Critique of Milstein Hall: Introduction and contents

Jonathan Ochshorn

Tweet

contact | homepage | index of selected writings

"A cruel but pointed project would be a systematic study of the failings of the buildings that house university architecture departments. Invariably designed and built with great fanfare, as a class they are perhaps the most loathed of all academic buildings... The buildings are exciting and unworkable."
— Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built, Penguin Books (New York: 1994), p.68.

Introduction

Milstein Hall at Cornell University (Figure 1), designed by Rem Koolhaas and OMA, is an interesting building, in some ways an amazing building, and, by virtually any conceivable objective criterion, a disaster. That something amazing can simultaneously be a disaster is hardly a paradox. In fact, disasters are often amazing, and our amazement often increases proportionally with the range and scope of the disaster.

I will not be criticizing the visual appearance of this building, or making judgments about its subjective, aesthetic merit. I personally find the building interesting, and its underlying formal rationale provocative and compelling. But I am not particularly qualified to render such judgments, and other authorities or connoisseurs of architectural taste may well disagree. What follows, instead, is an objective critique of Milstein Hall, looking at the building in some detail from a series of different points of view, none of which are driven by aesthetic considerations.

Response to "Cornell AAP Building Safety and Code Compliance" Q&A

Contents


Milstein Hall in context

Figure 1. Milstein Hall in relation to the existing architecture buildings at Cornell: Rand and Sibley Halls.