Building the Perfect Beast: A Construction History of Hampshire ...

Building the Perfect BeastA Construction History of Hampshire College

A Division III Projectby Mark Oribello

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments i

Preface 11

Chapter 1In the Beginning 1

Chapter 2Phase I Construction (1968 - 1970) 16

Chapter 3House I & II Residential (1968 - 1970) 30

Chapter 4The Mods (1970 - 1973) 44

Chapter 5Later Construction (1973 - ) 63

Chapter 6Conclusion 82

Appendix AConstruction Time Line

Appendix BBibliography

AppendixCInterview with Charles Longsworth

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the following people for their contributions to this project:

To Susan Dayall, Hampshire College Archivist, for her time and unflagging efforts on theauthor's behalf,

To Howard Paul, for his time and consideration in sharing his thoughts on Architecture atHa ITI pshire,

To Charles Longsworth, for his time in providing otherwise unattainable information,

To Larry Archey and Bill Doherty of Hampshire College Physical Plant, for their time andefforts,

To Earl Pope and Lori Scalatos, for their guidance and for finally passing this Division Ill,

To the author's mother, for funding four years of meandering through college,

To Richard Joslin of Smith College for his patience and understanding.

Except where as noted, this work is the sole property of the author. No part of it may bereproduced electronically or otherwise without prior written permission from the author.Nasty things could happen.

i

Preface

An architectural project is by nature a chaotic and frenzied thing; designers, construc­

tion firms, architects, engineers, and, last but not least, the users of the proposed structure all

have ideas and personal idiosyncrasies which affect the final form of the building. Yet, with

luck and hard work, a building can rise to represent the program which founded it.

Hampshire College, being a chaotic and frenzied thing unto itself, proved all the more

difficult to build for. Research into this construction effort was equally jumbled. This work

does not claim to be the definitive work on Hampshire, nor does it try to guess the true

motivations behind Hampshire's planners. Rather, it attempts to shed some light on how and

why Hampshire College was built; and provide some form of framework on construction there

through the use of memos, letters, planning bulletins, and personal interviews. Hopefully this

paper will be a beginning for other work in this direction as well as providing a source of

history for the college.

ii

Chapter 1In the Beginning...

1

Hampshire college 1S a small, liberal arts undergraduate

school established in 1966. Hampshire's

tional program is an experi­

menting one, based in large

part on a work written by its

first president, Franklin

Patterson, and first V1ce

president, Charles Longsworth,

in 1965. This book, The Mak-

e d u c a -

ing of a College, provided for a progrfuu in which students

learned through independent critical analysis rather than

traditional rote classwork. Classes would be small, less than

20 students to a class, with a faculty / student ratio of 1 to

16. It was thought that such an intimate setup would foster

the kind of independent thinking that Patterson had hoped for.

Hampshire remained an idea until 1963, when an alumni of

Amherst college named Harold F Johnson offered to donate $6

million toward the foundation of a new college. Johnson had

made a great deal of his fortune by speculating in the stock

market and wished to donate some of this money to a worthwile

cause. Having read the working paper for Hampshire College

Johnson was extremely impressed by this proposed new direc­

tion in education and decided to donate a sizable sum to the

college.

Envisioning the Hampshire Campus

Hampshire College was intended to be a fully new and

2

different college rather than a retrofit of an existing col­

lege. It was felt that a "clean slate" would enable the

implementation of new ideals and programs as well as provide

an education different from any other. Of prlmary importance

for an architectural program, therefore, was a genuine sensi­

tivity toward the revolutionary principles embodied by the

college. "rrhe campus design should express in every possible

way the distinctive social and educational character of Hamp­

shire College. l "

Knowing that HfuLlpshire's architecture would be a

lasting statement Hampshire's planners were determined that

the physical environment of Hampshire would respond to student's

lives and academic needs vigorously. In a memo written by

professor of history John Boettiger the sensitivity toward

this unique campus' needs was made apparent. "In a sense, I

suppose, Hampshire is building too early, before its collec­

tive personality is manifest; but then the campus will grow

with the college, and later buildings might reasonably be

expected to take on more clearly - more integrally - the life

of those who will give it character. 2 " Still, it was felt that

certain factors could be taken as constants and others could

be reasonably anticipated.

Flexibility was important to the initial program; al­

though the school had 300 students in its first class the

college felt that in time that number could expand to over

3, 000 plus needed faculty and staff. Furthermore, because

Hampshire's philosophy encouraged the development of new pro-

3

grams and fields of study it would ideally outgrow its first

buildings. The ability to expand existing structures was seen

as crucial because Hampshire could not afford to continuously

engage in expensive construction of new buildings.

An outstanding difference between Hampshire and other

schools was the organization of fields of study into schools

rather than departments. It was felt that interdisciplinary

cooperation would be fostered by physical proximity. Origi-

nally, a single structure or series of physically linked

structures was envisioned3 ; each of the four schools would

have their own wings, each with academic offices, support

I "';,,GI.H;M,"-'.IC r:-e.\M(:·W-o"!li. ""';o~~+;\"tVIN(.. A t4%.~.;~, p'(...,c",l;'y C;?}(,P~rJ(,

or: ,"~k;".JO~ ,ru~1tQ""4 --::"'J~'L;':J;';t.y-;;: e-'( 'trA.,ri!''''f~ fJ:'i':..;.'o,r .... !'''~ "'").,;'):. 'VE" ,Vi, 'i.e I·~·' O'CU ~~F',.rE'.

t-tAMP S H IR E

",--,I. "f flousf. \

I VII I\..l-U I" /'....- ,.;

~~,;;E~r;~:

-'!JtjUr~uff't .. ~n::l..£T -;'~~e:r~~

....... - - -"'f..t:l:l!,!1 W~ ... t:'-V,,..,:;a,f..rt o;.t,...~~t.:"""

COLLEGE.

®..-- ....

/ "/ llouSE \\ IITl I\ /

...... -._/

4

staff, and classrooms. The

administration would be

housed ln a fifth wing,

thereby enabling easy ac-

cess to administration by

students. At the center of

these five wings would be

the library and student

services such as the book-

store and coffee shop.

In Patterson's original

plan each small section of

student living quarters

was to be interspersed

with academic buildings as

well as some amount of

facul ty housing. By bringing students into close physical

proximity with faculty and academic areas the academic and

social aspects of a students life would cease to be discrete

entities. The governing idea behind this arrangement was not

to force a student's academic life into a student's private

life but rather to help the student to approach his work from

a viewpoint more integrated with a "real world" perspective.

Hugh Stubbins was chosen as the first architect for the

school; Stubbins had previously planned and designed the South-

west Quadrangle at the nearby University of Massachusetts as

well as several buildings at Mount Holyoke College, including

two new dormitory buildings. At the time Stubbins' firm was

one of the foremost architectural firms for designing col­

leges, having worked for such schools as the University of

Chicago, Bowdoin College, and Harvard University (where Stubbins

had previously worked under Walter Gropius teaching architec­

ture). Much of the work Stubbins produced quickly became the

standard for such buildings; a prime example is the Countway

Medical Library at Harvard University in which a large, open

atrium space allowed for numerous seating arrangements, af­

fording either privacy or large meeting spaces.

Stubbins' own personal philosophy of design meshed well

with Hampshire's innovative ideals; as a professor of design

Stubbins realized that Architecture as a profession did not

stand alone. Rather, he reasoned, "Why shouldn't it auger well

for the future if all these disciplines learn, in depth, at an

early age, to work together, understand the strengths and

5

problems of each other's profession, and break down the bar-

riers of negative attitude and misunderstanding that have so

seriously hindered communication?"4

Further Planning

By 1967 visi ts to other dormi tories had furnished

Hampshire's administration with a working vocabulary for the

plan for House I and II. Much of Patterson's original plan for

intensely integrated living and academic quarters had been

changing student oplnlon as to their needs I-lad

impressed upon Hampshire the desire for student housing that

would allow Hampshire to "recognize the legitimacy of the

student's wishes and to accommodate them to the extent pos-

sible by considering housing designed to be more private and

more residential in character. 5n

In fact the attitudes and desires of current college

students became one of the foremost factors in deciding on a

program for design of the students' houses. Hampshire College's

founders felt that the academic program being presented de-

manded a high level of maturity while offering a high amount

of personal freedom. An individual who lS glven a high degree

of personal responsibility and freedom In their personal life

would demonstrate this maturity through their schoolwork.

From previous visits to other schools and from interviews

with students at other schools several facts were estab-

lished. Singles were far more desirable than doubles or triples

in that they offered more privacy as well as fostering a

6

greater sense of independence. Some amount of social space was

deemed necessary as well although a shared social space such

as a lounge or suite's living room was deemed more favorable

than individual spaces set aside for entertaining. Further-

more, a kitchenette and refrigerator was to be included in

this social space so as to allow for greater flexibili ty

within a student's daily life. Initially it was thought that

four to six students sharing a social space would be most

effective but it was later found that this number was not

After Hampshire's initial land acquisition of 435 acres

In South Amherst it became necessary to retain a landscape

architect who would not only develop a plan for immediate

construction but for long term planning as well. The firm of

Sasaki, Dawson, Demay Associates was chosen and began work on

the Hampshire campus in December of 1965. By July of the

following year a site analysis had been prepared and was

presented to Hampshire's board of trustees. In their opinion,

" ... the site lS very well suited to the development of Hamp­

shire College. The si te offers a handsome setting, prime

building sites for economic development, good accessibility

and an opportunity to plan rewarding community relationships ff6

One maj or physical factor that was discovered by Hampshire's

surveyors was the fact that most of the land purchased by the

school was glacial till with very few deposits of clay. What

this meant was that the school's buildings could be set on

7

relatively inexpensive, commonplace foundations rather than

elaborate pilings or other such systems. Furthermore, the

area planned for the center sat atop a slight hill, aiding in

drainage. A small area in the northeast corner of the campus

was the exception in that it sat in a depression, causing the

area to flood in the spring or during heavy rainstorms. It was

suggested by Sasaki, Dawson, and Demay that no construction

occur ln this area due to the extreme water and drainage

problems; four years later House IV was placed on the spot.

For the rest of the CfuupUS,"h..-..,. . .,. ........ .,..,.__J.J.uvVC:::VC.L I construction pro-

vided no major surprises. Most of the variance in construction

techniques stemmed from design rather than engineering. Phase

I construction was begun in late 1968 and by the end of 1969

dential House I were

after the Johnson Li-

Academic, was com-

first

completed, the contrac-

brary Center and Resi-

tors from Aquadro and

pleted. Not long there-

building, the House I

Hampshire's

Cerruti working through a long and snowy winter to complete

the exteriors.

Other construction had been taking place beforehand; sev-

era1 existing farmhouses on campus were either razed or reno-

vated to house the growing Hampshire College staff and fac-

8

ulty. In this endeavor Hampshire had little or no professional

help; rather, the former owners of Hampshire's property chipped

in and helped out, some repairing clapboarding, some painting

offices right alongside Hampshire's new all purpose employ­

ees, who would be administrative assistants to Charles Longsworth

one day and Director of Personnel the next. In this way a

small collection of outbuildings came to form a secondary

center for the campus.

Construction on the natural SClences building was com-

pleted by the spring of 1970, just in time for new faculty to

move in. Hampshire admitted its first class that fall, and as

the students moved into their new housing they had the oppor­

tunity to witness the construction of Hampshire's second House,

Dakin. Dakin was completed in time to house Hampshire's second

incoming class; an addition to House I Dining, completed just

shortly after, provided seating for an additional 300 stu­

dents at mealtime.

Hampshire continued in its frenzied residential construc­

tion pace for the next three years; the year after Dakin was

completed House III, named Greenwich, rose up out of the

northwest corner of the campus, along with dining facilities.

The next year Enfield was dropped on a parcel of land that

Sasaki, Dawson, and Demay called \\ ... poorly drained ... not

prime building sites"7

The next year Hampshire abandoned the modular construc­

tion technique that had worked so well for them in House III

and IV and returned to more traditional building techniques.

9

Hampshire's final house was placed to the west of House I and

II, completing the ring of houses around the central campus.

