Page 2
---
University Daily Kansan Thursday, April 1, 1965
KU Does Not Need A Colossal Tombstone!
The topic of tradition in its relationship to architecture is one that deserves some sincere consideration.
Most of us have been taught since infancy that citizens in our society have a certain duty to preserve all that is good in our heritage. This is well and good; we need to have a respect for the efforts of our forefathers. However, it seems that there is often considerable confusion and misguided zeal in regard to the expression of such respect.
IT IS TRULY REMARKABLE that in our present society which virtually worships the concept of progress, the idea of historical evolution, that there should still be a few souls who feel that our fathers are best honored by the building of a fantasy world in which the ideas, mores, society, and aesthetic values of our ancestors are in some way imitated or re-established. This is obviously a delusory and fallacious viewpoint to take.
In architecture as in all other pursuits, we do not show respect to tradition by merely copying what our forefathers did before us. Mere imitation displays only sentimentality, laziness, and lack of imagination. To fall back on our tradition in this way, as on a crutch, only dishonors the tradition. Respect is shown for our tradition when we dedicate ourselves to the advancement of civilization. We have an obligation to do so; we cannot let our civilization stagnate and die. For this, men throughout time have struggled: to provide for the best physical and spiritual life for themselves and for posterity; that is to say, men have struggled towards the advancement of human civilization. This is also our proper purpose today.
HOWEVER MUCH WE OWE TO
our dead ancestors, our greatest oblation must be to our grandchildren, to future generations. In continuing the progress of human effort, we serve and fulfill our tradition, because our own posterity is also the posterity of our forefathers. How can we fulfill our responsibility to progress if we are always walking "backwards," looking only where we have already been?
One should presume that architecture designed to symbolize the spirit of a vital university would be forward looking. There is no place at an institution of learning for any stagnation; neither are great universities found to be overly sentimental. The University of Kansas is not stagnant; it is not dead! What, then, is the purpose of erecting a colossal tombstone to commemorate our tradition? Where there is life, there is no need of a tombstone! Would it not be better to respect our architectural and academic tradition by keeping it alive, and expressing this life and progress in the new architecture?
CERTAINLY OLD FRASER Hall is an exceptionally fine building, considered in its historical context, and were it at all feasible to refurbish it to restore its structural soundness, I should be strongly in favor of so doing. When old Fraser was conceived, one of the most eminent architects of the time, John J. Haskel, was selected as the result of the desire to seek out only the best to design a building to symbolize the state of Kansas. (It would seem that this is a tradition that has unfortunately been allowed to die.) As a result of the public pride and desire for quality, old Fraser is a building possessing value in regard to architectural
history as well as its rich symbolic and historical value to the University. However, we must realize now that once the original Fraser Hall is torn down, it is gone, and it would be absurd to think that its historical value can be reclaimed by building a cheap, poor, half-hearted imitation in its place. To build such a farce is actually an act of disrespect towards the tradition of the old Fraser.
SUPPOSE THAT THE SCANDALOUS ugly design proposed for the new Fraser Hall were accepted and built. If a visitor were to come to the campus and be told that the building, with its misproportioned roof and fairytale towers, reflected the tradition of KU architecture, the visitor's first reaction would probably be to assume that the original building must surely have been atrocious. His second reaction might be to ask the question, "Why perpetuate such a tradition?" He would surely assume that the tradition of KU is one of ugly and regressive architecture. It does not have to be so.
One of the most ironic aspects of the proposed building under question is that it is to enclose spaces for scientific research. The very concept of having such laboratories is avant-guard, so to speak; to promote the idea of scientific progress. Yet the exterior of the proposed building is a lie; it in no way honestly symbolizes or reflects the ideals or functions of research or progressive education. The doctrine of progress is accepted without question when applied to the sciences, but by some curious double standard, the progress of our civilization expressed in aesthetic terms is rejected.
