"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.
This detailed page-by-page critique of the "Site Narrative" prepared by the Fine Arts Library architects in August 2015 provides a good introduction and overview of the project.
I've been writing about the proposed Fine Arts Library project for Rand Hall at Cornell University. At issue is the function and future of physical books for academic research, as well as the utility of so-called "low-value" buildings as incubators for innovation (and the short-sightedness of designing a library as a one-of-a-kind, non-adaptable, dysfunctional, high-value work of art) and various objective fire-safety and accessibility problems in the proposed design.
In Memoriam, Rand Hall 1912–2017
Rand Hall's third floor space in December 2017, just prior to its demolition. Photo by Jonathan Ochshorn
Following are all my articles and blog posts that critique the library proposal, in reverse chronological order (from latest to first).
On April 1, 2019, I filed a Code complaint concerning the Mui Ho Fine Arts Library at Cornell University with the City of Ithaca Building Division under Title 19, which was resolved on May 3, 2019 with a statement from the City of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement, Michael Niechwiadowicz, stating that the "proposed work is in compliance with applicable codes." Not one of my detailed Code-based objections was discussed in the determination or refuted. On June 10, 2019, I filed a Code appeal (Complaint #4660) with the NYS Division of Building Standards and Codes Oversight Unit, which was "closed with prejudice" on September 26, 2019. Again, not one of my detailed Code-based objections was discussed in the determination or refuted. This webpage reproduces my appeal of these determinations to the Syracuse review Board of the NYS Division of Building Standards and Codes, which I filed on September 17, 2020, with an Appendix added on November 23, 2020. The Appendix contains the response of the the architect of record (STV Architects) to my detailed analysis of the library's Code violations as well as my comments on the architect's response. (Last updated Dec. 18, 2020)
This blog post provides an update on my code complaint to the New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes Oversight Unit. They have "re-opened" their investigation, but still have not provided a single rebuttal to the arguments I made in my complaint. Incredibly, they are asking for "additional information from the consultants that provided the smoke control modeling," as if the problems I enumerated could be resolved by asking the architects and their consultants to effectively re-do their building department submission. (March 3, 2020)
I asked about the upskirting potential of the Fine Arts Library at Cornell University before it opened, and was told that the issue had been carefully studied and that the architects insisted that the floor grating could not be seen through. Well, reality has a nasty habit of correcting such obvious falsehoods, as you can see in a video I took of myself in February 2020, embedded in this blog post.
This blog post, from December. 3, 2019, provides an update on my code complaint to the New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes Oversight Unit, which has not provided an adequate response, six months after I first submitted my complaint to NYS. An earlier "update," from September 30, 2019, can be found here.
This essay contains the content of a formal building code complaint about the Mui Ho Fine Arts Library that I submitted to the State of New York Division of Building Standards and Codes on June 5, 2019. This complaint shows up as an update to the complaint submitted to the City of Ithaca Building Division on April 1, 2019, which is also linked immediately below this entry. The only thing really new about the New York State complaint is the addition of an appendix containing the City of Ithaca's response to my original complaint, along with my commentary. (June 5, 2019)
This essay contains the content of a formal building code complaint about the Mui Ho Fine Arts Library that I submitted to the City of Ithaca Building Division on April 1, 2019. The complaint itself (pdf) can be found here. (April 1, 2019)
This blog post provides written confirmation from the International Code Council, in the form of a "Code opinion," that both the unenclosed stairs in the Fine Arts Library atrium, as well as the roof-top art gallery above the atrium, are noncompliant as designed. (February 14, 2019)
This blog post provides four reasons why Cornell's latest Building Code theory—which argues that the gallery and pavilions planned for the roof of Rand Hall are actually a mezzanine within the atrium below—is completely specious and untenable. (October 5, 2018, updated October 8, 2018 and October 15, 2018)
This blog post examines fire-safety flaws in the new "Code analysis" drawings supplied by the architects of the Fine Arts Library; a building permit was granted on the basis of these drawings. (August 24, 2018)
This blog post includes a photo taken of a "mock-up" window recently installed on the north elevation of Rand Hall; because it is highly reflective and contains no internal mullions or markings, it may be a threat to birds, who see only trees and sky reflected in the large openings and might collide with the glass. (June 30, 2018)
This blog post describes the latest perversion of Building Code logic brought to bear on the consideration of an unenclosed, unsafe, and noncompliant exit access stair proposed for the Fine Arts Library. (February 1, 2018)
This blog post reviews the working drawing set for the fine arts library (with its roof pavilion and outdoor deck) and explains why the proposed exit access stairway from the roof is unsafe and noncompliant. (January 22, 2018)
Provides a summary of false claims made by Cornell and its Code consultant in their application for a Code Variance (Petition No. 2017-0269) to build a noncompliant Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall. (June 13, 2017)
This is a Cornell Chronicle parody dealing with Cornell's response to the need for temporary toilets and egress in Milstein Hall during the construction of the Rand Hall Fine Arts Library. My blog post describes another "transition" issue in E. Sibley Hall: a combination of carcinogenic material and poor ventilation is proposed for the temporary digital fabrication lab. (April 30, 2017)
Reproduces an email that I sent to the City of Ithaca requesting that they investigate record-keeping (or record-destroying) practices of their Code enforcement officials, in light of a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request that I made in early March, 2017. The City's response to my FOIL request included zero records of any meetings or correspondence concerning the Fine Arts Library proposal, even though specific references to both meetings and correspondence can be found in the transcripts of the Code variance hearings that Cornell initiated. (April 28, 2017)