Unfortunately the houses still remained somewhat iso-

lated due in large part to the fact that Stubbin's original

plan called for a much more aggressive and urbanized campus,

with twice the number of students and buildings already on

campus. Because there were so few buildings the campus was

made up of small, separate clumps of structures with little of

no connection to the other buildings around them.

A further problem created by the uillque of each of

the separate houses was a feeling of schism between the two

dormitories and the mods; in the words of one professor, "This

is not the result, we feel, of different living styles, but

rather to an unfortunate geographic distribution which seems

to divide the campus in two. This tends to set up a we-they

relationship and a loss of contact ... that is further rein­

forced by the difference ln architectural expression".8

Most of the major construction for Hampshire had been

completed by 1973; plans for an athletic building were on the

drafting table and the Trustees were considering a program for

a Humani ties and Arts building but the maj or sections of

Hampshire had already been delineated. Because the school had

not chosen to complete Stubbins' master plan to its full scope

it was left with only two buildings to "hold the hill,,9

Concern over this lack of focus at the most important

part of campus became a major point in the program for the two

remaining proposed buildings. If was hoped that these two

10

buildings would be able to help focus the circulation and

relationship between students and the campus. With this in

mind the firm of Ashley, Myer, and Smith produced plans for an

athletic center directly to the east. The athletic center

would be connected to the library via a bridge located on the

second floor of the new complex.

At the same time a solution was presented for the Humani­

ties and Arts building which followed this same principle. The

proposed building would be located across the library quad-

rangle to the south of the athletic center. It was hoped that

by placing the building in front of the quadrangle a sense of

arrival could be created; at the time the loop road ended up

either at the rear of buildings or at parking lots far removed

from the centers of campus life. As one designer stated, ~Your

choice, simply, is to arrive nowhere or outside. 10

Thanks to a generous donation from the Crown family the

school was able to finance the construction of the athletic

building; ground was broken in July, 1973 and fifteen months

later the Robert Crown center was opened to Hampshire stu­

dents, despite an ironworker's strike in August 1974. The

spacious facility, designed

by the New York firm of

Davis, Brody, and Associ­

ates, had a 75 foot long

pool which could be opened

to the outside via a large

'sliding door' contrivance,

11

staff offices, a climbing wall, and almost 10,000 square feet

of gymnasium space usable for almost any sport. Furthermore,

space had been provided overlooking both the swimming pool and

gYm floor where students could congregate during their free

time.

Unfortunately the college was unable to ralse the funds

for the Humanities and Arts building; government cutbacks, as

well as a shortage of private donors, caused Hampshire to

rethink their strategy for the new Humanities and Arts build-

place at Hampshire's "front doorstep" they instead built a

series of prefabricated warehouse shells immediately between

Dakin House and Prescott (House V). In doing so they were able

to use the bulk of their funds to fill out the insides of the

spaces.

Hampshire's latest academic building was completed ln

1989 and located within this "Arts Village". Adele Simmons

Hall, named after Hampshire's third president, houses the

school of Communications and Cognitive Sciences, Hampshire's

youngest school. The school grew rapidly, originating as the

Program in Language and Communications. The school incorpo-

rated the field of Cognitive Studies in the early 1980's, one

of the first undergraduate colleges in the country to do so.

By the time they were to move into their new building they had

also encompassed much of the computer science taught at the

school.

Unfortunately, by late 1974 Humanities and Arts was still,

12

In a sense, homeless. Professors were crowded in the natural

and social sciences buildings with little or no room of their

own for studios, lecture rooms, and gallery spaces. At the

time the House III and IV dining building was sparsely used;

many people living in the mods preferred to cook for them­

selves and it was too far a walk for most people living in

Merrill and Dakin. Thus the building was little more than a

snack bar and was barely clearing costs. It was decided that

the school would better benefit from using the space as of-

fices and classrooms for the school of Hwuanities and Arts

than the building's use. House V's dining hall, set up much

like House III and IV's, could serve the needs of both houses.

The space was vacated by SAGA, Inc. in 1976 and remodeled,

creating two small theater spaces, several new classrooms, a

design studio, and more faculty offices.

No further new construction occurred until 1987, when a

large tennis facility was erected to the southeast of Prescott

house. Paid for largely by private donations this "tennis

barn" was partly a Hampshire facility, partly a private tennis

club. Members of the public wishing to play at Hampshire could

buy memberships to the "Bay Road Tennis Club" and use hese

facilities, which were also opened to Hampshire faculty, stu­

dents, and staff.

The Hampshire day care center was erted not long after­

ward; this small, one story wood frame building was built for

less than $300,000 in 1990. Hampshire had long recognized the

importance of providing childcare for its employees. Prior to

13

construction of the facility the college had retrofitted a

section of the Dakin basement into a child care area. Enroll-

ment at Hampshire had ben low enough that the few rooms taken

over by the child care center were not missed. It was soon

realized, however, that the facilities in Dakin were neither

appropriate nor feasable in the long run and the school allo-

cated funds to build the structure which noew stands to the

east of the Multisports center.

footnotes:

1 The Making of a College, Patterson, Franklin and Longsworth, Charles, © 1975 TheM.LT. Press, Cambridge, MA2 Boettiger, john, in a memo to Charles Longsworth, May 19,1967.3 Patterson, Franklin and Longsworth, Charles, The Making of a College, @ 1966 TheM.LT. Press4 Stubbins, Hugh, Architecture: The Design Experience, © 1976 john Wiley & Sons, Inc.,~.9

Longsworth, Charles, from a memo to Mr. Stanley Snider, june 20, 19686 Galehouse, Richard F., In a memo to Charles Longsworth, july 19667 Sasaki, Dawson, and Demay, Master Plan Studies, Hampshire College, Site: Descrip­tion and Analysis, p.28 juster, Norton, and Pope, Earl, Planning Notes #1: August 29, 1972, p.39 Ibid10 Ibid, p. 2

Picture Credits

Page 1View of Hampshire Campus Land before Construction from the northeast. Photographyby Dick Fish. Archival photograph courtesy of Office of Public Relations PhotographicFiles, HC/Archives VP5. S6 #2 & #3

Page 2View of the Hampshire College Main Quadrangle from the northwest showing thecollege'sw of the Holyoke mountain range. Photgrapher unknown.

Page 4Schematic drawing of a suggestion for Hampshire College's physical layout. From The

14

Making of a College, by Franklin Patterson and Charles Longsworth, p. 202, © 1966 theTrustees of Hampshire College, M.LT. Press, Cambridge.

Page 8View of Phase I construction underway; House I Residential and Academic are largelycompleted, as is the Library building. Construction of the science building is just begin­ning. Archival photograph courtesy of Office of Public Relations Photographic Files, HC/Archives VP5. 56 #2 & #3

Page 11Library Center and Robert Crown Center. Courtesy "Hampshire College's New AthleticFacility", Progressive Architecture, Feb. 1975

15

Chapter 2Phase I Construction

(1968 - 1970)

16

The Hampshire College Library was to be the centerpiece

of the campus in many waysi not only was it to stand as the

physical focal point for the campus but it was to contain

services and resources essential to the life of the entire

campus. It would not only contain the stacks and periodicals

for the school but also function as a campus center for

Hampshire, much like more traditional school's student unions.

In Franklin Patterson's words this building would be, "a

coherent, connected complex which in various ways would house

the central facilities and central personnel of

the College. Among other things, its underlying structural

coherences are intended to accomplish economies in many kinds

of operations .... This is asking a lot, but it is the kind of

dense, variegated, "urban" mix that Hampshire

College's distinctive character re-

quires at the heart of its cam-

pus. ,,1 Even in his initial

explorations Franklin

Patterson real-

17

ized that it was crucial that space was allotted for expanSlon

of this central building. Not only would this space be neces-

sary as the school's population increased, but it was felt

that the future of libraries laid not in more shelf space but

rather the ability to process information of all types.

This is not to say that traditional methods of bookshelf

storage and management were neglected. In the ini tial plan for

the campus Sasaki, Dawson, and Demay allocated 119,970 square

feet of space for

entlre

interest

of costs,

theand

library's

this area was

reduced In the

needs. Ultimately

11-;:~;::"..-.t'/! ~ ...,,.-_.....~ ;

~~1;Jb1~--u...lj ~!: footprint of the

U .~ ~ building was scaled

back. To make opti-

mum use of this space it was decided that most of the ordinary

cataloging and processing duties ordinarily undertaken by the

school would be contracted out to a private firm, thereby

freeing up valuable floor space as well as the personnel

needed for these tasks. With the elimination of these services

it was still necessary to allocate two thirds of the building's

space for open stacks; even so, Hampshire had room for only

18

110,000 volumes.

The remalnlng one third of the library space was dedi­

cated to an extremely ambitious and variegated selection of

media and information transference system; it was, for in-

stance, one of the few col-

I",.

Ii 1

rMechanical Room

S~cial COllections

~'I,! II ~dii:ri,·.·./"·· .! Current I'i.i

'; C---"';'\i Periodicies; .'

log. Furthermore, space was

set aside for 50,000 microfilms, 600 periodicals, and 10,000

non print items2 such as records, movies, etc. It was recog-

nized that in the area of non traditional media the opportu-

nity for expansion was most important. "Because of the dynam-

lCS of communications technology, libraries must be designed

and operated so that they are more adaptable to change than

they are now. We do not know what demands will be made on the

library in ten or twenty years, but we do know that they will

19

be different than they are to­

day. By 1990, it is likely, for

example, that the excellence of

the academic library will not be

measured by the extent and quan­

tity of its collections but rather

by the capabilities of its in­

formation processing system ... " 3

Although the space normally

needed for receiving and cata­

loging of materials was saved by

contracting these duties out

there still remained a great many

services needing locations. Furthermore, many of these ser­

vices had very specialized needs. One example is the space

allocated for the school's computer needs. At the time, a

computer was not only a monolithic series of machines, tape

bundles, and keypunch stations but also necessitated large

air cooling machinery, dehumidifiers, power regulators, and

other environmental control apparatus. Thus, the space dedi­

cated to a mainframe computer was substantial, and required

complex manipulation of HVAC systems, electronics knowledge,

and, most importantly, a thorough knowledge of structural

principles. The task was made all the more difficult because

the future of computer technology was uncertain at best and

educated guesses were perhaps the closest estimates of future

expansion needs.

20

When determining the choice of a site for the library its

role in the community was carefully considered. As the center-

piece of the campus it was essential that it not only occupy

an easily accessible site but that it also stood in a promi­

nent and symbolic area.

By doing so it would

establish the central

area 0 f the campus

physically as well as

providing a landmark for

visitors to the campus.

To do so the building

would by necessi ty be

visually accessible from

the main drive as well

as being connected at

some point to the loop road.

Soil analysis had shown that Hampshire'S land rested in

what had once been a glacial lake and that almost all of the

land was glacial till with very little loose clay. Further-

more, drainage for most of the campus was good enough that no

special construction techniques were necessary. Stubbins was

therefore free to place the library almost anywhere. The

trustees of Hampshire College realized that many of the school's

central facilities would be located in this library and were

careful to ask Stubbins for a "College Center, with maj or

facilities and variegated campus - wide services and opportu-

21

nities efficiently but interestingly centralized .. "4 As

Patterson had previously stated the importance of the college's

library as a student center the library building was placed in

the center of the college's property and at the center of the

school's construction by Hugh Stubbins in his master plan.

The choice of poured in place concrete was influenced by

several factors; first, Stubbins had

already demonstrated an

It affection for concrete

forms as they celebrated

his "deep respect for

function"s. In the ex­

posed concrete forms

of his buildings he communicated the idea that

"Structure ... should be forthright ... honest,,6

Another contributing factor in the choice of building

materials was cost. Hampshire was not nearly so well endowed

as its contemporaries and its desire for a flexible and easily

expanded space demanded that a significant portion of its

resources went toward producing a design that would allow for

this. Poured in place concrete was far less expensive than

other, traditional building materials such as steel or wood,

especially considering the extreme load to be placed on it.

Furthermore, the cost of forms constitutes almost 40% of

construction costs; Stubbins' repeated forms, exposed beams,

and rectilinear shapes allowed for the repeated use of stock

forms and therefore aided in keeping construction costs low.

