lots of cranky old man takes ITT

Beyond money, the new campus (and now red brick usage across main st) just suffers from having no architectural voice, nobody at the helm across generations now. They did not save that much money.

The blonde brick is fine - look at the courthouse. The Quad just lost it's voice - there is no reason you can't integrate classic forms (tasteful and reminiscent of the quad) for similar money. (I've been in construction a long time...value engineering and thoughtful use of panels / stucco / EFIS can go far)

- a touch of bluestone at the foundation (well the newer fake stuff that won't grey over time)
- simple use of columns
-limited use of standing seam and tile in red (get out of here with that green at setara park)
- precast concrete and blonde brick for the other 90% of the exterior keeps budget about the same

Basically, Hotel Madison got it right (almost nailed it) in terms of what new buildings that are not adjacent to quad should be like. Quad adjacent seems to mean full on bluestone

For now, maybe forever, we are stuck with
1- bluestone
2 - yellow prison isat
3 - village (holding out hope for the replacement, but have abad feeling it will be carbon copies of the MLK dorms)
4 - business campus
5 - new look across main
6 - whatever Greek row / Hillside is...just start over

It's too much - over time we should be reskinning some of these buildings that don't come down and adding some of the classic elements (the walkway in front of the old cancer center is one approach) (start with Sonner? Madison Union is already planned)

Still a beautiful place...but a whiff on a singular identity and classic forms / mixed with modern (new PC Dukes is a win! Library addition will be a win!)

(10-25-2022 05:48 AM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 12:51 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:41 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 11:38 AM)2Buck Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 01:40 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Good grief. Talk about “complainers”….

JMU is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. End of discussion.

So, not answering the question about the reasoning, just falling back on toeing the company line. Bluestone and the quad are what drive that perception, but your position is the new area continues that level of aesthetic. Got it.

“Falling” back on the reality as I stated it. Again (because you seemed to miss it the first time shared it) JMU is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country.

Counter or argue that fact to your heart’s desire.

Riiiight. And I'm sure this is where they start campus tours, not the quad.

2Buck killing it with the visual humor.

The new side looks institutional, not necessarily an institution of learning, but an institution. No need to sugar coat it. If there weren’t nameplates or signs, travelers on I-81 could easily mistake it for a government facility for rehab. We know it wasn’t built for architecture awards nor was the funding available to match JMU’s beautiful Bluestone campus.

Longhorn is going to have to take an L on this one.

Please reread my comments. I thought it’s pretty clear that I’ve been promoting the overall beauty of the entire JMU campus’ aesthetic, not defending one area of campus as being more or less beautiful over another. Give yourself an F for reading comprehension.

That being said, seeing how Shady has chosen to elevate me to the position of campus architect, JMU President and VA legislature (all rolled into one) who designed, planned and funded the areas of campus that don’t meet Shady’s limited aesthetic expectations (thank you very much, but I believe I deserve a raise! ), all I can say (in all humility) is “deal with it.” The CISAT side of campus (love it or hate it) isn’t going to go away or change its look anytime soon (at least not in my time on earth), and I’ve learned long ago not to stew over things that I can’t change.

I’ve made one point, and one point only. JMU’s campus (repeating myself from earlier posts on this thread) is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. That’s a fact.

I didn’t argue the architecture at JMU was consistent. Nor did I offer any thoughts about what “I would do.” I simply stated the fact JMU’s campus is ONE of the most beautiful campuses in the country.

JMU is a campus that developed organically, and the differences we see in the styles of architecture on campus are a reflection of the different times the buildings were built and the circumstances that promoted their construction. Yes, some areas are different. So what? You might as well complain that American cities are an amalgamation of different architectural styles built over a century in time.

The development of JMU’s campus wasn’t a “set piece” (see SUNY Albany for a frightening example of homogeneity), but if there is any blame to be dished out, it should be served to dear old Uncle Ron who was responsible for the expansion of the red brick stuff (COB being an example), and then moving on to establish the CISAT “look” on the East side of campus.

I deeply respected the man, and honestly think Ron Carrier was a genius. I also don’t think Ron had an aesthetic bone in his entire body, at least as far as architecture was concerned. Ron had other, larger goals in mind regarding how to build Madison College into a powerful university, and the continuity of architectural styles, and even the functionality of the buildings Ron got built, were secondary.

Footnote:
Not long ago there were people crying about the loss of the old entrance gate markers to JMU. To satisfy those complaining about the construction of the new gates, one example of the “Madison College” marker was saved and installed near the alumni center.

I share this tidbit to draw attention to how things are always in flux…and to contrast the design of the new entrance gates to the old style they replaced.

Personally, I found the old gates embarrassing. They were clunky, inconsistent at each entrance, and almost cartoonish. Yet, I’m sure they were the best that could be afforded at the time they were built.

