We need a new donor to step up and build us a new skyscraper. Let's see....
the Koch Tower...
the Trump Tower...
that's the ticket!
We need a new donor to step up and build us a new skyscraper. Let's see....
the Koch Tower...
the Trump Tower...
that's the ticket!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read in that report somewhere that the Ruston Fire Department was concerned with their ability to serve the existing Wyly Tower.
And I really hope you're right RhythmDawg regarding the cited examples. The new functionality discussed in the report sounds fantastic. The exteriors of their cited examples...yikes.
The front steps of the President's home. It happened once during Reneau's time and a few times during Taylor's tenure. When it happened during Reneau's time, the student was arrested. Taylor had the Tech police make sure the student was ok but then just take them back to the dorms.
Another thing I'm hoping they plan for: the damn train. Sitting in Wyly and it's like sitting in a vibrating chair.
The "new" COBB is the same way. That building won't last long, either.
San Francisco proves you wrong. We can do something. We just don't. Time to use a little of that engineering know-how to do something other than look pretty.
I remember Madison used to vibrate like that. I thought it was just the steel beam construction. Neither Carruthers or Nielsen did that and I assumed it was because they were reinforced concrete construction. I often wondered if they were going to fall down because the stress wasn't being relieved. Madison has now lasted 49 years and the two old dorms would still be standing if they hadn't been demolished.
Didn't the brick fall off Madison? Train probably didn't help.
The "Architectural Context" page, roughly page 16, describes the buildings in the quad and says, "Projects should be sensitive to the historic qualities and should respect those surrounding buildings." I don't think they are going to put a space ship in the middle of the quad.
Just a thought, but I can't help noticing that they are getting rid of the tallest buildings on campus (Neilsen, Carruthers, Wyly). Those buildings were built in the 60s and 70s, and there have been a lot of discussions here about the quality of work on those projects. But, I am curious if taller buildings are more difficult/expensive to maintain. Obviously a building with more square footage will take more work to maintain, but I am asking about the structure itself. There is no doubt that getting rid of Asbestos isn't cheap, so a new building makes sense.
Are we getting rid of tall buildings as a way to cut maintenance costs? I am asking this because the "Conclusion" on page 43 suggests that the new library will be smaller than the current one (about 70-80% the size of the current library), and will be six stories tall. Neilsen and Carruthers were replaced with a series of smaller apartment buildings.
On the other hand, maybe they are suggesting six stories for political reasons -- because they know that money is tight and they couldn't get the money to build a bigger building.
What do you guys think?