22

Despite all this the library was a massive undertaking,

financially. Several large private donations in addition to

part of Robert Johnson's initial gift were necessary to com­

plete the building. When finished the building held enough

space for several video and photography studios, a large

computer space, the school bookstore, several non library

staff offices, an art gallery (with requisite storage spaces) ,

the school's post office, a student lounge, a duplications

center, facilities for movie viewing, and one all purpose room

later nicknfulled the "kiva". This, in addition to the afo:cernen-

tioned open stacks, reserve materials, microfiche, non print

items, and support staff offices, became the centerpiece of

the school.

Longsworth's The Making of a College called for a highly

integrated system of student and faculty housing combined

with academic and leisure space. It was felt that this highly

intimate atmosphere would allow for a much higher level of

faculty involvement within the community and also create in­

formal interaction between faculty and students.

Stubbins' initial plan for the campus separated most of

these offices from the student houses they were to originally

occupy and placed them in discreet buildings - the Cole Sci­

ences center and Franklin Patterson Hall. As with much of the

design process at Hampshire there was a great deal of discus­

sion regarding this; some felt that the integration of faculty

and student areas was unnecessary because "faculty offices

would not be at too great a distance from the student living

23

quarters to provide any obstacle for a student intending to

visit a faculty member. "7 Some argued that the vicinity of

facul ty offices was not as important as the potential for

"accidental encounters between faculty and students"8

A further concern dealt with the physical building and

traffic patterns faculty offices placed in student housing

buildings would create. Some felt that these buildings would

become far too large to be easily manageable. Furthermore,

they reasoned, even though increased pedestrian traffic in

these areas would encourage more student interaction it would

also destroy much of the privacy in the residence areas.

Franklin Patterson Hall, originally House I Academic, was

to have been the first of a series of decentralized academic

facilities. Each house would have its own academic building

which would encompass teaching, lab, and office space. It was

thought that perhaps each house would come to associate itself

wi th a particular school, i. e., Humanities and Arts, etc., and

much debate was heard from both sides. Although the working

paper provided an outline for needed facilities for each

academic building it was felt that House I Academic should be

equipped with as many facilities as possible ln order to

accommodate Hampshire's first incoming classes. Thus, al­

though small classes were anticipated, a large lecture room

was deemed especially important as no other large space ex­

isted on campus. Two slightly smaller lecture halls were also

provided to accommodate the occasional large class or small

scale visi ting lecturer. The rooms, as with much of Hampshire's

24

other architecture, were intended to be as flexible as pos­

sible, and to this end one of the two smaller lecture rooms

was not furnished with fixed chairs and desks.

As Hampshire's first academic building as well as part of

the house module a high level of use of anticipated for FPH.

Convenient access both to and from the building for both

students and faculty was desired. Furthermore the building,

which was technically part of House I, also needed to show

some connection to the central facilities on a sYmbolic level.

Thus, Hugh Stubbins placed the building between House I and

the central core. If Stubbins' master plan had been fully

carried out the building would have formed an important tran­

sition between the library / student center and residential

buildings I and II.

Due to the grade on which the building stood House I

Academic was split into several different levels, particu­

larly between the east and west wlngs of the buildings. Thus,

one is forced to go up one half floor to get to the east wlng

classrooms or down one half floor to go to the

faculty offices located beneath the east wing. The west wing

floats one story above the ground, creating a covered pedes­

trian walkway, and houses faculty offices. The lecture rooms

occupy a central area between the northernmost parts of the

individual wings, the main lecture room below the two smaller

25

lecture rooms.

For years the small courtyard formed by FPH's southern

reaching Wlngs was somewhat undeveloped and unused by people

as they hurried between

the dormitories and the

central core. In 1991 the

courtyard was renovated,

providing several small

seating areas around low,

wide planteI's as well as

seating along the low

western wall where people

could sit and watch people pass by, wait between classes, or

hold class outside on nice days.

In envisioning the sciences program at Hampshire it

was felt that a traditional approach to teaching sciences was

too restrictive and not in keeping with Hampshire's underly­

lng educational philosophy of encouraging interplay between

disciplines. As the curriculum attempted to address this, so

too did the design of the sciences building. Hampshire wished

not to have a science building in the typical sense, one which

was ~a map of academic specialization, with specific areas of

floor space assigned to corresponding areas of study."9

Hampshire felt that the school of Natural Sciences should

be a place where students learn the tools of scientific re­

search only as a means of problem solving and not the end

result in and of itself. By not providing rigid structures

26

between disciplines it was hoped that these disciplines would

move within and interact with each other.

To this end the program for the Cole Science center

called for large, multipurpose lab areas capable of holding

the second

floors as one

four or forty

in a lab. The

sign for the

in fact used

students

final de­

building

the en­

ha 1 f 0 f

and third

large,

w h i c harea

east

open

tire

could be partitioned off or left open as use dictated. Six

central shafts marked the boundaries between the lab space and

the hallway running along a row of faculty offices on each

floor. These shafts are one of the few pieces of fixed lab

equipment in the building and serve as draft hoods for experi­

ments whose byproducts could prove hazardous to unprotected

observers.

Originally the science center was to have been a four

story structure, occupied by administration offices on the

first floor, class, lab, and faculty offices on the second and

third floors, and a fourth floor consisting of two multipur­

pose rooms. The first of these two would be for student use,

be it study or student led class. The other room was to have

been equipped as a seminar room wi th proj ection and audio

facilities. Between the two was to have been a small kitchen,

27

allowing the two rooms to be used for distinguished visitor

receptions, open houses, etc.

Several rooms required special facilities and / or envi-

ronments and, due to spatial constraints, were placed in the

basement of the facility. A darkroom, animal room, isotope

room, and machine shop were glven space, with appropriate

facilities included for each. The darkroom was set up much

like any other darkroom expect that provisions were included

for future specialized equipment such as a carbon fluoroscope

for DNA research. The animal room was provided with a "cold

room" in which the temperature could be lowered and the behav-

lor of the subject studied ln an easily observable area.

With the completion of the Cole Science Center Hampshire

College had completed the first phase of Hugh Stubbins I master

plan for the campus. The large, Stubbins signature style of

building seemed out of place in this pastoral area and was

later discarded for a more informal style of architecture.

Nevertheless these buildings, being the first built on the new

campus, served to establish a toehold for the built Hampshire

environment.

Footnotes

1 Patterson, Franklin, The Making of a College, ©1966 the Trustees of Hampshire Col­lege, MJ.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 200 - 2022 Taylor, Robert, Hampshire College Planning Bulletin #3: The Hampshire College Li­brary, © 1969 The Trustees of Hampshire College, p. 93 Ibid.4 Patterson, Franklin, The Making of a College, © 1966 the Trustees of Hampshire Co1-

28

lege, the M.LT. Press, Cambridge5 Stubbins, Hugh, Architecture: The Design Experience, © 1976 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

E· 13Ibid.

7 Maltz, David, Memorandum, May 26, 19678 Ibid.9 Hampshire College: The Natural Science Facility, March 2, 1969, p.1

Picture Credits

Page 16Franklin Patterson Hall Under Construction, circa 1968. Photograph by Dick Fish. Archi­val Photo courtesy of Office of Public Relations Photographic Files, HC / Archives VPS.S6#2 &#3

Page 17Conceptual Rendering of Library Building. Note absense of surrounding buildings. cour­tesy Hugh Stubbins Associates, 1968

Page 18Original Floor Plan, Hampshire College Library, First Floor. Courtesy Hugh StubbinsAssociates, 1968

Page 19Construction Elevation, Hampshire College Library, from the east. Courtesy HughStubbins Associates, 1968

Page 20Division III Book Shelves, Third Floor, Hampshire College Library. Photograph by MarkOribello

Page 21Original Master Plan, Hampshire College. From Hampshire College: Master Plan, p. 6,Hugh Stubbins Associates, 1968

Page 22Construction Photograph of Hampshire College Library from Southwest, circa 1969.Photograph by Dick Fish. Archival Photo courtesy of Office of Public Relations Photo­graphic Files, HC / Archives VP5.S6 #2 & #3

Page 25Conceptual Rendering, East Elevation, Franklin Patterson Hall. Courtesy Hugh StubbinsAssociates, 1968

Page 26Renovated Torrey Courtyard, Franklin Patterson Hall. Photograph by Mark Oribello

Page 27Cole Science Building, Third Floor Laboratory. Photograph by Mark Oribello

29

Chapter 3House I & II Residential

(1968 - 1970)

30

Merrill house was the first student housing to be built

on campus; this Stubbins designed dormitory consists of three

four story buildings which house an even mix of first year and

older students. Each of the three buildings 1S a discreet

building in itself; no access between the individual build-

ings 1S provided except through serV1ce corridors 1n the

basement.

Stubbin1s fondness for modern materials is clearly present

1n all of the pieces of architecture he designed for Hamp-

shire I 11errill being an excellent eXaTCLple. The build-

thetic 1 arising as they do in the midst of the

ings as a whole present a somewhat jarring aes-

",pastoral Amherst land-

scape like sev-

eral discarded

'~"."":'t-•-•..•

...."

pieces of urban structure. Instead of the popular full timber

and clapboard vocabulary of the area a visitor to Merrill is

confronted with brick and exposed concrete beams framing sleek,

modern windows. In describing his views on architecture Stubbins

said that l "I have a deep respect for function ... Structure is

31

of great importance. It should be forthright, logical, hon­

est." l

This philosophy of design was prevalent in much of Stubbin' s

work, especially in his academic facility designs. These aca­

demic designs differed from much of his other work ln that

Stubbins showed a higher degree of restraint in his college

archi tecture than ln his urban and residential works. In

Franklin Patterson's opinion, " ... Mr. Stubbins has demon­

strated keen understanding and creative insight in dealing

with the architecture of academic institutions. u2

By donating almost $6 million to Hampshire Harold Johnson

had helped establish a foothold for the new college. Unfortu­

nately, much of this initial donation, as well as one of the

largest donations ever given to a new college by the Ford

Foundation, were immediately earmarked for development of the

central campus buildings. Beginning ln 1967 the board of

trustees, led by Charles Longsworth, sought ways to finance

the anticipated student housing. A typical solution, used by

almost all colleges and universities, was a series of college

housing mortgages financed through the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD). Unfortunately, recent actions

and budgetary cuts by the federal government threw acquisi­

tion of these loans into doubt.

The trustees felt that with a few minor modifications

Stubbins' plan for House I would fit Hampshire'S program quite

well. By February of 1968 the school felt that time was

32

s 0 -

running short. They immediately began exploring other options

to Hugh Stubbins' initial plan for House I, feeling that a

backup plan was essential in light of their precarious posi­

tion with HUD. Several of the options explored by the college

were:

• Trailers, much like those in use at the time at the

University of California, Santa Cruz;

• Town houses much like those built in the Amherst area;

such units would be of inexpensive manufacture and would

provide less flexibility for the users than Stubbins'

lution; and

• Radical alterations of Stubbins' solution to include

the use of wooden frame structural members which could be

erected more quickly and cheaply than a poured

building.

concrete

The school was careful not to exclude several points from

Patterson's initial program. Single rooms, for example, were

seen as "important and should not be something we compromlse

on,,3. It was felt, however, that the overall size of the

single could be reduced if such a reduction would yield a

reasonable savings on construction.

One solution to offering students more flexibility and

independence was the inclusion of a small kitchenette or food

preparation area. While visiting the Quincy house at Harvard

University it was noted that the school provided such an area

33

for upperclassmen as well as refrigerators and allowances for

hot plates for freshmen and sophomores. Kitchen facilities

were a departure from the majority of dormitories (such as

those at Amherst and the University of Massachusetts) and had

the detriment of adding cost to both initial and long term

maintenance costs; however, it was felt that these facilities

were important to the wishes of the student body.

Fortunately the school was able to obtain the needed

grants from HUD and HEW as well as several private donations

and begin completion by early 1970.

