lower sproul project beginning...

http://instagram.com/p/bSMSVekDTT/#

HoopDreams;842136212 said:

---

lower sproul project beginning...

http://instagram.com/p/bSMSVekDTT/#

---

Progress is good

To some of us, Eshleman Hall was gone years ago when they renamed it to Moses Hall. The abomination that took its name should never have seen the light of day. Good riddance.

GoBears63;842136224 said:

---

To some of us, Eshleman Hall was gone years ago when they renamed it to Moses Hall. The abomination that took its name should never have seen the light of day. Good riddance.

---

Interesting. I never heard this before. Not sure how I missed it. If they changed the name, it didn't stick. No one I knew from my ASUC days has ever called it Moses Hall.

Why did they change the name and who, other than the dude from the bible, is Moses? They should rename the new ASUC building "Chunk Hall".

UCBerkGrad;842136226 said:

---

Interesting. I never heard this before. Not sure how I missed it. If they changed the name, it didn't stick. No one I knew from my ASUC days has ever called it Moses Hall.

Why did they change the name and who, other than the dude from the bible, is Moses? They should rename the new ASUC building "Chunk Hall".

---

http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/facilities

The Philosophy Department is housed in Moses Hall, near the Campanile on the main UC Berkeley campus. The building was designed in 1931 by George Kelham, who had earlier designed many San Francisco landmarks, including the old Main Library and the old Federal Reserve. Until the 1960s, the building was named Eshleman Hall and housed student publications, the band, and the chorus. It was renamed in honor of Bernard Moses (1846-1930), U.C.'s first historian and the founder of Berkeley's Political Science Department. The Philosophy Department moved into Moses during the 1970s.

UCBerkGrad;842136217 said:

---

Progress is good

---

+1 Good riddance

HoopDreams;842136212 said:

---

lower sproul project beginning...

http://instagram.com/p/bSMSVekDTT/#

---

While, yes, Eshleman, should've been torn down, I'm sad that a building I spent most of my undergraduate experience in is gone.

I watched many sunrises over the Berkeley Hills from the 6th floor.

I'm just sad that 40 years from now I won't be able to revisit the past.

We have all these buildings that are 100 years old, or 60-70 years old.

Yet a building like Eshleman couldn't even make it to the 50th-anniversary mark.

Below are a couple of photos I took over the past 2 months.

Thank god, that think was ugly.

Does this mean the attention grubbing ASUC is gone too? :p

socaliganbear;842136242 said:

---

Thank god, that think was ugly.

---

Seriously -- how could so many buildings be absolutely beautiful and so many be absolutely ugly?

And why don't think build buildings that are uniquely interesting?

I can't wait till they tear down Tolman Hall. I hate that design.

okaydo;842136248 said:

---

Seriously -- how could so many buildings be absolutely beautiful and so many be absolutely ugly?

And why don't think build buildings that are uniquely interesting?

I can't wait till they tear down Tolman Hall. I hate that design.

---

Wurster would be next on my list.

Whatever hall is at next to Boalt right at the corner of Piedmont & Bancroft is an eyesore in an otherwise great area.

UCBerkGrad;842136261 said:

---

Wurster would be next on my list.

---

Wurster is so ugly it deserves to live, especially since it's home to the architecture dept.

No more Bear's Lair!!!! :cry:

Wurster is so ugly it kind of grows on you. Evans though, has absolutely nothing redeemable about it.

Here's the UC webpage for Lower Sproul Redevelopment. Looks like it's less than half the height, so some sun will hit the plaza.

okaydo;842136264 said:

---

Wurster is so ugly it deserves to live, especially since it's home to the architecture dept.

---

Because it houses the architecture department, I've always thought of it as an object lesson in "what not to do".

I thought we were holding that spot for Sonny's statue when he takes us to the Rose Bowl? My bad.

:gobears:

It was ugly, but was it unsafe? Without knowing too much about the safety situation or where the financing comes from, my inclination is to say that avoiding further academic decline should take precedent over updating the buildings right now.

The Duke!;842136294 said:

---

It was ugly, but was it unsafe? Without knowing too much about the safety situation or where the financing comes from, my inclination is to say that avoiding further academic decline should take precedent over updating the buildings right now.

---

Yeah, it was one of the many buildings deemed seismically unsafe, renovating it would have proved more expensive. Also, they simply ran out of room.

Finances? "The turning point came in 2010, when students voted overwhelmingly (two-thirds of voters approved) to impose an escalating fee on themselves, in perpetuity, to pay a big share of the costs. Students started paying a $35-per-semester fee in fiscal 2011; the fee will rise to $261 by 2052." The University is contributing the rest.

The Duke!;842136294 said:

---

It was ugly, but was it unsafe? Without knowing too much about the safety situation or where the financing comes from, my inclination is to say that avoiding further academic decline should take precedent over updating the buildings right now.

---

Facilities and academic decline are interrelated. Research requires new facilities from time to time. And I would go so far as to say its easier to attract top professors and students across all fields if their buildings aren't depressing. I know from first hand experience, the top universities are in an arms race to build new buildings to attract students, donors, and professors in the money generating research fields. A suitable analogy is the situation with football facilities.

atoms;842136282 said:

---

Because it houses the architecture department, I've always thought of it as an object lesson in "what not to do".

---

My architecture friends said the building had some admirable qualities that weren't apparent to us regular folks. I spent a fair amount of time inside the building and it was every bit as brutal on the interior but did have wide open spaces for the kids to do their work. Here's an interesting (and short) description of what went into the design.