The new gates (like the entrance gate off Port Republic) feel more (to me) in keeping with the presence/image JMU wants to project today. I like ‘em, but so what? Still, there was blowback from loyal JMU alums who wanted to keep those old cartoonish gates.

None of us (to my knowledge) were asked our opinion about the design of the new entrance gates, or were involved in the decisions involving the architecture used on the East “skyline” side of campus. When UREC opened people were enthusiastic (even if slightly taken aback by the architecture). I assume the same might have been said when the Convo opened.

Bottom line…East campus is what it is. Some people like it, and obviously some people don’t. JMU is still one of the prettiest campuses in the country. Deal with it.

(10-25-2022 08:30 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 05:48 AM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 12:51 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:41 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 11:38 AM)2Buck Wrote:  So, not answering the question about the reasoning, just falling back on toeing the company line. Bluestone and the quad are what drive that perception, but your position is the new area continues that level of aesthetic. Got it.

“Falling” back on the reality as I stated it. Again (because you seemed to miss it the first time shared it) JMU is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country.

Counter or argue that fact to your heart’s desire.

Riiiight. And I'm sure this is where they start campus tours, not the quad.

2Buck killing it with the visual humor.

The new side looks institutional, not necessarily an institution of learning, but an institution. No need to sugar coat it. If there weren’t nameplates or signs, travelers on I-81 could easily mistake it for a government facility for rehab. We know it wasn’t built for architecture awards nor was the funding available to match JMU’s beautiful Bluestone campus.

Longhorn is going to have to take an L on this one.

Please reread my comments. I thought it’s pretty clear that I’ve been promoting the overall beauty of the entire JMU campus’ aesthetic, not defending one area of campus as being more or less beautiful over another. Give yourself an F for reading comprehension.

That being said, seeing how Shady has chosen to elevate me to the position of campus architect, JMU President and VA legislature (all rolled into one) who designed, planned and funded the areas of campus that don’t meet Shady’s limited aesthetic expectations (thank you very much, but I believe I deserve a raise! ), all I can say (in all humility) is “deal with it.” The CISAT side of campus (love it or hate it) isn’t going to go away or change its look anytime soon (at least not in my time on earth), and I’ve learned long ago not to stew over things that I can’t change.

I’ve made one point, and one point only. JMU’s campus (repeating myself from earlier posts on this thread) is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. That’s a fact.

I didn’t argue the architecture at JMU was consistent. Nor did I offer any thoughts about what “I would do.” I simply stated the fact JMU’s campus is ONE of the most beautiful campuses in the country.

JMU is a campus that developed organically, and the differences we see in the styles of architecture on campus are a reflection of the different times the buildings were built and the circumstances that promoted their construction. Yes, some areas are different. So what? You might as well complain that American cities are an amalgamation of different architectural styles built over a century in time.

The development of JMU’s campus wasn’t a “set piece” (see SUNY Albany for a frightening example of homogeneity), but if there is any blame to be dished out, it should be served to dear old Uncle Ron who was responsible for the expansion of the red brick stuff (COB being an example), and then moving on to establish the CISAT “look” on the East side of campus.

I deeply respected the man, and honestly think Ron Carrier was a genius. I also don’t think Ron had an aesthetic bone in his entire body, at least as far as architecture was concerned. Ron had other, larger goals in mind regarding how to build Madison College into a powerful university, and the continuity of architectural styles, and even the functionality of the buildings Ron got built, were secondary.

Footnote:
Not long ago there were people crying about the loss of the old entrance gate markers to JMU. To satisfy those complaining about the construction of the new gates, one example of the “Madison College” marker was saved and installed near the alumni center.

I share this tidbit to draw attention to how things are always in flux…and to contrast the design of the new entrance gates to the old style they replaced.

Personally, I found the old gates embarrassing. They were clunky, inconsistent at each entrance, and almost cartoonish. Yet, I’m sure they were the best that could be afforded at the time they were built.

The new gates (like the entrance gate off Port Republic) feel more (to me) in keeping with the presence/image JMU wants to project today. I like ‘em, but so what? Still, there was blowback from loyal JMU alums who wanted to keep those old cartoonish gates.

None of us (to my knowledge) were asked our opinion about the design of the new entrance gates, or were involved in the decisions involving the architecture used on the East “skyline” side of campus. When UREC opened people were enthusiastic (even if slightly taken aback by the architecture). I assume the same might have been said when the Convo opened.

Bottom line…East campus is what it is. Some people like it, and obviously some people don’t. JMU is still one of the prettiest campuses in the country. Deal with it.

Just to add my own two cents: I love the new gates. When I came back to campus a year or two ago I was so excited to see them. They add a great definitive start and stop to campus, and establish a great identity with the bluestone.