The building, like the other Phase I con-

struction on campus, was of

poured in place concrete wi th

brick facing. By utilizing

simple, repeti tive concrete

forms with little or no dress-

ing construction costs were

• kept low while the use of wa­

ter struck brick (a favorite material of Stubbins) alluded to

the monolithic brick forms of the surrounding colleges' ar-

chitecture (Amherst being an excellent example) .

Each floor was separated into two unequal halls which

came to be known by students as the "long" and "short" sides.

The short side typically housed seven students in six single

rooms and one double while the long side could accommodate ten

students in eight singles and one double. In either hall the

rooms faced out into a U-shaped hallway which surrounded a

34

communal bathroom. rrhis hallway also led to exits into a

central stairwell and the lounge for each floor.

Although Merrill presents a rather massive impression

from the outside the arrangement of the halls allows for a

rather intimate living situation while still allowing each

student a high degree of privacy. Furthermore, by avoiding a

double loaded corridor and insuring that the halls led nowhere

except back into themselves the amount of traffic movlng

through the halls was minimized.

Each floor in each building shared a single lounge which

was located between the two halves of the hall. The original

planners of Hampshire decided that by providing an area in

which students could prepare food they would encourage a

higher level of maturity as well as for allow a high degree of

flexibility within student's schedules. Thus, each lounge ln

Merrill was equipped with a full sized refrigerator, kitchen

sink, and range top element. Furthermore, every other floor

was provided with an oven as well as a range top. Counter

space equivalent to that ln a moderately sized kitchen allowed

several students to use these facilities at a time.

Hampshire matriculated its first incoming class in the

fall of 1970 with one allotment of student housing completed

and a second one underway. This second one continued to be

built throughout the first year of classes and was finished in

time for Hampshire's second incoming class. This house, named

after benefactor Winthrop Dakin, was significantly different

in design from Merrill house. Initially it was to have been a

35

tower, based in part on those at the University of Massachu­

setts, which Stubbins and designed several years previously.

A design solution proposed by Hugh Stubbins for Hampshire's

second set of student housing responds partially to Hampshire's

desire for small, intimate housing for large amounts of stu-

dents. Stubbins felt that a tower design similar to those at

other schools would serve Hampshire's needs appropriately. In

fact several members of Hampshire had had occasion to visit

several of Stubbin's towers at other schools, including those

at BovJdoin, Harvard, and ~·1assachusetts .

While there they interviewed students, staff, and administra­

tors; student life at each of these buildings was examined in

depth as well as issues in physical management and upkeep.

Stubbins' Senior Center at Bowdoin was closest to the

idea proposed for Hampshire's tower; four groups of four

students lived on a level, making for a highly intimate yet

private living area. Each set of four students shared a common

area and a one bathroom was shared between two sets of suites.

It was felt that small numbers of students uSlng a bathroom

would lend a "civilizing effect4 to an area which would nor-

mally prove the hardest section of a student living area to

maintain. Two large lounges were also provided on the top

floor for larger social and academic gatherings. The first was

used primarily as a library while the other lounge held re­

serve books for those classes held in these two lounges.

Kitchen facilities were also provided in the form of a small

kitchen connecting the two lounges, however, these facilities

36

were not normally open to students and therefore were consid­

ered largely useless for students' every day lives. Further­

more, college policy prohibited the use of hot plates or other

such devices in student's rooms.

Visi tors from Hampshire noted that many students from

several different colleges visited voiced the same complaints

concerning the buildings they lived in; sound moved easily

from room to room and from floor to floor due in large part to

the materials used in construction. Furthermore, many of the

residences in Stubbins' dormitories felt that the individual

rooms lacked ornamentation and that the rigid shape of the

rooms severely limited the options of the individual resi­

dent. It was also observed that movement and interaction

between denizens of individual floors remained horizontal and

that the design of the tower in no way encouraged vertical

social interaction.

Some work was done toward this end, with soil analysis

and legal aspects explored (including receiving permission

from nearby Westover Air Force Base for construction of such

a tall building so close to an Air Base) as well as projected

economic costs of construction and maintenance. Many members

of Hampshire's Board of Trustees felt that such a significant

urban structure ln a setting like Hampshire's would be a

mistake, however. "The effort (of design) starts with a simple

point of emphasis: buildings set in the landscape, not set

upon it ... Mr. Stubbins' current high rise plans for Hampshire

37

can, I believe, be faulted on these grounds. "5

Thanks to timely assistance from benefactors wi th HUD

Hampshire was able to obtain a loan from the Department of

Housing and Urban Development for $2,185,000 and ground was

broken on October 21st, 1969, with Merrill House still under

construction. Like House I, Dakin House would house the major-

ity of its students in single rooms.

Dakin House stands opposite the Merrill Quad from Merrill

at the southernmost part of the Hampshire campus. Originally

vv"as to have been located to the west of Academic building

I & II (Franklin Patterson Hall) so as to make Patterson Hall

more central to House I and II. However, Stubbin's long term

plan for the campus indicated that further growth would be to

the north of the library as well as to the West of House I and

that by placing House II to the west of Academic I & II the

central area would become crowded.

Like Merrill, it was designed by Hugh Stubbins as part of

the original plan for the campus; as with many Stubbins build-

lngs, the exterior is

brick facing over

poured concrete. In

this case, a series of

rectangular boxes are

linked to form a trun-

cated question mark

shape. Strong emphasis

is placed on rectilin-

38

ear forms; balconies, fenestration, the inte-

rlor quadrangle" and other details all echo

the long rectangle shape of the

buildings.

In their program for House

II the Trustees felt the need torexplore less institutional, more

intimate buildings. From the

start Hampshire had expressed

the desire to "revitalize the

residential college,,6 and ha~"""" I •I

gressively sought alternatives

to traditional housing solu-

tions. Feeling somewhat con-

strained by Stubbin's urbanistic~

'rT'" ......... Ir

TI

master plan the Trustees asked for a more intimate series of

buildings on a smaller scale than Merrill for House II. What

was finally produced was a large building consisting of sev-

eral smaller buildings connected via narrower sections of

structure and topped by small tower units looking very much

39

like the top of Stubbins' later Citicorp Center. The recessed

structures (which house the bathroom for each hall) glve an

impression of discontinuity within the structure, thereby

making each section of Dakin seem to stand alone.

Each hall in Dakin is organized along a central double

loaded corridor with individual student's rooms facing out

onto this long, straight hallway. Both ends are open to public

traffic, one side opening into a stairwell and the other

opening into the hall's communal bathroom. Each bathroom in

Dakin in connected via a sWlnglng door to another bathroom on

the neighboring hall. The accessible hallways and linked bath­

rooms cause each individual hall to become a high traffic

area, especially just before and after meal times when stu­

dents pass through these corridors to a doorway placed less

than one hundred feet from the front door of the dining

commons.

As in Merrill plans were made to include kitchen amenl­

ties to Dakin House residences. After some discussion, how­

ever, it was decided that kitchen facilities for House II

would be consolidated in one area which would be kept locked

and accessible to students through the Master's office. Addi­

tional space which would have been taken up by these facili­

ties ln individual lounges was therefore reclaimed. These

kitchen facilities were located adjacent to the laundry fa­

cilities in the basement level of the building.

Shortly after the completion of Dakin House a smaller,

yet very important project was launched: that of a "student

40

pavillion". This student pavillion was to have furnished an

area where students could go and relax. Facilities for stu-

dents up until that time had included a library, classrooms,

science center, and dining commons but no place that students

could go to not be students. "We had 550 kids on campus and

there was no space to go any place other than to class and to

bed" recalls Howard Paul. In the original plan for the campus

Hugh Stubbins had placed this small building in the western

side of the Merrill Quad, making it convenient for those

the campus. By the time serious planning for the building

occurred House III was already being considered and the pavillion

was moved to the low rise overlooking Dakin to the west.

The building itself was to have been a simple wood frame

sturcture with several large, all purpose rooms. Conference

rooms were also lounges which in turn could become social

gathering spaces. Areas for such activities as ping pong and

billiards were also set aside, as was a small snack bar. In

short, the building aimed to fill an informal yet very impor-

tant space in the social life of the campus, a space which

Franklin Patterson originally envisioned as not being existant

on the Hampshire Campus. In The Making of a College he wrote

"For those who seek the noise of a jukebox let them go else-

where". Plans were drawn up by Hugh Stubbins and were sent out

to bid; when the college received the bids and opened them

they found that the original estimates for the buildings were

far from those that they had anticipated and abandoned the

41

student pavillion project. Some years later many of these

spaces would find a home in the new Robert Crown Center, but

for the time being students were forced to seek entertainment

elsewhere.

When plans had been made for House I dining it was decided

that, to economize space and save money, dining facilities for

House I and II would share the same kitchen. To allow for this

and to encourage student interaction the dining facilities

for House II were constructed as an addition to House I

dining. 'fl.

dents throughout a mealtime was built onto the south side of

the existing building. Because of the short time span between

buildings and the fact that plans for the House II dining

addition were made while construction of House I Dining was

just beginning the entire building presents a uniform aes-

thetic which matches its two flanking buildings. To a casual

observer it is not readily apparent that this addition was

made, especially if one discounts the use of exterior brick

facing in the smaller of the two original dining rooms (part

of the room had originally been an exterior wall) .

Footnotes

1 Stubbins, Hugh, Architecture: The Design Experience, © 1976 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2 Patterson, Franklin, The Making of a College, ©1966 The Trustees of Hampshire Col­lege, The M.LT. Press, Cambridge, p. 1943 Patterson, Franklin, in a memorandum to Charles Longsworth, February 21,19684 Rosenthal, Kenneth, in a memo to Charles R. Longsworth, dated April 28,1967

42

5 Boettiger, John, A Brief Addendum to an Earlier Memo on Architecture and the Hamp­shire Community, May 19,1967, p.26 Longsworth, Charles, memorandum, July 6, 1969

Picture Credits

Page 31Conceptual Rendering, Merrill House, "A" and "B" sections, from the south. CourtesyHugh Stubbins Associates, 1968

Page 34Merrill "B" Floor Plan, First Floor. Courtesy Hugh Stubbins Associates, 1968

Page 38View of Dakin House, Entrance to "D" and "E" from the northeast. Photograph by MarkOribello

Page 39Floor Plan, Dakin House, First Floor. Courtesy Hugh Stubbins Associates, 1969

43

Chapter 4The Mods(1970 - 1973)

44

Greenwich House was the third of five student housing

developments to be built at Hampshire College. Students en­

tering in the fall of 1970 (Hampshire's first entering class)

were witness to the construction of Hampshire's second hous­

ing building but had little voice in its design as plans and

construction specifications had already been produced well in

advance. House III, named Greenwich after one of three local

towns destroyed by flooding due to the Quabbin reservoir's

construction, was still In the planning stages throughout

1970 and early 1971. That Decenilier several Hillupshire students

set a precedent for much of Hampshire's later design and

construction process; they asked for, and were granted, a

meeting with John Myer, project leader for Hampshire's House

III.

A great deal of planning had already been completed on

the structures, however, work still remained on the landscape

immediately surrounding the proposed site. Before writing

Charles Longsworth with their demands the students did re­

search in an attempt to determine a general consensus. The

students, members of a campus design course, asked students

about the less desirable points of House I (House II was still

under construction) as well as compiling a "wish list" for

House III.

Most prominent on the student's list was a desire for a

physical layout different than that already provided in ei­

ther of the two existing houses. An idea previously broached

by Hampshire's planning committee found favor among many of

45

the students - that of a serles of cottages much in the style

of the New England village. The New England village was liked

for another reason; many students felt that such massive

buildings discouraged intimacy and privacy. Numbers of smaller

cottages rather than one or two big units were preferred.

Although the majority of students liked individual lounges

placed on each floor they felt that the resources of these

lounges were extremely limited. Additional space and appli­

ances were recommended, as well as relocating the lounge to a

more central area. Other concerns cited the small size of the

singles (although single rooms were unanimously supported),

noise transmission, bathroom amenities, and inherent problems

within the dining commons.

