3 ms·

I was mostly going by this article, which seems factual. http://www.rainmagazine.com/archive/1994/alexander-visits-the-oregon-experiment http://www.rainmagazin

I was mostly going by this article, which seems factual. http://www.rainmagazine.com/archive/1994/alexander-visits-the-oregon-experiment http://www.rainmagazine.com/archive/1994/alexander-visits-th... Just to reaffirm my prior comment, I think Alexander is a genius. Having walked through the UO campus, it doesn't particularly remind me of his ethos. (The cemetery, of course, is quite nice, but not part of the campus.) I don't see any indication that Alexander was involved with Hatfield-Dowlin or the Matthew Knight Arena. Is there a source on that? As for the quality of the architecture program, the campus speaks for itself. I particularly liked that quote about "Science losing faith in the Arch". Ouch.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
I suppose I wasn't very clear. Alexander not only was not involved with those donated buildings, but he would presumably not have liked what they did to the landscape. The Arena, in particular, is bad for traffic. I am saying that the University both takes input from qualified architectural plans, and also takes cash from folks at Nike. This article is very interesting and provides great historical context, but pales in comparison to the millions of dollars that Phil Knight and friends have poured onto campus, and the corresponding shift in power. Knight has demanded changes to University staff and faculty, and gotten them, multiple times over the decades. He's also managed to keep his influence well-hidden; "Nike" barely appears at all in this magazine article, for example, despite already being a powerful donor on-campus by the 90s.
- downerending 7y ago
  Agreed. To concentrate on the positive for a moment, if you ever get there, don't miss the Dracula hall (Deady?) and there's the most beautiful ancient and massive lounge inside Gerlinger (?). Johnson Hall (from Animal House) is attractive. And Streisinger (?) evokes Escher in a pleasing way. All of these are quite old, but I'm almost as.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

I suppose I wasn't very clear. Alexander not only was not involved with those donated buildings, but he would presumably not have liked what they did to the landscape. The Arena, in particular, is bad for traffic. I am saying that the University both takes input from qualified architectural plans, and also takes cash from folks at Nike. This article is very interesting and provides great historical context, but pales in comparison to the millions of dollars that Phil Knight and friends have poured onto campus, and the corresponding shift in power. Knight has demanded changes to University staff and faculty, and gotten them, multiple times over the decades. He's also managed to keep his influence well-hidden; "Nike" barely appears at all in this magazine article, for example, despite already being a powerful donor on-campus by the 90s.

downerending 7y ago
Agreed. To concentrate on the positive for a moment, if you ever get there, don't miss the Dracula hall (Deady?) and there's the most beautiful ancient and massive lounge inside Gerlinger (?). Johnson Hall (from Animal House) is attractive. And Streisinger (?) evokes Escher in a pleasing way. All of these are quite old, but I'm almost as.