemented, I think it will be in the ball park. CAC is undergoing big changes as we speak. A well-executed 2nd phase (at the Records Hall end of campus) will be needed. But the current stuff is not insignificant.
I've been to 5 Big Ten campuses (Mich, MSU, PSU, IU, and Purdue). Rutgers is not on the level of any of them - especially IU, which is absurdly good-looking.
But, if this plan is implemented, I think it will be in the ball park. CAC is undergoing big changes as we speak. A well-executed 2nd phase (at the Records Hall end of campus) will be needed. But the current stuff is not insignificant.
CAC needs to have that Ivy-like look like a Dartmouth. The only thing really holding it back from that look is the area around records hall, Brower and the student center. Other things like the pathways and landscaping need to be improved as well. NJ Hall should be restored and Scott Hall needs to be bulldozed. The area around the campus could be gentrified a bit, especially George Street. The Honors College is going to look great and I think another signature building like a new classic looking Student Union would be great for College Ave and will put Rutgers up to par where it should be.
Busch needs to be a beautiful STEM modern campus. Livingston and Cook already have their unique identities and I expect Livingston will continue to upgrade.
Edit: And for God's sake take those damn window units out of Old Queens, they look ridiculous.
This post was edited on 3/3 11:13 PM by sct1111
Busch needs to be a beautiful STEM modern campus. Livingston and Cook already have their unique identities and I expect Livingston will continue to upgrade.
Edit: And for God's sake take those damn window units out of Old Queens, they look ridiculous.
This post was edited on 3/3 11:13 PM by sct1111
I agree with your comments, some follow up thoughts...
Emotionally I agree. Not sure the aesthetics argument can trump the practicality unless it falls into the the "it's more expensive to rehab than replace" category.
I'm sure putting in central air is pretty expensive and the optics of spending money so high level administrators don't sweat over all the other needs on campus is terrible, but they are terrible.
Im holding my breath on anything that includes tearing down an existing buildings that isnt a house, or a one story shack. That includes the area needed for the new quad. I could see Records hall going - its basically just a warehouse with offices in it. But Brower is a substantial building, and when was the last time RU demolished something big?
Scott Hall will be there for another 50 years juts like every other eyesore on every other college campus. Its just hard to find funding for such a big project that won't even add capacity and that goes even more so for classrooms - at least dorms and dining halls have revenues to pay for that kind of stuff. That goes for everyone, but especially RU.
I *think* that Old Queens is considered a historic building. Making any kind of change to such a building is very difficult.
Huh... Is that really why? I think Old Queens is the only building with those units on Queens Campus. I know Winants Hall doesn't have them. I don't think Geology Hall or Van Nest Hall has them. Though I don't think they are considered historic buildings as is Old Queens.
Old Queens with window units is so symbolic and is parallel to the way the university is in a nutshell. You have this beautiful historic building and it's facade is cheapened by unsightly metal rectangles hanging out it's windows. Nobody, in over 200 years of it's existence figured out a way to put central air into our signature building? These "metal rectangles" are metaphorically all over our campuses. It's all about the "cheap" way in which the university was quickly built in the 60s and 70s that ruin the aesthetics and the combination of beautiful architecture (Murray Hall, Old Queens, Bishop House) and ugly cheap architecture (Scott Hall, Graduate school of education) and also weird combination of both (the Vorhees Hall/Art Library/Zimmerli Art Museum monstrosity) that makes College ave so weirdly unique.
I really hope the new plan goes through and they are able to make a classic looking quad that goes back to the historical architectural roots of Queens Campus. I also really hope they restore NJ Hall because it needs it.
This is what it used to look like.
This post was edited on 3/4 10:32 PM by sct1111
I think Geology and Van Nest may also have some window units. Not 100% sure.
Winants was gutted and renovated at the end of the 80s / beginning of the 90s
I'm sure Old Queens has been renovated at some point since it was built, probably more than once. Classrooms became offices. Central heating (steam radiators) would have been added. Gas lighting would have been added. Electric would have been added later and upgraded at some point since.
Adding a ductless AC system is something that should definitely be done.
If Geology and / or Van Nest are using window units, then they too should have ductless AC installed.
The key is to have a discreet area, perhaps shielded by some landscaping, to hide the compressors at ground level.
Winants was gutted and renovated at the end of the 80s / beginning of the 90s
I'm sure Old Queens has been renovated at some point since it was built, probably more than once. Classrooms became offices. Central heating (steam radiators) would have been added. Gas lighting would have been added. Electric would have been added later and upgraded at some point since.
Adding a ductless AC system is something that should definitely be done.
If Geology and / or Van Nest are using window units, then they too should have ductless AC installed.
The key is to have a discreet area, perhaps shielded by some landscaping, to hide the compressors at ground level.
Just speculation, but I shudder to think that part of the reason it has taken this long to address the former grease truck lot, the fact that such a key piece of real estate was lying fallow as employee parking, might have been because noone in University leadership wanted to deal with telling the faculty and staff that previously parked there that they'd have to go somewhere further from their office/classroom. I know it sounds terribly petty but parking is a really big deal on any campus and university leadership has not been know to be the home of folks that like to deliver tough messages.