Gates are great.
Buildings are great.
Flaps are great.
The Dukes are great.
JMU is great!

Every large university campus in America has buildings that are less atheistically pleasing than others. JMU is not different or unique in that. I have been lucky enough to be on the campus of some of the most elite universities in the country and you can clearly delineate when the campus went through rapid growth based on the era when the cheaper, less aesthetically pleasing building were constructed.

(10-25-2022 08:30 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 05:48 AM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 12:51 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 12:41 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 11:38 AM)2Buck Wrote:  So, not answering the question about the reasoning, just falling back on toeing the company line. Bluestone and the quad are what drive that perception, but your position is the new area continues that level of aesthetic. Got it.

“Falling” back on the reality as I stated it. Again (because you seemed to miss it the first time shared it) JMU is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country.

Counter or argue that fact to your heart’s desire.

Riiiight. And I'm sure this is where they start campus tours, not the quad.

2Buck killing it with the visual humor.

The new side looks institutional, not necessarily an institution of learning, but an institution. No need to sugar coat it. If there weren’t nameplates or signs, travelers on I-81 could easily mistake it for a government facility for rehab. We know it wasn’t built for architecture awards nor was the funding available to match JMU’s beautiful Bluestone campus.

Longhorn is going to have to take an L on this one.

Please reread my comments. I thought it’s pretty clear that I’ve been promoting the overall beauty of the entire JMU campus’ aesthetic, not defending one area of campus as being more or less beautiful over another. Give yourself an F for reading comprehension.

That being said, seeing how Shady has chosen to elevate me to the position of campus architect, JMU President and VA legislature (all rolled into one) who designed, planned and funded the areas of campus that don’t meet Shady’s limited aesthetic expectations (thank you very much, but I believe I deserve a raise! ), all I can say (in all humility) is “deal with it.” The CISAT side of campus (love it or hate it) isn’t going to go away or change its look anytime soon (at least not in my time on earth), and I’ve learned long ago not to stew over things that I can’t change.

I’ve made one point, and one point only. JMU’s campus (repeating myself from earlier posts on this thread) is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. That’s a fact.

I didn’t argue the architecture at JMU was consistent. Nor did I offer any thoughts about what “I would do.” I simply stated the fact JMU’s campus is ONE of the most beautiful campuses in the country.

JMU is a campus that developed organically, and the differences we see in the styles of architecture on campus are a reflection of the different times the buildings were built and the circumstances that promoted their construction. Yes, some areas are different. So what? You might as well complain that American cities are an amalgamation of different architectural styles built over a century in time.

The development of JMU’s campus wasn’t a “set piece” (see SUNY Albany for a frightening example of homogeneity), but if there is any blame to be dished out, it should be served to dear old Uncle Ron who was responsible for the expansion of the red brick stuff (COB being an example), and then moving on to establish the CISAT “look” on the East side of campus.

I deeply respected the man, and honestly think Ron Carrier was a genius. I also don’t think Ron had an aesthetic bone in his entire body, at least as far as architecture was concerned. Ron had other, larger goals in mind regarding how to build Madison College into a powerful university, and the continuity of architectural styles, and even the functionality of the buildings Ron got built, were secondary.

Footnote:
Not long ago there were people crying about the loss of the old entrance gate markers to JMU. To satisfy those complaining about the construction of the new gates, one example of the “Madison College” marker was saved and installed near the alumni center.

I share this tidbit to draw attention to how things are always in flux…and to contrast the design of the new entrance gates to the old style they replaced.

Personally, I found the old gates embarrassing. They were clunky, inconsistent at each entrance, and almost cartoonish. Yet, I’m sure they were the best that could be afforded at the time they were built.

The new gates (like the entrance gate off Port Republic) feel more (to me) in keeping with the presence/image JMU wants to project today. I like ‘em, but so what? Still, there was blowback from loyal JMU alums who wanted to keep those old cartoonish gates.

None of us (to my knowledge) were asked our opinion about the design of the new entrance gates, or were involved in the decisions involving the architecture used on the East “skyline” side of campus. When UREC opened people were enthusiastic (even if slightly taken aback by the architecture). I assume the same might have been said when the Convo opened.

Bottom line…East campus is what it is. Some people like it, and obviously some people don’t. JMU is still one of the prettiest campuses in the country. Deal with it.

+1

(10-26-2022 09:31 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Gates are great.
Buildings are great.
Flaps are great.
The Dukes are great.
JMU is great!

Watch out! You might be labeled a “butt kisser” by Shady!

Longhorn goes on about reading comprehension and pointing out how some posters have none, but the original post about all this was not about how beautiful JMU is…

2Buck wrote: “I'm not going to debate how ugly/beautiful it is (take a look at the dorm screenshot below that is only going to age horrendously), but more so interested in the thought behind why it turned out the way it did.“

Now we know more about JMU gates than any of us ever thought we would. Thank you Longhorn!

