To the Editor:

Re: “Ithaca Board Grants Final Approval For Milstein Plan,” News, Jan. 28

In response to the president’s announcement of the need for substantial budget cuts because of a 27-percent loss in endowment, and his call for ways to save the University money in these challenging times, we question why the Milstein Hall project and parking garage remain on the fast track despite the announced construction pause.

The financial crisis faced by our University renders the extraordinary expense of the chosen design (circa $60 million, before it has even gone to bid) very difficult to justify. When cost is divided by actual building square footage (47,000, not the inflated number 59,000, which includes the empty space under the overhang, thus lowering the square foot cost) this is almost double the square-foot price of the new Weill building. By recent reports, only half the needed funds for the Milstein building has been raised, and the rest must be debt-financed. The extravagant expense of Milstein threatens more pressing financial needs for core functions of research and teaching, contributes to a greater financial burden on students and their families from projected tuition increases, and threatens more employee layoffs.

Since the former dean of Architecture, Art and Planning chose this provocative and setting-discordant design, building trends have taken new turns that render that design atavistic. Earlier preferences for flamboyant individual statements by “starchitects” are yielding to much more sensible and humanistic designs that aim to create beautiful and functional buildings that are highly energy efficient and also at home in their communities (that is, respectful of their natural and historical settings). In short, the fast-growing effort to create sustainable structures in an era of increasing alarm about climate change is replacing provocative iconic designs with projects that respect the environment. Unfortunately, the current Milstein design is both extravagantly expensive and notably lagging those positive trends.

Commenting on “the end of the icon era in architecture,” Pauline Saliga, executive director of the Chicago-based Society of Architectural Historians wrote in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, “In a funny way, the recession has been good for making these mega-projects stop. It’s giving us a little breathing room, a little time to reassess where we’re going with all of this.”

We have that breathing room now, with the announced postponement of construction projects. And the delays caused by the diverse and persistent opposition to the peculiar and wasteful Milstein design may well turn out to be a blessing for AAP and the University at large. One alternative would be to renovate the existing classic buildings (as was done so impressively in White, Sage and Lincoln Halls). But if a new building is desired, it can be designed in a much greener, more attractive and more economical way. One has only to look at the BuildingGreen.com web site for scores of examples of striking buildings on other university campuses that meet LEED Gold or even higher standards for sustainability.

It was originally announced that Milstein would only meet the lowest environmental standard (“LEED Certified”) because the design had been produced some years ago, and was “grandfathered in.” Recently, in the face of growing criticism of its low level of compliance with those standards (in contrast to the new Weill biology building, which earned a LEED GOLD rating), supporters have indicated that Milstein may come in somewhat above the lowest level. It is difficult to see how that can happen, since several features had to be canceled for cost reasons. The jutting glass boxes will be exposed to the weather on five sides and the north-facing cantilever, designed to project over University Ave., would be exposed to cold winds for much of the year. It would be ironic if a new building used to train architects were exempted from conforming to standards expected of all new construction on campus. (Nor can one call the creation of a tunnel over the street that renders the remarkable gorge nearby all but invisible “respectful of the natural environment”).

But the most serious violation of our commitment to sustainability may be the huge new multi-level parking lot that goes with Milstein. Only a block and a half away, another great new multi-tiered parking lot is now under construction on Forest Home Drive; apparently the administration assumes that we Cornellians are adverse to walking from nearby lots. How is this continued obsession with building new parking lots on Central Campus compatible with the University’s expressed commitment to reducing traffic, fuel consumption and greenhouse gasses?

In search of a more innovative, cost-effective and nature-friendly way to serve the space needs of AAP, we urge that Milstein be included in the building moratorium and that this project be reconsidered.

Prof. Don Barry, astronomy

Prof. Lourdes Beneria, city and regional planning

Prof. Abby Cohn, linguistics

Prof. Stuart Davis, English

Prof. Laurie Drinkwater, horticulture

Brian Eden, law library

Susan Hall ’50

Prof. Martin Hatch, music

Prof. Ronald Herring, government

Prof. Michael Latham, nutritional sciences

Prof. Jane Marie Law, Asian studies

Prof. Philip McMichael, developmental sociology

Prof. Reeve Parker, English

Anne Posel, MA ’80

Prof. David Rosen, music emeritus

Prof. Aaron Sachs, history

Prof. Elizabeth Sanders, government

Prof. Paul Sawyer, English, Dir. Knight Institute

A. L. Shouse Salpeter, alumna

Prof. Emin Gun Sirer, computer science

Prof. Jack Squier, art emeritus

Prof. Christina Tonitto, ecology and evolutionary biology

Saadia Toor, alumna

Prof. Randy Wayne, plant biology

Prof. Thomas Whitlow, horticulture