IS IT THAT WE ARE AFRAID of progress in the case of campus
architecture because we fear that we will be isolated from our heritage; that the continuity with the past will be broken? We do not let such petty fears thwart scientific progress; there is no reasonable basis for fear in this regard. Man by nature builds upon the accomplishments of the past; therefore, there is no need for a self-conscious attempt to express a tradition. In good architecture, as well as in logical scientific exploration, this factor takes care of itself, so long as the evolutionary course of progress is maintained.
It is redundant to force our architects to stick a miscellaneous assortment of fetishes onto what we hope will become an enduring work of art, symbolizing the spirit of our University. No one would ask a musician to insert a few verbatim phrases of Bach and Beethoven into his musical composition in order to show "respect" to the debt that contemporary music owes to these men. So doing is both ridiculous and totally unnecessary. The contribution of these ancient masters is implicit in the state of progress of contemporary music itself, and plays its natural and subtle part in conditioning the contemporary composer's imagination.
IS IT THAT WE ARE AFRAID that if we abandon the favorite stylistic fetishes, that the unity of campus architecture will be destroyed? The fact of the matter is that no unity now exists. The claim that the proposed design of new Fraser is the result of blending with Blake Hall (itself supposedly a blending with old Blake and Fraser, both eventually to be non-existent) can have no validity. Obviously the design that has been proposed has little in common with Blake Hall. For example, look at
the scale! The excellent photograph in Monday's Lawrence Journal-World shows this especially well.) The new Fraser looks like the Jolly Green Giant next to a dwarfed Blake Hall. By this, I am not referring merely to the overall physical size relationship between the two buildings, but mean to point out the uncanny deceptive quality that the new Fraser design possesses when the apparent scale of the building is compared with its actual scale, and that of the completely dwarfed human being.
IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO notice the fact that no mention has been made of any attempt at unity with Green Hall, the Library, Danforth Chapel, or the Art Museum, all of which stand within close visual juxtaposition with the Fraser site.
How can such a complex problem of architectural unity be solved? In the hands of an unusually competent architect, a good solution could be found through a very careful blending of materials (considered in context to total scale and function), and the judicious use of scale and proportion relationships.
relationships.
As we can see, this problem of unity can never honestly be solved by the plagiarism of an assortment of miscellaneous forms taken completely out of context.
ARE NONE OF OUR ARCHITECTS equal to the task (as they are at other universities), or is it that the administration is unwilling to trust an architect who desires to make an honest attempt at maintaining our heritage, preferring instead to accept ugliness along with intellectual and aesthetic stagnation?
Drake S. Bunday
Architectural graduate student
The People Say..
April Fool-
Dear Sir:
YOU MISSED A GOOD BET. By waiting only three more days, you could have unveiled the plans for the new Fraser on April 1st.
You've probably noticed that the plans look pretty comical. Hilarious, in fact. Big joke. When they start plowing up the Prairie and replacing it with concrete it won't be so funny. When that hideous product of a lack of imagination becomes a reality, when it stands towering over Danforth with its ridiculous little "towers" stuck on top of that huge blank hulk, it will be downright tragic. To compare such an overgrown concrete block to the old Fraser is the saddest joke of all.
Is there nothing the student body or the administration can do to stop this catastrophe from happening to the KU campus?
Glenda Mitchell, Madison junior
Monopoly Hotel
Gentlemen:
Someone really went back to their childhood days when they threw New Fraser together. The photograph of the building reminds me of the hotels I use to play with in my Monopoly game. I can't see where adding two flags to a Monopoly hotel is what anyone would call designing.
Below is a letter which I would like to have printed in your Letters to the Editor" section.
It has been said that the building has been designed with great care and will be more splendid than ever before with its red roofs. This looks to me like
something that was put together overnight. After all, it hasn't been too long ago that anyone even decided to go ahead with building a New Fraser. I also can't see too much advantage to having beautiful red roofs on buildings that are seven stories tall. It would be fine if everyone had an airplane and could see the red roofs.
Paul S. Kivett
I hardly agree with the architect's recommendation to tear down the old Fraser before the new one is finished. It would be a shame to compare the new one with the old one. Someone might decide to keep the old one after seeing the new one built!
