Among other things

Cornell's administration has made the unfortunate decision to construct chain-link fences along every bridge and pathway that runs over or along a gorge. Some areas, such as the footbridge near Beebe Lake are completely shut. Assumably, this is in response to the sharp increase in mortal falls from the bridges that span Campus gorges - a devastating trend that reflects trends at campuses across the United States - Urban or Rural.

In many places the fences that are constructed seem to be designed and planned in an ad-hoc manner and they end abruptly - just beyond the view of passersby (and perhaps cameras) where they can project the image of a strong administrative response. Practically though - how can Cornell's administration expect to revoke access to every sharp change in elevation on campus, even in the short-term? The campus is built in a region known for deep gorges!

It's depressing to see a campus that I remember so fondly for its intense natural beauty to be walled in like a construction site and it's frustrating that the response wasn't more thoughtful. If this is a necessity then construct formal walls along the major thoroughfares - perhaps large wood or stone installations with windows or peek-holes to frame views. Anything but the hurried and flimsy construction that now obstructs the once renowned beauty of Cornell. Even the slightest bit of thought would vastly improve the brutal image that the campus now projects.

If the problem is cultural then work on changing the culture - a physical response to a cultural problem never works. Consider the Bastille, the Berlin Wall, Brutalism in New York and Boston, and the absurd idea of building a giant fence along the border of entire nations. All costly responses, all ultimate failures.

I have never liked, but always understood, Cornell's policy not to invoke its faculty in questions of its own campus design. The potential for conflicts of interest to arise seem too great in the Ithaca area. But in a situation like this, the turbulent academic administration might actually show some resilience and thoughtfulness to a plague of the modern academic institution. Including the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning and the College of Engineering in a process for rethinking the gorge edges and overpasses would show praise for a remarkable and historically elite faculty and student body. It would cost a fraction of what it might to introduce an outside PDC to the campus, and it would produce better results because, after all, the product of design in this case if for their community, their their colleagues, their students, and their friends. What better way

On the other hand, if the problem of student mortality is really too intractable to resolve then perhaps Cornell should consider moving to lower ground - and setting its sites lower too.

After a year of ups and downs and a tough economic decade Cornell could use some healing. It's campus, now stapled together, should be attended to by its inhabitants. As the campus heals, perhaps the community and the culture would too.

Well over 100 billion dollars is being spent - the aggregate number will probably be closer to 200b. - and it will all be demolished... wasted. I suppose that this modern trash heap will at least be better to live in than the e-waste dumps that we've bestowed on inland China. I suppose too that this dump could become its own tourist attraction - tons of lucite tubes and piles of poly and plaster - surely a sight not to be missed on your next trip to China.

World expo's were once visions of a future so distant it seemed unattainable. But in 1964 the world's fair looked towards the next millennium and the people proclaimed; "that is the future". The 'future' of 1965 is now temporally and physically a thing of the past - it's rotting shell offers little more than fascination and good reason to ponder the value of "temporary construction".

As Y2K's blip fades I have to wonder - are we so exhausted in the present and of the past that we've simply forgotten how to dream about the future? The objectives for having a future at all seem pretty clear and I don't think that temporary buildings were included in any of the climate treaties that our world leaders were so eager to burn jet fuel to be at.


There is one significant pavilion though. Years from now we can proudly look back at the USA Pavilion from the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai, China and realize that at least the collective sentiment of the USA was in the right place. No temporary building there. Not for the U, S, of A.

Ironically - perhaps cynically [wishful thinking] - the image that the Times ran of the USA Pavillion makes it look like a giant Oil storage tank.

While all the other pavilions from that Expo were demolished, the USA Pavilion will remain. Why? Because it was designed to be an oil tank. A vision of the future - firmly implanted in the past.