BTW, in looking into this, I was surprised that it was first proposed in 2016. So this proposal is more than five years old at this point.
Actually, you’re restrained and tasteful. Edifices and facilities should never be named after living persons.
Like Provo Privy.
Speaking of the Edifice complex, billionaire Harlan Crow’s Dallas bell tower has exceeded all rational expectations, and its giant bell will be operable remotely by app whenever Crow decides that Dallasites need a good, noisy clanging.
Sadly, the bell tower will not be open to the public due to a silly superstitious fear about homicidal Texans attracted to high places.
Bumping the thread to highlight the new Adam Something video on the Munger Hall project [13:27]:
(If you haven’t seen his videos before, they are well worth a watch!)
They managed to make it an even worse idea by reducing the proposed size without doing much to reduce the cost. $400,000 a bed.
Can we get a recap for those of us who don’t want to create an account just to read the article?
The relevant stuff is in the two paragraphs, the rest is just explaining the controversy
The University of California at Santa Barbara has issued a request for new designs for a major student-housing complex, sparking speculation that it’s abandoned plans for a massive, mostly windowless dormitory dubbed “Dormzilla” by its critics.
That complex was largely designed by Charlie Munger, a 99-year-old billionaire with no formal training as an architect but a history as a generous donor to the university. It had already been scaled back from housing 4,500 students on 11 stories to 3,500 students on nine. But it was still attracting plenty of controversy, due primarily to the artificial windows in most of the small, single bedrooms. Students would have access to genuine daylight in many of the spacious common areas and kitchens.
Ah, OK, thanks. That’s all I could read and figured there would be more details in the article. So, UCSB still hasn’t completely given up on this monstrosity yet? Seems like the longer they put it off, the more costly it’s going to be to build.
The key paragraph for me is this one:
The request for new building designs says the complex will house at least 3,500 students — the same as the proposed Munger Hall — with an initial estimated budget of $600 million to $750 million. Munger Hall was expected to cost around $1.4 billion, which would be partly offset by a $200-million pledge from Munger. The donation would be made on the condition that he retained control over the building’s major design elements.
That $200 million “donation” would have cost the university several hundred million dollars. Building stuff is expensive enough in California without this kind of racket.
Another link to the story.
"When asked about the apparent change in housing development plans, UCSB spokeswoman Kiki Reyes said the campus will “continue to work on the planning and consultation process for Munger Hall with members of our campus community, donors and stakeholders.”
So, after spending millions on the abortive billionaire’s windowless dorm plan, the university is working on a new dorm concept, absent Munger’s funding, but is still planning on calling it Munger Hall??
My guess is that they’re hoping he still contributes. So why needlessly antagonize him by removing his name? If he doesn’t contribute, well, they can just name it something else.
Also, he’s 99 years old, so he’ll almost certainly be dead before the building is finished. Once he dies they can call it whatever they want.
Not necessarily. The New York Philharmonic performs in a Lincoln Center building that was called Avery Fisher Hall since 1973, when Avery Fisher donated about ten million. About forty years later, Lincoln Center wanted to raise $500 million for renovations, so they looked for a new big-time donor. So David Geffen gave $100 million, for which the hall was renamed for him and the children of Avery Fisher agreed to the name change in exchange for $15 million. (They had threatened legal action if the building was renamed.)
(BTW, I don’t get why someone gets naming rights for only twenty percent or less of the overall cost. I think you should be responsible for at least half the cost.)
I would dig deep to pay for Anonymous Donor Hall.
I was liking it until I saw that most rooms wouldn’t have windows, and also the fact that the suite common areas have all the charm of a prison day room. IME a dorm suite lounge was indeed a place where students could collaborate , but was equally a place for simply kicking back and taking a break. In our dorms we had system where each suite took it in turns to host a 10PM study break; ours had themes and sometimes evolved into parties. A typical suite lounge had a cheap but comfortable sofa and chair for kicking back; not a conference room table and straight back chairs.
I don’t know why they can’t design it so every room has a window. Doesn’t NYC have enormous hotels that somehow manage to provide windows for all the rooms?
Probably those NYC hotels have more floors; this dorm is only supposed to have eleven, but house 4,500 students. Presumably a taller building could be more conventional, with windows into each room and a less prison-like atmosphere, while still housing that many people.
I feel like we’ve talked about this before but were you at UCSD? We had Thursday night study breaks in the dorms. I was in Challenger Hall 82-84