Maybe they should tear down a few other buildings while they are tearing things down. Sumnerfield Oven and Murphy Monster leave a lot to be desired!
Kansas City, Mo., junior
Unsightly Mess- Dear Sir:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR Favorable comment about the new Fraser. What I have heard ranges from "Thank God I'm graduating next year!" to hysterical laughter. Seriously, are they really planning to build that unspeakable thing? Does the fact that the students, who will have to live with the disaster, hate the sight of it, mean nothing? Can't anything be done to prevent this unsightly mess from being dumped on the KU campus?
Sure, the new Fraser will be practical. So is the Quonset hut behind Strong. What's more, judging from the pictures, the two are about equally beautiful. The Quonset hut, though, has the advantage of being inconspicuous and, in theory anyway, temporary. What about the new Fraser? People will be laughing at it for another hundred years. If we must hold classes in a barn, I say let's hide the barn in the woods somewhere instead of putting it in the middle of the campus. And let's not try to pretend it's a replacement for Fraser Hall.
Connie Hubert,
Leavenworth junior
Some Joke —
Dear Sir:
I VIEWED THE "REMARKABLE combination of the traditional and the functional" which will soon "crown" our "magnificent campus site" with a horror which soon (I just couldn't help it) dissolved into laughter. They must be kidding!
It looks like an overgrown prison accompanied by the afterthought of a couple of smoke-stacks.
Oh well, what could you expect from a university which has spawned Murphy, Strong, the Kansas Union—and Blake?
Unlikely, Peggy Smith. Garden City junior
Sincerely.
Dailij Mänsan
111 Flint Hall
University of Kansas student newspaper
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889, became bweekly 1904,
died in 2000.
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912
Member Inland Daily Press Association,
Associated Collegiate Press. Rep-
tition of magazine. Journal of the
Lawrence, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y.
News service: United Press International.
Mail subscription rates: $3 a
month. University of Lawrence,
Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during
the University year except Saturday
and Sunday. University period. Second class
postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Accommodations, goods, services, and
employment advertised in the University
publication without regard to color, creed, or
national origin.
A Slice of Cam-Pi
After new Fraser is constructed it might be appropriate for the University to start a new course:"The art of soup-making."
- * *
I am sure that in two years we will be able to entice some soup magnate to establish a special scholarship fund.
- * *
Personally, I can't think of anything as functional and traditional as a good can of soup. Not a great can but a good one.
$$
* * *
$$
And then there was the Oread Jazz Festival. The college groups were good and the performance of Clare Fischer and Phil Woods was way above par.
The performance of the KU audience although not expected, was typical.
"Whatsa matter kids? Didn't mama teach you any manners."
As the professional portion of the concert began I was appalled to see not one or two persons, but large groups of people getting up and walking out. Not only did they bother the people who wanted to hear the concert, they helped project to the artists on the stage the typical picture of the Midwestern clod. Like I said, the concert was good. The audience was absolutely revolting.
$$
* * *
$$
Jim's Little Gem: And while the masses roared their disapproval, the council continued their game of "Monopoly."
- * *
It has been a very interesting week so far. Two more days, actually one more day, until spring vacation and it appears as though the sap is running.
First of all, that fine old gathering place, the Little Red Schoolhouse, has been closed because of vandalism. I guess the music that was emanating from the "house" was not sweet but sour. It depends on your ear for music, and the basis of your beliefs about rugged American individualism, I guess, or from the reports that were gathered.
$$
*    *    *
$$
It now looks as though KU will acquire within the next few years another landmark on campus that will create waves of nostalgia for all visiting future alumni.
However, I wonder if what they think of when they view new Fraser might not be thoughts of cold winter days and a lunch of hot soup.
The abomination that appeared in Monday's Kansan looked like the biggest soup carton ever created.
I am sure that the new construction would hold 20 million soup cans very easily. And those two things on top of the building look like mama and papa soup can watching over their brood. Long live our altar to soup.
Jim Langford