An area in which many students found themselves dissatis­

fied was landscaping; they felt that current efforts in that

direction had resul ted in a form of gentrification. "Most

students were concerned wi th having the college blend wi th its

environment. To accomplish this they would like to have as

natural a landscaping as possible rather than lawns and rows

of shrubs. We should take full advantage of the area's natural

beauty by trying to preserve as many trees and fields as we

can as well as replanting other areas. "1

Ashley, Myer, and Smith, Assoc. had already received a

program from the Trustees' Planning committee for House IlIon

January 16, 1969. In it, the trustees stated that, "We recog­

nize and approve of student desires for greater privacy, less

insti tutional character, and more control of the physical

46

environment in their housing. "2 Their program further stated

that, "House III should be explored ini tially as a village

this we take to mean variety in structure and roof line,

intimacy of atmosphere, modest scale, organization as a

community ... mixture of functions (residential, social, recre-

ational), and some provision for adult family units as well as

student residences. "3

On November 3, 1969 the Trustees of Hampshire College

terminated their agreement with Hugh Stubbins and Associates

the design and construction on TTT-L...L..J..,

explore design solutions in other directions. Some initial

work had already been done in this direction with the firm of

Ashley / Myer / Smith before November 3, and this firm now

began a series of cottages matching the ideal asked for in

previous House designs.

The Trustee's plan called for housing for 300 at a cost of

$7,500 per student. This $7,500 included common areas, shared

bathrooms, and single rooms. Because of recent funding re-

strictions imposed on HUD loans by the current presidential

administration building loans for new college construction

were at a premium. A new program from HUD offered some hope,

however. Because of the funding squeeze the Department of

Housing and Human resources was interested in finding innova-

tive, inexpensive methods of large scale housing. Their "Op­

eration Breakthrough" program was established to fund proto­

types built on college campuses which could be analyzed and

possibly used at other sites.

47

The University Residential Building System (URBS) had

been developed at the University of California with help from

the Educational Facilities Laboratory between 1965 and 1970.

The URBS was intended to produce cheaper, higher quality

facili ties rapidly by employing a series of "modular pre­

engineered compatible building components 1/4 Walls, floors,

even HVAC components were designed to interlock in almost any

combination and be usable at almost any scale. This flexibil­

ity was deemed essential by many colleges at the time because

of the co~mon feeling that traditional dormitory housing for

students was becoming obsolete. Changes in student attitudes

toward their housing, a greater need for control over their

environment, and the rise of coeducational student housing

necessitated changes in dormitory design. Once local contrac­

tors were trained in URBS techniques a structure could be

erected in as short a period of time as four weeks, with all

rough work completed during the construction period. Theo­

retically the price of URBS construction would continue to

lessen as more units were ordered and more components mass

produced.

On March 16, 1970, the Trustee's Committee on Architec­

ture and Campus Planning approved the recommendation to have

Ashley, Myer, Smith, Inc. alter their designs to accommodate

The University Residential Building System method of con­

struction. AMS worked through that spring and part of that

summer to develop a set of plans which would incorporate URBS.

Bidding was begun in late summer with Aquadro & Cerruti pre-

48

senting the successful bid. Aquadro & Cerruti had previously

built both Merrill and Dakin houses and had established a very

good working repertoire with the Trustees of Hampshire Col-

lege.

By midwinter it became very apparent that the AMS struc-

tures incorporating URBS would be far too costly for Hamp-

shire. Although they had received several loans from HUD and

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a set of

adjusted prices presented by Aquadro & Cerruti and Ashley,

adjusted prices were figures arrived at after cost estimates

for URBS materials had been received; previous to that bids

had been based on estimated materials costs given by the

University of California, San Diego, from their first URBS

construction project.

The higher prlce was also based on a rlse ln the most

expensive part of construction: labor. Construction tech-

niques for URBS were different enough to require specialized

contractors with knowledge of URBS construction techniques.

Thus far, only a handful of contractors in southern California

had actually built URBS structures, and most of these worked

for one of the three companies manufacturing components for

the system. Although these contractors could be moved to the

East Coast it would add additional cost to the project, al-

ready woefully over budget. Furthermore, Hampshire's contract

with Aquadro & Cerruti required them to use local union per-

sonnel for most of their labor. Although local contractors

49

could learn URBS techniques, the time required to learn the

new system as well as cost overruns for \\ learning curve"

mistakes would seriously hinder the possibility of House III

being built on time and within budget.

Time was running shortj the groundbreaking deadline for

URBS completion in fall 1973 had already passed and Hampshire

desperately needed housing for an additional 92 students. A

great deal of money had already been invested in the design of

House III and the Trustees were anxious to keep costs down.

HUD and HEW loans had already been secured +: ........ "'V" +-~ ............. +- ............... _.LVL \",..J..LC \.,...V.lJ..:::>l-.LU\....-

tion of House III and many students had already received

letters of admission for the following school year.

Hampshire turned to Hugh Stubbins, rehiring him as a

consultant for House III. Various options were considered,

from temporary trailers to off campus housing. Traditional

concrete and steel buildings were rejected out of hand due to

their high cost, long construction time, and general unsuit-

ability for the program.

A local fabrication firm

proved to be the solution for

Hampshire's housing problem.

Fontaine Fabrication, Inc., of

Northampton, was a producer of

prefabricated housing modules.

Prefabricated sections of

buildings were produced in the

Northampton plant and deliv-

50

ered to site, where a crane moved them into place on a poured

foundation pad and local contractors fastened them together.

Interior walls, utili ties, and finish work were them com­

pleted. The system had lower construction costs than typical

balloon framing due to lower labor costs as well as being

faster (a building structure could be erected in less than a

week, giving rise to a popular student myth that Greenwich was

built in a day) .

The prefabricated housing differed from most of Hampshire's

new construction in several ways. The structures were wood

frame wi th clapboard siding, a much more traditional aes­

thetic for New England. The scale of the units differed from

other buildings on campus as well as most other student hous­

ing of the time. Instead of huge, monolithic buildings the

idea of small cottages form­t"

ing an in-

timate

,.,.

51

New England village was finally realized by several small, two

story, eight unit buildings. The size of the units varied to

accommodate four to six students, mostly in single rooms. Each

unit also had a large common area and connections for a small,

self contained kitchen were built in. In the first two sets of

apartments kitchens were not installed until later, when three

more units were built with kitchen amenities.

The design of the individual units served another pur­

pose; they could function as apartments for faculty or staff

living on c~~pus. The Department of Housing and HUITlan Davel

opment, in its "Operation Breakthrough" program, sought new

and innovative housing solutions for colleges and universi­

ties which were economical as well as maintaining local and

federal building codes. Furthermore, in an attempt to make

these housing solutions more fiscally self sufficient HUD had

glven approval for some of the units to be rented out as

apartments wi th the hope that the lncome garnered would enable

the HUD loans to be paid back in a more timely fashion.

Fontaine Modular's bid for House III was low enough that

Hampshire began construction that November. Two units were

completed by September 15, 1971, shipped on trucks from

Northampton to the college and lifted into place piece by

piece. These two "donuts" housed an additional 100 students

who had been admitted in an attempt to bolster Hampshire's

financial situation. An additional three units were completed

by August of the next year. Hampshire had built its third

house within two years of openlng its doors.

52

True to its word

Hampshire carefully

weighed any and all

student input regard-

ing Greenwich i not only

were kitchens installed

and smaller units used

but the landscaping was

left in a largely pris-

state. Host of trees In the area, medium sized

deciduous with several conifers, were left in place. Scrub

growth was removed and dirt paths, established in true New

England "cow path" tradition, were groomed. These paths were

eventually paved and later replaced with raked gravel. Be­

tween 1991 and 1992 some large growth was removed due to

structural problems created by the tree's constant shading

but much of the original growth still remains as it was when

Greenwich was originally sited to the north of the library in

1971.

An extension of the loop road was brought up to allow for

emergency vehicle access and a parking area laid out slightly

to the east and to the north of the units, away from the center

of the units. By removing the parking areas from the units

Hampshire continued a planning tradi tion set by Dakin and

Merrill houses - keeping vehicle traffic on the periphery of

the college and reserving the central core of the campus for

pedestrian traffic. A problem addressed over the years was the

53

fact that Greenwich, seeded by paths, had no boundaries or

fences to prevent people from simply driving up onto the grass

and over the pedestrian paths. At the beginning and ends of

the semester this was especially a problem in that most people

were moving into or out of their apartments, leaving Greenwich

torn up and crisscrossed by tire tracks. Access from the South

had been prevented by the use of a chain gate but vehicles

continued to move through Greenwich until 1991, when a post

fence was installed along the south side of the road running

alongside Greenwich.

Hampshire had been especially pleased with Fontaine's

construction of House III (Greenwich); students liked the

high levels of privacy and autonomy the design of the houses

delivered and the school had been able to find HUD financing

during a time of unusual tight federal fiscal control. It was

recognized, however, that additional housing was quickly needed.

Hampshire had not reached the point where they could open a

significant number of beds up through graduation and more

students were applying for admission as Hampshire's reputa­

tion grew. Estimating an additional 300 students would be

arriving in the fall of 1972 Hampshire's trustees asked Ashley,

Myer, and Smith to produce House IV plans.

Development of an URBS based plan for House IV had been

developed by Ashley Myer and Smith at the same time plans for

House III were made; the AMS solution called for a continua­

tion of URBS units to the west of Dakin running north of House

III. Unfortunately construction costs were still too high and

54

implementation would not be feasible for residency by Septem­

ber 1973. Time for construction was extremely limited, how­

ever, and if the school wished to maintain the $3.5 million in

HUD and HEW loans secured for House IV construction they would

have to find a solution quickly.

The Fontaine solution had worked well and AMS began to

work with prefabricated forms in Fontaine's catalog. Although

the House III solution had provided a higher level of intimacy

and privacy there was a sense of isolation due to the enclosed

form of the buildings. Its physical siting in the northerThuost

end of the campus created a sense of distance from the rest of

the community as well. Students were not forced to enter the

Merrill/Dakin area of the campus and thus those students ln

House III had little or no interaction with many members of

the student body.

The Hampshire Board of Trustees were still quite enamored

of the New England Village idea; such a collection of build­

ings would reinforce a sense of communi ty on a small and

workable scale while encouraging self reliance. Ashley, Myer,

Smith worked to make this a central concept in their design

for House IV and arrived at a solution of small clusters of

modular units arranged to create small open areas between

several clusters. An individual wishing to pass through Enfield

would not be able to simply speed past rows of houses set on

a double loaded street but would rather be forced to wind

their way through the community on a series of winding paths.

The structures differed from the earlier Fontaine module

55

houses in several ways. First and most apparent was a lack of

uniformity amongst the forms of the buildings. While Green­

wich was composed of a series of regular forms Enfield's

modular uni ts utilized a wider range of modular forms and

relied more heavily on placement by the architect. The exte­

rior relied heavily on local expression, a sensitivity to the

region not evidenced by either House I or House II. Like

Greenwich, the exterior was faced with New England style

clapboards and, in a further nod to tradition, was edged with

cornerboards reminiscent of its neighboring farm houses.

Enfield rose three stories above the ground rather than

Greenwich's two but due to the fact that Enfield was set into

a section of ground lower than most of the surrounding area a

feeling of towering over the landscape was avoided. AMS de­

cided to place House IV to the east of Greenwich, on the far

north periphery of the campus, ln an area that had been

previously declared as unfit for building on due to poor

drainage.

Nevertheless construction was begun shortly after comple­

tion of House III. The modules were trucked down Bay road from

Northampton and lifted into place by a crane. Once in place

workers would secure the pieces to the already poured founda­

tion while other carpenters would begin the limi ted, but

necessary, rough in work. Once the module had been placed and

secured other tradesmen such as electricians and plumbers

would move in to carry out the roughing in of supply lines,

water feeds, etc., much as in typical wood stud construction

56

for residential

homes. Afterwards the

1ines were covered by

sheets of drywall

(which had been

specified because

they were cheaper

than lathe and plas-

ter) and the finish

work painting,

wallpapering, etc.

could be completed.

Despite the limited

construction needed

for the modules not

every unit was com-

pleted on schedule;

almost half of the

incoming class who

were to have been housed in the new units were houses off

campus, either at a girl's school in Northampton or at the

University of Massachusetts; the one exception was a student

who, faced with the prospect of living off campus and having

to commute nearly an hour every day, took matters into his own

hands and built temporary housing on campus for himself from

several large cardboard boxes.

