One month ago, Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron hailed Penn’s newest building, Skirkanich Hall, as “the city’s best new building in years.” Well, Inga, I have no architecture degree, but you should really be out of a job. To me, this building is nothing more than a giant glassy booger.
I’ve yet to find a voice on campus–other than The Daily Pennsylvanian’s Opinion Board and Amy Gutmann–who approve of this structure. Skirkanich fits into Penn’s skyline about as well as a Sumo Wrestler working out on the main floor of Pottruck Gym.
Speaking of Pottruck, it’s architecturally a pretty cool building. So is Huntsman Hall. But why didn’t the architecture critics step up to bat for these structures? Our side of the Schuykill is also blessed with the awesome Cira Centre, but Inga Saffron arrogantly calls the creation “standoffish.” She also believes that “the difference is that Cira is a commercial office tower and Skirkanich is a work of art.”
Maybe Skirkanich hall is just a butterface, and her real beauty lies on the inside.
That’s way too optimistic. After speaking with students and employees who work in the building, I’ve learned that Skirkanich isn’t even awesome inside. The temperature is either hot or too cold, and the windows are so big (without shades) that they inflict a blinding West Philadelphia sunlight on whoever walks through the labs. It got so bad that people taped up large pieces of paper on the windows.
And what irks me even more is that this building cost $42 million. Just think about how many functional structures that fit in with Penn’s old-world charm could have been built for that price.
An RSS feed of The Spin is available
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:23 pm
If you think Hunstman is a good building, you have a lot to learn about architecture and aesthetics.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
Next time you attempt to quote me to support your own uninformed opinion, could you at least read my column? I never called the Cira “standoffish” - I seriously raved about it. That word appeared in the Inquirer’s deck type and was written by a copyeditor, for reasons that are impossible to fathom. Possibly you know so little about newspapers and journalism that you think the writers write the headlines.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pm
You can count me as “another voice on campus” that approves of this structure. I think that Skirkanich hall is a beautiful piece of architecture. It is well crafted with meticulous attention to detail regarding materials. Yes, it is a bold statement on a campus which is known for its red brick traditions. But this building (along with its neighbor, Levine Hall) is a statement that Penn’s Engineering School is committed to creating innovative, bold, and well crafted buildings that will, hopefully, appear timeless. And rightly so. Huntsman Hall is glitzy, yes, but not a well crafted piece of architecture. Furthermore, its stocky massing makes it stand out like a sore thumb on the West Philly skyline. It is poorly planned (have you ever been caught in the traffic jam that occurs in the buildings halls after a few classes get out?) and its “forum” is a dark, uncomfortable space with far too little natural light. Skirkanich, on the otherhand boldly weaves its neighbors together by both respecting their scale and defying the convention to copy them. This bold statement which is subdued by the architect’s attention to small details gives Skirkanich both an urban and human scale that Huntsman clearly lacks.
p.s. All new buildings go through a “teething” period. I’m sure they will be able to fix the light and temperature problems that the users are experiencing.