Edit: I haven’t been to campus / Harrisonburg in at least 8 years, but hopefully I can see these changes next month when Georgia State comes to town.

The new gates ARE great...and use of bluestone is expanding - old look and modern usage. What I can't make sense of is the simultaneous expansion of red brick across main.

Village rebuild will be key to watch...

If you haven't seen the master plan for Madison Union...hit the Google machine - it's online and pretty detailed. Basically the whole thing (all three buildings) redone to match new PCDukes

One thing I think we all can agree on is that JMU is a beautiful campus and a lot of time,effort and resources are continually put into it to maintain that beauty. Kudos to all involved.

Brian

JMU girls > JMU architecture.

I’ll die on this mountain.

(10-26-2022 01:45 PM)ParentofJMUMRDs Wrote:  One thing I think we all can agree on is that JMU is a beautiful campus and a lot of time,effort and resources are continually put into it to maintain that beauty. Kudos to all involved.

Brian

Hell yes! The debate got twisted to someone's win point

(10-26-2022 11:58 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:31 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Gates are great.
Buildings are great.
Flaps are great.
The Dukes are great.
JMU is great!

Watch out! You might be labeled a “butt kisser” by Shady!

Not sure why good old LH wants to bring me into this discussion in the first place. LH likes to throw around terms like reading comprehension maybe he should work on that himself or simply read and retain......as I have not weighed in on this thread......so don't know wth he is referring too.

But carry on and go teach a psych101 or something OR if you just desired someone to call you a pompous a$$hole I am always happy to do so b/c it always fits.

(10-26-2022 04:31 PM)Dukes94 Wrote:  JMU girls > JMU architecture.

I'll drink to that! Otherwise, this thread is getting lamer by the post.

I'm a simple man with simple needs. Just serve me beer to my stadium seat and I am a happy guy who can live without bluestone on East Campus.

And, I am proud to have just taken you to the most-coveted rep number on the board.

(10-27-2022 02:21 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 11:58 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:31 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Gates are great.
Buildings are great.
Flaps are great.
The Dukes are great.
JMU is great!

Watch out! You might be labeled a “butt kisser” by Shady!

Not sure why good old LH wants to bring me into this discussion in the first place. LH likes to throw around terms like reading comprehension maybe he should work on that himself or simply read and retain......as I have not weighed in on this thread......so don't know wth he is referring too.

But carry on and go teach a psych101 or something OR if you just desired someone to call you a pompous a$$hole I am always happy to do so b/c it always fits.

Oh, too late to retreat from your precious, easily bruised ego. Own it.

(10-27-2022 04:35 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 04:31 PM)Dukes94 Wrote:  JMU girls > JMU architecture.

I'll drink to that! Otherwise, this thread is getting lamer by the post.

I'm a simple man with simple needs. Just serve me beer to my stadium seat and I am a happy guy who can live without bluestone on East Campus.

And, I am proud to have just taken you to the most-coveted rep number on the board.

Thanks, my man.

(10-27-2022 07:13 PM)Dukes94 Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 04:35 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 04:31 PM)Dukes94 Wrote:  JMU girls > JMU architecture.

I'll drink to that! Otherwise, this thread is getting lamer by the post.

I'm a simple man with simple needs. Just serve me beer to my stadium seat and I am a happy guy who can live without bluestone on East Campus.

And, I am proud to have just taken you to the most-coveted rep number on the board.

Thanks, my man.

I like the building style of Skyline and wouldn’t have it any other way. It fits the STEM aesthetic. Sterile, streamlined, and clinical. I spent most of my time on that side of campus while at JMU and it worked perfectly with the classes offered in those buildings. Would be weird to have an arts or literature class in there but feels right for sciences

(10-27-2022 06:41 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 02:21 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 11:58 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:31 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Gates are great.
Buildings are great.
Flaps are great.
The Dukes are great.
JMU is great!

Watch out! You might be labeled a “butt kisser” by Shady!

Not sure why good old LH wants to bring me into this discussion in the first place. LH likes to throw around terms like reading comprehension maybe he should work on that himself or simply read and retain......as I have not weighed in on this thread......so don't know wth he is referring too.

But carry on and go teach a psych101 or something OR if you just desired someone to call you a pompous a$$hole I am always happy to do so b/c it always fits.

Oh, too late to retreat from your precious, easily bruised ego. Own it.

Seriously dude, wth are you talking about. You call me out for no reason on a thread I had not even looked at much less commented on and you somehow want to tell me to 'own it' and take some 'moral high-ground'.

You are seriously off your rocker and think waaaay too highly of yourself.

I hope you NEVER reference reading comprehension to anyone again.

I think John Fetterman currently makes more sense that you buddy.