Prescott House was the final of five houses built at

57

Hampshire between 1968 and 1973. Much of the design for the

house was based upon work done by Ashley, Myer, Smith, Inc. in

an earlier aborted design for House III. In that solution the

firm predicated a series of clusters of houses based upon the

original plan for Hampshire's houses in The Making of a Col­

lege. These clusters would contain a small number of indi­

vidual apartments which would in turn house a small number of

students in single rooms. These individual apartments would

allow for a high degree of student independence and privacy as

well as being flexible ln their use; the units, for ex~aple,

could house faculty and their family or even married students.

The original AMS plan had been altered in 1970 in an

attempt to utilize the URBS construction system, an attempt

that ultimately was scrapped due to cost overruns and other

logistical factors. The original, pre-URBS plans proposed by

AMS remained, however, and Hampshire decided to use these

plans for their final house.

The original plans were not completely usable, however,

and AMS was forced to revise the House III design. Changes in

student oplnlon, budgetary constraints, and additional input

from Hampshire's board of trustees caused a rethinking of the

alms of House III (now House V). Unfortunately, Hampshire was

once again running short on time; HUD loans had been secured

and Hampshire was anticipating the final additional 300 stu­

dents to arrive on campus in just over a year. AMS was under

considerable pressure to produce within a very short amount of

time.

58

Hampshire had asked AMS for housing for 260 students, all

In single rooms. Each unit was to vary in size from 4 to 14

person units; after receiving feedback from students the largest

size would house 12 people, with an average size of 8 students

to a unit. As with Hampshire's other four houses the units

would be coeducational with some allowance made for students

wishing to remain in single gender housing. As per student

wishes kitchen facilities were included in the original de­

sign.

AHS recog-ni zed the

unique character of student

housing; In their program

for House V it was noted

that "there is a perceived

pattern of experimentation

with living group size and

relationship, ultimately leading to more independent and sepa­

rate occupancy in the last few terms, and tending to smaller

groups."s AMS saw the other houses on campus as contributing

to the variegated living experiences on campus in that each

possessed a unique character. It was important for House V to

be different from the other houses on campus precisely because

of this.

If each house on campus boasted an individual personality

they had at least one thing in common: the houses, particu­

larly Greenwich and Enfield, were different from most student

housing available at the time. It was felt that housing at

59

Hampshire was not merely a place wherein a student hung their

hat and slept while not at class but rather another learning

experience. In Hampshirers opinion r "the residential units

must facilitate social organization without forcing compul­

sory participation. "6 This attitude was echoed by the student

body.

A concept proposed by Patterson in The Making of a Col­

lege finally found fruition in the plans for House V - that of

integrated faculty offices r classroom spacer and student hous­

ing. Small nillliliers of units r joined by a central stairwell r

huddled in small groups around a central courtyard; at the

base of most of these classroom and office space was placed on

this central stairwell. Although the amount of space created

was fairly limited these classrooms still find use today and

have the effect of forcing non Prescott residents to explore

Prescott.

As with the other four houses dining facili ties were

included; these took the form of a stand alone structure on

the southernmost end of the courtyard. The building itself

possesses the same corrugated steel and cinder block con­

struction laced with fire escapes as does the rest of Prescott

but a large outside deck was provided to allow students to eat

inside or outside at their leisure. House V dining r like House

III and IV r was intended to have less use and a more limited

menu than House I and II dining due to the availability of

cooking facilities in each of the apartment units. It had been

the hope that House V dining would have a menu consisting of

60

fast food and easily storable, pre prepared food and thus

House V's kitchen facilities were kept at a minimum.

The modular units at Hampshire were intended to be an

economical and fast solution to housing at Hampshire. By

building the walls while the foundations were being poured the

school could rapidly create new housing every year. The mods

were not just cheap housing, however. By providing essen-

tially on campus apartments the college was allowing its

students a higher degree of responsibility and flexibility

than most other colleges at the time. Furthermore, the apart-

ment style living answered the current trend of off campus

living without losing the on campus students it desperately

needed.

Footnotes

1 Cohen, Laura, in a memorandum to Charles Longsworth and John Myer, December 16/ 1970.2 Longsworth, Charles, Hampshire College: House III, June 16, 1969/ p. 13 Ibid., p. 24 URBS Goes Private At Hampshire College, EFL College Newsletter, Sept. 1970/ p. 75 Ashley, Myer, Smith, Inc./ Hampshire College: House V Report, July 111/1972/ pA6 Ibid., p. 5

Picture Credits

Page 50Greenwich "Donut" Plan, First Floor. By Mark Oribello

Page 51Conceptual Rendering, Greenwich House, Donuts 2 and 3. Courtesy Hugh Stubbins Associates,1970

61

Page 53Interior, Mod 36, Common Space and Kitchen Facilities. Photograph by Mark Oribello

Page 57Construction of Enfield Modular Units, circa 1972. Photograph by Dick Fish. Archival Photo­graph courtesy of Office of Public Relations Photographic Files, HC/Archives VP5.56 #2 & #3

Page 59Exterior of Prescott Units #72 - #79 fr om the southwest. Photograph by Mark Oribello

62

ChapterSLater Construction

(1973 - )

63

In The Making of a Col­

lege Franklin Patterson out­

lined a plan for recreational

facilities which would fol­

low the general philosophy

of Hampshire college. Rather

than an elaborate gymnasium

adjacent to copious playing

fields where football teams

reigned Patterson envisioned

a simple multipurpose area

combining economy with flexibility. An enclosed swimming pa­

vilion "would be as much a social and recreational place for

the college community as an athletic one ... it should be as

attractive as possible, with opportunities around it for stu­

dents to relax and talk and mix and have fun."l

The program for Hampshire's athletic structure was unlike

any built for a college previously due to Hampshire's atti­

tudes about athletics in college. Hampshire did not have s

series of spectator sports but instead encouraged sports which

everyone could participate in. Furthermore, the school felt

that "Learning and applying skills needed to enjoy the natural

world - climbing ... hiking, bicycling ... - represent an oppor­

tunity for individual physical and moral development".2 Thus,

many of the traditional areas and paraphernalia needed for a

college gymnasium would be unnecessary. One of the primary

statements made by the school at the onset of planning for the

64

Crown center was that ~Management, participation and teaching

in individual sports and team athletics should be returned to

students,,3

What would be required would be spaces which would be

adaptable for many different uses - from loosely organized

sports to large scale pickup games to individual use. It was

recognized that the space would have many different demands

placed upon it throughout the years and that these demands

would change as student preference changed. Hampshire knew

that it would be impossible for them to effectively define a

pattern of student use for a building that had not been built

based on a somewhat radical educational philosophy. It was

therefore left to the architect to allow for change ln use,

especially during the first few years, when the school's

recreational program would be defined by the students.

The Student Activities Committee had submitted a series

of recommendations for the new athletic facilities and these

recommendations, along with Patterson's The Making of a Col­

lege, formed the basis of the program for the new center.

Student opinion on the athletic use of the space was largely

in line with Patterson's ideas as presented in the work-

lng paper. The students felt that the new structure should

provide opportunities for ~normal aspects of recreation (meaning

65

a socializing / fun-sort-of-break-from-the-normal-routine)"4

as well as space for formalized athletic facilities (although

it was accepted that the school had neither the funds nor the

inclination to support large numbers of organized athletic

teams) .

Patterson originally envisioned the athletic structure

as "not a gYmnasium or field house, but something simpler and

easier to maintain than either"5 A domed structure placed over

a patch of bare, level earth was given as a suggestion, with

connected sanitary facilities. In fact Hillupshire possessed a

large inflatable structure over a series of tennis courts for

many years i this structure was known as "The Bubble" and,

after years of patching, was finally abandoned in 1980 due to

high maintenance costs. The structure was removed but the

courts underneath were kept and remain to this day.

As the program for the athletic structure took shape,

U ::;~.p;:H·~.:r;;:~

'U t;o'm2til ~,~"lll'J'

... 1'~!bJ" 11 J,W;.ttt"t't'1- fJ ft~::-k :.j;f'::h~;;; '-""<Illt TlF,He 1:' Gaff(-:I; P'f:;;;A Jl!'7.-H;. 2Q k~vA";~

I Otf,t.-eJi 21 P,;XJ1 h.),;J~~li1

t Gl,<."tq~Ar Hl;:,r- ... ,~;.;':!Q-;(, 22 !:.lrHi;"'"tJ f.,.i~af",~ \},k~';,: ts lJ-bli/Yn W"-:rr.~~·~_ J{",;q~,,~ 1. U",-,:f<1.1q·"

t2 Sht~t'" Ul}0:('o}'f to<:~~c....1'3 T~;)lI!f; a .\..r:;:.ht

however, the common consensus came to be that the new recre-

ational facilities would be housed in a stand alone building.

66

Apart from a spaClOUS, flexible gymnasium area many people

also expressed a desire for a large swimming pool. It was felt

that this swimming pool area could become yet another area

where students could meet and relax in an informal situation.

There was much discussion on the placement of the pool; some

faculty and students wanted to place the pool outside so as to

encourage "accidental" social meetings while others pointed

out factors such as climate, security, and maintenance costs.

A compromise was reached by placing the pool within a

large, glassed in section of the building. The vast, open

structure combined with the glass walls to the south and east

to create a sense of being outdoors while still being shel­

tered and inside the building. A large, sliding glass door

system was also included; on nice days almost half of the

south "wall" could be opened up to the outside world, further

blurring the line between inside and outside as well as allow­

ing movement of canoes and kayaks into and out of the pool

area.

The playing floor took center stage within the building;

the 10,000 square foot space was somewhat irregularly shaped,

allowing the floor to be split into several areas, each of

which could be used independently of each other. A large,

regulation sized basketball court was laid out along a good

part of this area, however, the size and shape also accommo­

dated a baseball diamond, floor hockey, badminton court, etc.

The entire floor was covered by a highly resilient polyure­

thane and marked out with differing spaces for each court.

67

Thus, while it was possible to play basketball or badminton

within a well marked and delineated court one was not con­

strained within that court as the entire floor presented a

uniform surface.

A gallery ran around three fourths of the playing floor,

providing observation space for spectators while not restricting

movement within the gym. At one end of the gallery space was

laid out for a small weight room while at the southernmost end

a small lounge enabled students to socialize without being

disturbed by any other activities occurr-ing within the build­

ing. Finally, a small pocket was carved out in the southwest­

ern area of the second floor to allow for activities such as

pool and ping pong.

Although the Crown Center provided for a high degree of

flexibili ty and wide range of options there were several

facilities which were not included. The Crown Center had

neither the space nor the funding for a full sized weight room

nor could it support tennis with its fixed nets and relatively

large court areas. The school had several outside tennis

courts but these were unus­

abl e dur ing inc limen t

weather. In late 1987 Presi­

dent Adele Simmons proposed

that a large tennis barn

structure be erected on cam­

pus; funds for the construc­

tion would be raised partly

68

through private memberships to the "Bay Road Tennis Club" as

it came to be called. The facility, a large warehouse struc­

ture, contained three full sized tennis courts used by both

students and outside individuals as well as for a tennis camp

during the summer. A central structure placed in the center of

the building shell houses sanitary facilities and a full sized

weight room as well as a large mulitpurpose room.

Davis, Brody, & Associates recognized the need for coher­

ence within the central core. Originally, the exterior of the

building was to be the same water struck brick as Stubbins had

used, however, cost and user preference dictated a change in

exterior treatment. An idea proposed to Hampshire in which the

two buildings were con-

nected physically Vla

a bridge structure was

met with a great deal

of enthusiasm; in fact,

a third building, pro­

posed but never built,

was to have been con­

nected to the Crown

Center at the same level in much the same manner, thereby

creating an indoor corridor beginning with the covered walk­

way of Franklin Patterson Hall, leading through the proposed

Humanities and Arts building, past the observation window for

the swimming pool and along the gallery overlooking the gYm

floor, into the library lounge with a view into the gallery,

69

ending finally at the front door of the library. The whole

system was to have lent a sense of coherency to the central

quadrangle area as well as precipitating a journey in which a

traveler would view current happenings in Franklin Patterson,

then be given an opportunity to see the latest works in the

Humanities and Arts buildings, past photographic, architec­

tural, and rendered works in galleries and studios as well as

glimpses of performances. As they went on their way they would

be able to stop and watch swimmers, kyakers, and other water

sports as well as observe sporting events before finally

proceeding to the library center. Thus, by simply traveling

from a dormitory to the post office a student would be exposed

to a wide range of experiences.