That parking is being replaced presumably. The Academic building being built on the Seminary Site looks like it may include a large underground garage (you can see the large basement on the construction cam now). It spans the two towers and the lawn/corridor between them. Not sure why they didn't also place a garage under the Honors College building.
Another garage is planned for the lot on Union St. behind the new Hillel location.
There was talk of a garage on George St. Behind Murray & Milledoler.Not sure what became of that.
The new master plan shows a large garage behind the Barn as well, but that would be needed to replace the existing CA Parking Deck that would be removed along with Records Hall, etc.
This post was edited on 3/9 5:05 PM by Scarlet16E
Another garage is planned for the lot on Union St. behind the new Hillel location.
There was talk of a garage on George St. Behind Murray & Milledoler.Not sure what became of that.
The new master plan shows a large garage behind the Barn as well, but that would be needed to replace the existing CA Parking Deck that would be removed along with Records Hall, etc.
This post was edited on 3/9 5:05 PM by Scarlet16E
who approved that awful looking monstrosity across the RAC. Does anyone like that things. Its the ugliest thing I have ever seen...like a giant robot dinosaur put up in the sky
that building that stretches across the one road in front of the RAC near the Janice Levin Building
That is the new Business School building.
It grows on you, IMO. And it has been praised by many.
It grows on you, IMO. And it has been praised by many.
Update - now that steel is being added it looks like a large lecture hall (or a pair of them).
This post was edited on 3/10 10:45 AM by Scarlet16E
If I were a HS junior touring Rutgers, this building would excite me. It's iconic and totally works on Livingston campus.
Im still not a huge fan of it. And in person I think it looks worse than in pictures from the other angles. Its bold, but I dont think it will age well at all. 50 years from now people will be clamoring to tear it down just like they are for places like Hickman and Scott Hall.Originally posted by Korbermeister:
If I were a HS junior touring Rutgers, this building would excite me. It's iconic and totally works on Livingston campus.
FWIW:
It's a "gateway". The road goes through it.
You should see the Master Plan.
It anchors one end of the Research Park.
It's a "gateway". The road goes through it.
You should see the Master Plan.
It anchors one end of the Research Park.
I actually like the building. I especially like it on partly cloudy days with bright sun, where it is very eye-catching as you drive from Rt 18 to the circle.
Exactly. It's gotten awards for architecture, and it's a good thing to have for one of the top Business programs in the tri-state area. There also aren't all that many places to put it, so the design is space saving and awesome. Looks nice at night too.
I actually think that business building looks much better in person than in pictures. I love the soft glow of light filtering through that building, particularly at night.
That said, I'm a modernist. I don't like staid buildings that are supposed to look like something that was built 150 years ago. Something about that reeks of Disneyesque fakeness. The Honors college was well done and it's a modern take on traditional academic architecture and it's meant to be shoehorned into a historic campus. Livingston is not a historic campus and has no need to pretend to be.
That said, I'm a modernist. I don't like staid buildings that are supposed to look like something that was built 150 years ago. Something about that reeks of Disneyesque fakeness. The Honors college was well done and it's a modern take on traditional academic architecture and it's meant to be shoehorned into a historic campus. Livingston is not a historic campus and has no need to pretend to be.
"There also aren't all that many places to put it, so the design is space saving and awesome."
Rutgers has plenty of space to build. Its actually a main problem. Instead of building up, or filling in holes in the grid, we have generally built out.
For this specific project they could have built an extra floor, or made the floor plan a little bigger and not had the over the street design if they wanted to. Not to mention build it on one of the other large open lots on Livingston.
They built it this way to get attention and to act as a Gateway (taken literally in this case), not to save space.
Business schools in general tend to get some pretty crazy designs, so this isnt really out of line in that realm.
Totally agree with everything you said.
When I first saw the new business building in pictures I was like 'eh', but the first time visiting Livingston this past summer after the apartments and Business School were built I was very impressed. The Business School is very impressive in person as is the rest of the new part of Livingston. Seeing the building in the distance and realizing that you are going to drive under it is a pretty cool way to enter the campus.
The Honors College is very done and I hope the rest of the initiative takes after the ideas of a modern take on classic architecture.
I'm a business school alum and have been inside that building. Totally disappointed with it. It's hideous looking and functionality wise is really poor. Squandered opportunity in my mind.Originally posted by Korbermeister:
If I were a HS junior touring Rutgers, this building would excite me. It's iconic and totally works on Livingston campus.
To each their own, I think it's brilliant. If you're gonna roll the dice on an outside the box design, Livingston was the spot for it!
The sun setting on the bldg is quite a site
The sun setting on the bldg is quite a site
Maybe I saw the building on a not great day for viewing (cloudy or not cloudy or whatever is bad).
As for Disneyesque - there is a fine line between just a copy of an old style, and an update. But the fact that say Federal architecture is still used 200+ years later says something about its appeal compared to what has passed for modern since then.
One problem with modern is that when it ceases to be modern, it often just looks ugly.
I recognize everyone has their own taste in architecture, it is not to my taste. To me it looks like a leftover ride from Tomorrowland in Disneyland plopped in the middle of a college campus. Better there than on College Avenue where there should be a testament to the roots of Rutgers historic past. To me it is the reason planners should plan and not let architects piece meal buildings onto the landscape. To each his own.