I heard similar things about Evans - apparently it was designed for "differential cooling" which was supposed to make it much more energy efficient, if not attractive. To me - just another ugly building where unfortunately a lot of my time was spent.

The Duke!;842136294 said:

---

It was ugly, but was it unsafe? Without knowing too much about the safety situation or where the financing comes from, my inclination is to say that avoiding further academic decline should take precedent over updating the buildings right now.

---

In 1997, Eshleman was found to be "seismically poor."

(You're doing a reverse-Barsky, right?)

Unit2Sucks;842136312 said:

---

My architecture friends said the building had some admirable qualities that weren't apparent to us regular folks.

---

Yes, I've had more than one architect-type tell me, in not so many words, "You only dislike Wurster because you don't really know anything about architecture." Is that snobby? Is this the wrong thread to ask that question?

BTW, I've always thought the name for that style of architecture offers a very good description -- "brutalist."

Judd King, former vice-president of UC used to say about Wurster and others that the departments at Cal were all bad at what they taught:
Worst building on campus--architecture
Worst interpersonal relations--psychology
Most lawsuits for discrimination--anthropology
Worst family leave policy--social work
Worst budget shortfall--business school

This was in the 80's.

Wurster
Evans
Tolman
Barrows

With Eshelman gone, is that the Mt Rushmore of 'Ugly Cal Buildings'?

Stern? Moffitt?

rocketsBLUEglare;842136331 said:

---

Wurster
Evans
Tolman
Barrows

With Eshelman gone, is that the Mt Rushmore of 'Ugly Cal Buildings'?

Stern? Moffitt?

---

Krober is pretty damn ugly, but at least it's relatively small. Personally, I don't think Barrows is that bad...it's not great, but not awful either.

Unit2Sucks;842136312 said:

---

My architecture friends said the building had some admirable qualities that weren't apparent to us regular folks. I spent a fair amount of time inside the building and it was every bit as brutal on the interior but did have wide open spaces for the kids to do their work. Here's an interesting (and short) description of what went into the design.

I heard similar things about Evans - apparently it was designed for "differential cooling" which was supposed to make it much more energy efficient, if not attractive. To me - just another ugly building where unfortunately a lot of my time was spent.

---

It depends on the field. I prohibit wifi use in my classes, so I would much prefer more research money, a higher library acquisition budget, and lower tuition for my students than really cool looking and high tech new buildings. But mine seems to be a minority view.

But if the students want it and are willing to pay for it, I can't complain.

In the Fall of 1960, tickets went on sale at Eshelman Hall for the NCAA Final Four to be played in Kansas City in the Spring. Cal had won the NCAA basketball championship in 1959, and finished runner-up in 1960. Even though Pete Newell had retired from coaching, most of the team was returning so we all thought we would be in the Final Four in 1961. A friend and I stayed up all night, in the cold and some rain, camped out in front of Eshelman, to be near the front of the line which eventually became several blocks long, by the time tickets went on sale. We got our tickets, but sadly, the basketball Bears did not have a good season, and never made it to Kansas City, and neither did my friend and I.

:gobears:

Evans will be torn down in the next decade or two. Tolman will have its breezeway removed, but the rest will remain as two separate buildings. No plan to tear down Wurster. To me, Wurster is the most hideous, not just for its looks, but also because its height and enormous footprint cuts off views and access to Memorial Stadium from the SE part of campus. Knocking down Simon Hall at Boalt (the former dorm) would also enhance the view greatly.

concernedparent;842136266 said:

---

...... Evans though, has absolutely nothing redeemable about it.

---

Evans Hall is an abomination. And as a math major, I spent about 40% of my undergraduate career there. Ugh.

Unit2Sucks;842136312 said:

---

My architecture friends said the building had some admirable qualities that weren't apparent to us regular folks. I spent a fair amount of time inside the building and it was every bit as brutal on the interior but did have wide open spaces for the kids to do their work. Here's an interesting (and short) description of what went into the design.

I heard similar things about Evans - apparently it was designed for "differential cooling" which was supposed to make it much more energy efficient, if not attractive. To me - just another ugly building where unfortunately a lot of my time was spent.

---

My father graduated UC in Architecture in 1935, and became a well-known Bay Area architect. He was a contemporary, if not a good friend, of William Wurster. He had great respect for Wurster, but could not stand the building named after him. I don’t like it at all either. The only good thing about it for me is that the Archives there now house all my father’s drawings, papers, and photos of his work from over 50 years in private practice, for students to research and visitors to view. To him, the Ark, on Northside, where he studied architecture, was home, not Wurster Hall. The big difference to him was that the Ark was a warm and inviting building, one you liked to spend time in. That is hard to imagine about Wurster Hall.

Back in the late 50's. I believe we were in Eschelman (it's been so long). Won a thing called the "Freshman Cup" for getting the most ads for the paper. Had to pay a astronomical $60 a semester to enter Cal. Needless to say: I did not need a student loan.

IIRC, Frank Lloyd Wright visited Cal around that time and he made the comment: "There is not ONE architecturally significant building on this campus" or something similar to that. I was shocked.

BTW, I know little about architecture (except to know what I love) and recently I asked an architect "What do they call the design of all these buildings we see in the last few years just about everywhere". She replied: "CHEAP"!!

I thought we'd get to see forever.
But forever has gone away.
It's so hard to say goodbye to yesterday.

Tear it down:

in no particular order:

Etcheverry
Wurster
Moffit
Evans
University Art Musuem