As the student body at Hampshire grew so did the demands

placed upon the physical facilities. An additional 300 stu­

dents were added to the population every year between 1970 and

1973 and, while student housing sprung up (somethimes almost

overnight) like toadstools across the Hampshire landscape

classroom and other specialized need spaces were becoming

scarcer and scarcer. For a time the third floor of the library

was annexed by the art department in an attempt to provide

studio and classroom spaces for students; this was put to an

end when the fire chief for Amherst learned of it and con­

ducted a surprise inspection. When he saw the crude temporary

dividers made from cardboard, sheets, or untreated wood, the

large open containers of flammable agents such as tuluone and

mineral spirits, and numerous other fire code violations he

70

immediately filed an injuction preventing the use of the floor

as a studio space. The art department was, for the time,

homeless.

Painting and sculpture weren't the only arts looking for

a new home, however. Hampshire's original plan for the 1 ibrary

center had called for a limited amount of space to be provided

in the basement for television and film development. Hampshire's

only darkrooms, editing labs, and studios were crammed to­

gether in one half of the basement. Due to space restictions

spaces for these classes had wait lists as long as two and a

half years. Furthermore, Hampshire's photography department

was often at odds with the film department in that darkroom

spaces for both was at a premium. Hampshire was rapidly aquiring

video production and editing facilities which were also starting

to impinge on the already tight basement space.

Individuals in the music department were sililarly at a

loss for space. While individuals with guitars could quietly

practice in their single rooms tempers quickly flared when a

hallmate took an interest in the basoon. Both master's houses

had pianos which students were given limited access to, but

this was hardly a useful long range option. One of the first

pieces of musical equipment donated to the college was a MOOG

musical synthesizer; electronic music had recently come to

the fore as a new field and several students and faculty were

eager to take advantage of the school's new aquisi tion.

Unfortuantely, there was no place available for the synthe­

sizer in any of the new buildings, so the instrument was

71

placed ln a corn crib next to Blair Hall. Howard Paul recol­

lects, UWe didn't have any place to put it. So there literally

was a corn crib on the west end of the Stiles complex that had

3" wide boards and the 1" spaces to dry the corn. That is where

the MOOG synthesizer was put when it came. And we built around

it ... ff 6

By the fall of 1972 House III had been completed and the

school was beginning to turn its attentions back toward aca­

demic buildings. Some kind of athletic / recreational facil-

ity was needed, they felt, as well as space for the burgeoning

school of Humani ties and Arts. Faculty space was peppered

throughout the school's two buildings; design professors sat

next to physicists, biology professors were sandwiched be­

tween literature and philosophy professors, and psychology

professors stood opposite the calculus department. This ar­

rangement provided the varigated and ecclectic mix hoped for

by Hampshire's planners ln that it encouraged a vigorous

interaction by differing disciplines, however, it was rapidly

becoming difficult for the day to day business of the school

to be carried out. Classroom space was at a premium, espe­

cially for those classes needing specialized spaces such as

SClence courses, photography courses, etc.

A program for a proposed Humanities and Arts building was

started not long after planning for the new athletic building

had begun and there was a great deal of examination of the

coherency of the school's existing buildings. Stubbin's mas­

ter plan had called for an ambitous and extensive building

72

campalgn spanning the length and bredth of the campus; conse­

quentially, the buildings built during Phase I construction

tended to be spaced rather far apart. Hampshire had neither

the inclination nor the need to fund such a large scale

project, and thus was left with a rather sparse campus. To

further complicate the problem the residences had been placed

along the periphery of the central core, creating a rather

long walk between any residence and central building.

Aesthetically this caused severe problems as a visitor to

the ca~pus had extreme problems discerning the central, focal

point of the campus. The two buildings surrounding the quad­

rangle, the library and the science center, did not generate

enough of a sense of presense for people to identify it as the

campus core. The new athletic building had been placed next to

the library for this very reason, and plans were made to place

the Humanities and Arts complex across the eastern periphery

of the quad, connected to the new Crown center. The new

building would have served the dual purpose of an Arts center

and an arrival point for people arriving on campus. Further­

more, while the northern end of the building was to have been

connected to the Crown center the southern end was to have

been left open, facing the exit point from Franklin Patterson

Hall. It was thought that a student corning from one of the

dormatories or from Franklin Patterson Hall would, especially

during inclement weather, enter the building from the south

and move along its central aXlS on their way toward the

library or post office. Once en route the student would be

73

allowed glimpses into galleries, studios, and performance

thus be enticed to further explore the happenings- ",.",",.

and goings on within the building. A student making his way

through the building and to the Crown center would be afforded

views of the swimming pool and gymnasium floor as they contin-

ued along, finally arriving at the library.

Sadly, Hampshire was unable to raise the needed funds for

the proposed building and an alternative plan was needed. In

1975 two Hampshire professors in private architectural prac-

tice were invited to submit a solution which would allow for

the flexible spaces needed while keeping costs at a minimun.

Their solution harkened back to an earlier proposal for the

Cole science building in which a large, warehouse like struc-

ture would be built with very few interior partitioning walls

so as to allow for a maximum amount of space. Furthermore,

74

instead of one large central building encompassing all of the

Humanities and Arts several smaller structures, each with its

individual sphere of influence, would be built. First was an

Arts building which was left largely open; movable partitions

were then created (sometimes quite creatively) by students

and these were used to delineate the individual student' s

studio space. Space was alloted for a modest sculpture studio

and viewing room as well as for faculty offices. The second of

the buildings made housed music and dance facilities, with

Keyi-Practice Room2 • Faculty Office3 - RooitaJ Hall

4 - ReCO{ding St'Jdio5 •. DallC& Studlo6 - stora.ge o

individual practice rooms as well as a larger recital hall and

two dance studios.

Along with these first few structures a long bank of

solar panels was built, creating a kind of roof over the

central plaza area of the Arts Village as well as providing a

75

Inlet

piping brought water

along these tubes and heated the water. Although effective an

oil fired system was installed as a backup; years later the

cost of upkeep on the panels forced the college to abandon the

use of them.

The Film and Photography building was the third of a

proposed five structures; a large gallery space on the first

floor was faced by doorways to photographic studios, editing

rooms, and a corridor leading to the darkrooms. Although one

large darkroom is reserved for Division I students Division II

and III students are afforded time ln individual darkrooms.

Further plans for the Arts Village had included a dramatic

performance space and a graphic arts and environmental design

building, however, the school found that it could not at the

time afford further buildings.

Some time later a fourth building was added to the Arts

Village; this new building, named after Hampshire's third

manifolds; circulation

great deal of the heat and hot water for the Arts Village. The

panels installed were paid for in part by a grant from the

Energy Research and Development Administration's Solar Energy

Division and utilized a new form of solar panel. Instead of

the typical silicon pan­

els favored nowadays the

Arts Village panels con­

sisted of serles of

glass tubes placed along

76

president, became the

horne of the School of

Communications and Cog­

nitive Sciences (nee the

School of Language Stud­

ies) . CCS had previously

occupied space in the

lower levels of FPH;

faculty offices had occupied the ground level while several

small cognitive labs were crowded into the basement. Much of

the computer sciences at Hampshire had been taken over by the

school and so for the new building a great deal of attention

was paid to the needs, current and future, of the computer

resources of the campus. Not only would space and proper

electrical and data connections be necessary but extensive

climate control would be crucial. Because many of the comput­

ers in use by the school were personal computers linked into

the school's mainframe (located in the library center) large

spaces such as had been provided for in the library were

unnecessary. Furthermore, as much of the work to be done on

the computers would be done by a limited number of students it

was not necessary for the computer lab to be large enough to

allow access to all of Hampshire's student population.

Several small behavioral labs were included as part of

the program as well as two video editing labs. A small elec­

tronics lab and an audio lab were placed on either side of

these facilities on the second floor. Two classrooms fill the

77

western side of the second floor while a larger one resides

directly undreneath them. A medium sized lecture hall was also

included on the first floor with video projection capabili­

ties; here, videotapes may be watched on a large screen or a

personal computer may be hooked up to the same system, allow­

ing for computer lectures to be projected for the entire class

to see.

Emily Dickenson Hall stands on the north side of Hamp­

shire, sandwiched between Greenwich and Enfield on a low rise

overlooking the wetlands to the east. Built dur­

ing the second set

of Greenwich construction, this low wooden building houses

faculty offices and classrooms for the school of Humanities

and Arts as well as two "black Box" theatres and support

facilites for the theatre department (construction and cos­

tume shops, dressing rooms, and storage) Originally the building

housed several classrooms, faculty offices, and a snack bar.

During the latter part of the 70s the building was renovated

78

to accomodate more of the school of Humanities and Arts; the

snack bar was removed and two stripped down, "black box"

theater spaces were created with support spaces, several of

the classrooms were remodeled (including the creation of a

design studio via the combination of three former classroom

spaces), and several new faculty offices were added.

In the original proposal for the Arts Village Juster Pope

Associates proposed a series of five buildings, each of which

could be built as funding became available. The first three

buildings were built between 1973 and 1976, with ., ., • 1 •

an aOOl1:.l0n

made to the Music and Dance building being made several years

later. The fourth building was to have been a theatre build-

lng, complete with a formal proscenium stage. This building

was never built for several reasons. First, much of the fund-

lng which had been available for the college's earlier build­

lngs had dried up and the school had extremely limited funds

with which to work with.

A further feeling was that such lavish facilities would

not provide a Hampshire student with the kind of exploratory

theatre experience that the school hoped to teach. The school

was finding that a great many students went off campus to take

theatre courses, especially at Smith college, which had just

renovated and updated their theatre buildings. Hampshire found

that many of these students, used to working with the latest

in theater technology, lacked the ability to improvise when

these materials were not available. "We felt that we might be

making a mistake by building a big theater", recalls Howard

79

Paul, former head of physical plant. It was decided to build

two smaller "black box" theatres which, although lacking many

of the amenities and facilities found at larger theatres,

fostered the spirit of "making do".

Construction after 1972 was highly dependent on prior

architecture as well as a very limited budget. With its later

buildings Hampshire tried to patch some of the gaps in its

physical environment as well as to accomodate the changing

needs of its users. This, combined with a slackening of

fundingces, pushed the designers at Hampshire to find new

solutions under trying circumstances.

Footnotes

1 Patterson, Franklin, The Making of a College, © 1966 The Trustees of HampshireCollege, M.LT. Press, Cambridge, p. 2092 Longsworth, Charles, in a memorandum, July 20,19723 Ibid.4 Carroll, Bruce, and the Student Activities Committee of Hampshire College, in a memo­randum, March 19705 Patterson, Franklin, The making of a College, © 1966 The Trustees of HampshireCollege, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, p.2086 Transcript of The Physical History of Hampshire College: a Symposium in Honor ofStiles Day, November 3, 1989

Picture Credits

Page 64Kyakers in Robert crown Center Swimming Pool. Archival Photo courtesy of Office ofPublic Relations Photographic Files, HC/Archives VP5.S6 #2 & #3

Page 65South Elevation, Robert Crown Center. Courtesy Davis, Brody Associates, 1973

80

Page 66Floor Plans, First and Second Floors, Robert Crown Center. Courtesy Davis, Brody Associ­ates, 1973.