Reproduces an email that I sent to the New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes outlining false and misleading statements made by Cornell's Code consultant at the 2016 Variance Hearing (April 25, 2017)
Discusses the fire-safety implications of a recent cost-cutting proposal to remove the "hat" from the top of the Fine Arts Library scheme; also shows why there are more floor levels than there are stories, and why that matters (April 21, 2017)
Students will invariably use the rolling carts shown in the architect's rendering of the atrium space to navigate under the hanging stack levels. Five-second Youtube video is here
Reproduces an email sent on March 30, 2017 to Cornell's project manager for the Fine Arts Library project (and copied to many others) describing a card-access control system for the proposed library that was revealed by Cornell at a Code-variance hearing, and asking whether "Cornell provided false information to the Hearing Board in order to justify their request for a Code variance, or if the FAL is really intending to violate longstanding Cornell library policy regarding visitor access." (March 30, 2017)
Analyses in detail the 100% design development submission for the Fine Arts Library as well as Cornell's 2015 and 2016 Code variance requests. Shows that the scheme remains noncompliant because of its open exit access stairs and its atrium floors. Contains my Performance Compliance Method calculator. (March 24, 2017)
Discusses why the interconnected mezzanines and stories proposed for the Fine Arts Library are no longer permitted by the New York State Building Code, something motivated by serious fire safety concerns and implemented through the seemingly innocent change of a single word: from floor in 2007 to story in 2010. (February 28, 2017)
Discusses problems with the 50% design development drawing set, including the apparent elimination of the fire wall shown in the schematic set, creating new Code compliance issues — in particular, leaving the proposed library's construction type as V-B, which in turn makes the proposed mezzanine levels (already noncompliant for other reasons) much too big. (February 9, 2017)
Dean Kent Kleinman (with University Librarian Anne Kenney) wrote a public relations piece for AAP's Fall 2015 Newsletter, also posted on the AAP news/events website (Oct. 8, 2015). Kleinman and Kenney's piece frames the new library proposal as a heroic defense of books and libraries against the straw man of electronic access. This blog post contains a detailed critique of their argument. (October 12, 2015)
My collage of a diagram of the Fine Arts Library (with it's glass and metal "hat" that appears in the architect's schematic Site Narrative) with the famous image from The Little Prince in which things that cannot be literally seen are explained to the hapless grownups.
The proposed library scheme destroys the third floor and roof structure of Rand Hall and replaces them with large transfer girders spanning from wall to wall at the parapet level, along with numerous other expensive and complex structural renovations to account for the new loads introduced by these transfer girders and the difficulty of stabilizing the new columns once the floor structure is removed. Is it true that all of this work is necessary in order to create a library of a certain size that can support a certain number of volumes? This blog post demonstrates that the existing structure is perfectly adequate to support a library of the same size and weight as the one proposed, without destroying a perfectly useful and adaptable low-value industrial building. (August 4, 2015)
This began as a photo documentary of Rand Hall's east stair tower, to show that it is a rather innocuous design addition from the 1960s that has a minor impact on the building's visual presence; this seemed useful to counter the argument made in the Site Narrative (see link below) that this stair was a major visual abomination that ought to be removed. (August 2, 2015)
This is a detailed page-by-page critique of the "Site Narrative" prepared by the Fine Arts Library architects as part of their schematic design submission. Among other things, it criticizes the use of meaningless and misleading jargon, or archispeak, in the narrative, as well as specific features of the design. (August 1, 2015)
Discusses additional Code problems with the library proposal: mezzanines that are loo large (the maximum allowable size is one half of the space in which the mezzanine is situated, and the proposed mezzanines are larger than that); and so-called "protruding objects" (hazards to humans, especially those with vision disabilities, that are prohibited by the Building Code and by the Americans with Disabilities Act) that are built into the design on the lowest floor level of hanging stacks. (May 13, 2015)
Discusses the schematic design proposal (prepared by AAP alumnus Wolfgang Tschapeller, M.Arch. 1987), in particular, its fire-safety Building Code violations having to do with an inadequate fire wall and a proliferation of interconnected floor levels without adequate shaft enclosures. (April 21, 2015)
This is Part 10 of my "Critique of Milstein Hall: Fire Safety" in which I discuss Cornell's first request for a Code variance for the Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall, triggered by a NYS Hearing Board's determination that the 3rd-floor location of the library in Rand Hall was not compliant with the NYS Building Code (full disclosure: I filed the Code Appeal that ultimately led to this determination). Contains links to several other pertinent documents. (October 11, 2013)
This is Part 9 of my "Critique of Milstein Hall: Fire Safety" in which I describe the Code Appeal that I filed with the Regional Board of Review of the New York State Division of Code Enforcement and Administration, documenting 8 Code violations in Milstein Hall as well as the Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall (May 29, 2013)
This is Part 7 of my "Critique of Milstein Hall: Fire Safety" in which I discuss fire safety (Building Code) issues caused by Cornell's decision to move the Fine Arts Library from E. Sibley Hall to the 3rd floor of Rand Hall. (July 25, 2012)
Discusses how the idea for a new Fine Arts Library got its start, and how the desire to create a monument for the collection of books derives from competition amongst schools of architecture, rather than from a desire to disseminate knowledge through open-source (and digital) means. (July 5, 2010)
First posted 16 October 2015. Last updated: 7 August 2021