Page 68Interior View, Multisports Center. Photograph by Mark Oribello

Page 69Interior View from west of Bridge Cafe. Photograph by Mark Oribello

Page 74Proposed Humanities and Arts Building. Courtesy Ashley, Myer, and Smith, Inc., 1974

Page 75Floor Plan, First Floor, Music and Dance Building. Courtesy Juster, Pope, Frazier Associ­ates, 1975

Page 76Detail, Solar Panel Bulbs, Courtesy Juster, Pope, Frazier Associates, 1975

Page 77Adele Simmons Hall, Main Entrance, from the northwest. Photograph by Mark Oribello

Page 78Exterior view from the southeast, Emily Dickenson Hall. Photograph by Mark Oribello

81

Chapter 6Conclusion

82

The Hampshire College Campus is one which was planned

according to unique educational precepts and is therefore by

necessi ty different from most other college campuses. Not

only was it necessary for the academic buildings to embrace

this new philosophy but the social life of the college's

student population differed enough from the norm that the

school's living and social spaces also required a great deal

of flexibility. Furthermore, Hampshire realized that, al­

though the buildings they created were sufficient for its

needs at the time, the needs of the college and the needs of

the users would change greatly as the school grew. Therefore,

Hampshire required buildings and a campus that was not only

flexible but also changeable and adaptable.

The choice of Hugh Stubbins as an architect for the

school was an interesting one; as the former head of physical

plant remarked, "With Hugh Stubbins you knew what you were

getting"l Many would say that Hampshire, the experimenting

school, might have done better with an experimenting archi­

tect, one who would possibly have gone ln entirely new and

unique directions in architecture. Instead the school chose

an architect known for his distinctive albeit staid style of

modernist architecture. Stubbins' even, somewhat predictable

style did serve as an anchor for the school from a physical

point of view; one had but to look at Hampshire's first

buildings to realize that they said "institutional". Anyone

conversant with the area would also recognize the same style

of building as that at the University of Massachusetts or

83

Mount Holyoke College. Thus, although Stubbins' buildings may

be accused lacking the radical departure from traditional

thought encouraged at Hampshire it did lend a sense of

connectiveness to Hampshire's supporting colleges.

In the late 1960's money was easy to obtain, and hardly a

day went by that a new gift or federal loan did not arrive at

the President's office. Hampshire grew vigorously, hoping to

arrive at a student population that could reliably keep Hamp­

shire afloat fiscally. Phase I construction of Stubins' mono-

lithic yet expensive buildings progressed at an almost fe-

vered pitch; between 1968 and 1971 most of the major buildings

on campus were built. The buildings conformed to Stubbins'

master plan of a sprawling, urbanistic campus that had been

requested by Charles Longsworth and Franklin Patterson in The

Making of a College. Residential and light academic buildings

(those requiring little or no special equipment) were set

around a central core, again in response to The Making of a

College. In this, Stubbins' master plan responded well to the

wishes and desires of the college. As the Hampshire project

wore on Hideo Sasaki was edged out and Stubbins took full

control of the campus plan, laying out the ring road which

kept the campus a largely bicycle oriented campus and kept

cars on the periphery of the school, however, a strong sense

of arrival was still lacking as this ring road dumped visitors

either far away from the central campus or at the back door of

a building. This has still not been resolved; the central core

continues to be the major hub of activity on the campus but

84

many people did not use bicycles and feel that the distances

between the core and the residential areas is too far to walk,

especially during the harsh New England winters.

The early part of the 1970s saw a decline in the amount of

money that Hampshire had for new construction; inflation and

a declining economy caused Hampshire to realize that their

funds had fallen dangerously short. Furthermore, the latest

fad in student living was off campus housing; if Hampshire

were to maintain the required number of on campus students

needed to remain financially secure they needed to address

both of these problems. Inexpensive modular housing enabled

the college to provide students with autonomous living while

still remaining on campus. Furthermore, the sections of the

house could be constructed at a factory while the foundations

were being poured, saving time in the process. This system

proved to be popular enough that it was continued, with Hamp­

shire building their last three residential clusters in this

manner. These clusters were placed around the periphery of the

central core, further establishing the boundaries of the cam­

pus.

Stubbins' plan was now seen as largely impractical due to

cost overruns and changing student needs; nevertheless, the

school's original construction continued to have an impact on

its later construction. The Robert Crown Center was placed

adjacent to the library and plans were made for a connecting

building that would house the school of Humanities and Arts.

In doing so the college was attempting to create a coherent

85

center of campus as well as establishing a focal/arrival

point for the college. Unfortunately funding was not adequate

for the construction of the Humanities and Arts building which

would have created a true quadrangle in the traditional sense.

Again, financial reasons proved the prime motivation for

the college's next set of buildings; denied a building in the

center of campus H&A still needed space to live and spread

out. The solution arrived at was a series of inexpensive

shells which could accommodate a wide variety of endeavors and

which could be built one at a time as funding became avail­

able. The "Arts Village" as it came to be called, was one of

the last major pieces of college construction, with an addi­

tional building being erected in the late 1980s to house the

school of Communications and Cognitive Sciences. Later con­

struction also included a Day Care Center for faculty and

staff of the college and a tennis building which, it was

hoped, would bring in additional funding for the school through

public memberships.

Hampshire College appears at first to be a chaotic and

sprawling campus, left over from an initial burst of building

and eventually dribbling out to nothing. Distances between

buildings is sometimes inconvenient, especially in inclement

weather, and many of the original buildings appear drab in

comparison to architecture built today. Yet there is a certain

logical progression to the campus; the housing buildings stand

apart from the central core, which in turn attempts to provide

for most of the academic needs of the campus. The Arts Vil-

86

lage, while somewhat apart from the other buildings on campus,

still presents the feeling of a small New England Village.

Rather than a unified front like that at Amherst College,

whose every brick faced building says "tradition", Hampshire's

archi tecture leads one through a wide variety of discreet

experiences, from the rural setting of Greenwich to the

urbanistic Arts Village and back through the somewhat tradi­

tional Merrill quadrangle.

Footnotes

1 Paul, Howard, in an interview with Mark Oribello, April 20, 1995

87

Appendix AConstruction Time Line

0 Franklin Patterson Hall 0 Adele Simmons Hall

0 Johnson Library Center 0 Merrill House

0 Cole Science Building 0 Dakin House

0 EmilY Dickenson Hall 0 Greenwich House

0 Emily Dickenson Hall (Renovation) 0 Enfield House

0 Robert Crown Center 0 Prescott House

0 Charles Longsworth Arts Village

I'==;' I I II II II I

;r-'~I I I I ,I II

I I I I I I I I

co 0\ 0\0 \0 r"'-­0\ 0\ 0\

..- C\J C"')r"'-- r"'-- r"'--0\ 0\ 0\

~ l() \0 I"- co 0\I"- r"'-- I"- I"- r"'-- I"­0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\

o~

..-co0\

C\J C"") ~ It) \0co co co co co0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\

I"­co0\

coco0\

0\ 0co 0\0\ 0\,... -,..- ....... ,... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,.... ...... ..... ..... ,... ..... ...... ..... ...-- .,.. ..... "- ,... ,....

o,

•

Appendix BBibliography

Bibliography

Birney, Robert, Hampshire College Planning Bulliten #8: Manin Situ, © June 1969 The Trustees of Hampshire College

Ludman, Dianne, Hugh Stubbins and his Associates: The FirstFifty Years, © 1986 The Stubbins Associates, Inc.

Lyon, Richard, Hampshire College Planning Bulli ten #9:Foreign Studies, © June 1969 The Trustees of hampshireCollege

Patterson, Franklin, The Making of a College, © 1966 TheTrustees of Hampshire College, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA

Rush, Sean and Johnson, Sandra, The Decaying AmericanCampus: A Ticking Time Bomb, © 1989 The Association ofPhysical Plant Administrators of Universities and Colleges

Smith, Francis, Hampshire College Planning Bulliten #6: TheProper Study of Mankind - Reconsidered, © April 1969 TheTrustees of Hampshire College

Stubbins, Hugh, Architecture - The Design Expreience, © 1976John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York

Taylor, Robert, Hampshire College Planning Bulliten #7: TheHampshire College Library, © 1968 The Trustees of HampshireCollege

Taylor, Robert, The Making of a Library: The AcademicLibrary in Transi tion, © 1970 The Trustees of HampshireCollege, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge

Interview with Howard Paul by Mark Oribello, April 20, 1995

Material from the Hampshire College ArchivesPresident Charles R. Longsworth. Architecture Files. HC IArchives PR2.S3

Boettiger, John, Notes on Architecture and the HampshireCommunity, April 13, 1967

Boettiger, John, A Brief Addendum to an Earlier Memo onArchitecture and the Hampshire Community, May 19, 1967

Matz, David, Memorandum: And Still More Thoughts onArchitecture, May 26, 1967

Matz, David, Memorandum: Hampshire Architecture, May 25,1967

Longsworth, Charles, Hampshire College: House III, June 16,1969

Cohen, Laura, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Dec. 16, 1970Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, May25, 1967

Boettiger, John, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, May 29,1967

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Charles Swift II, Jan. 29,1968

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, Oct.17, 1966

Walters, Jerome B., Memorandum to David Matz, Feb. 23, 1968Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, April28, 1967

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, July27, 1967

Matz,Visit,

David, Memorandum: Opinions Gleaned from the Yaleto Charles Longsworth, May 10, 1967

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,College Housing Program, no date

United States Department of Housing and Human Development,Abstract from HUD College Housing Handbook, ProjectDevelopment (RHA 7830.1 Supp.), Oct. 1969

united States Department of Housing and Human Development,Abstract from General Services Administration Handbook,Chapter 12 (PBS P 3410.5), June 12, 1968

Juster, Pope Associates, Planning Notes #1, Aug. 29, 1972

Sasaki, Hideo, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, March 17,1966

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to the Trustees of HampshireCollege, June 1, 1966

Galehouse, Richard, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, May 26,1966

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, Re:Student Housing Strategy and Action, Feb. 20, 1968

Patterson, Franklin, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:College Growth and Student Housing, Feb. 21, 1968

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Stanley Snider, June 20,1968

Manchester, Barbara, Student Housing Questionnaire Report,Sept .. 6, 1972

Wheeler, Elizabeth, Hampshire College News, Oct. 22, 1969

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to all professional staff,Re: Hampshire College House II Residential, Nov. 22, 1968

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Stanley Snider, June 24,1968

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Richard Galehouse, Dec.23, 1968

Galehouse, Richard, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:Hampshire College, Dec. 13, 1968

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Harold Johnson, Dec. 24,1968

The Stubbins Associates, Conference Report, Dec. 12, 1968

Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:House II Residential - Report of a Meeting an Architecture,Dec. 13, 1968

Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:Meeting with the Architects, Feb. 17, 1969

Longsworth, Charles, Hampshire College - House III, June 16,1969

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to John Myer, Nov. 3, 1969

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to John Myer, July 30, 1969

Myer, John, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re: Report ofquestions of letter of July 30th, 1969, regarding House III,Hampshire College, Aug. 11, 1969

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, Re:House III an a University Residential Building System (URBS)Based Project, Jan. 26, 1970

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to the file, Re: Conversationwith Richard Ulf, BUD, by Phone, Jan. 26, 1970

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to the file, Re: Washington,D.C. Discussions re College Housing Loan Support - House III,Jan. 26, 1970

Huxtable, Ada Louise, Model Homes for Americans, The New YorkTimes, Feb. 28, 1970

Myer, John, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re: Someaspects regarding the use of the URBS system in the buildingof House III, Feb. 9, 1970

Aquadro, Robert, Memorandum to Ashley, Myer, Smith, Inc., Re:Hampshire College House III - Dining Commons III, Nov. 18,1970

Ashley, Myer, Smith, Inc., Meeting Report, Hampshire CollegeDining Commons, House III, Nov. 27, 1970

Myer, John, Memorandum to Laura Cohen, Dec. 7, 1970

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, Re:House III, Dec. 17, 1970

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Committee on Architectureand Campus Planning, Re: House III, Jan. 19, 1971

Smi th, Douglas, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:Hampshire House III URBS, May 7, 1971

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Edward Pollack, Re:Hampshire College Turnkey Project, May 7, 1971

Hugh Stubbins and Associates, Conference Report, May 17, 1971

Wright, Jonathan, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, May 25,1971

Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re: Onthe Rent in the Modules, June 25, 1971

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Harold Gores, Aug. 2, 1971

Gores, Harold, Memorandum to Franklin Patterson, May 14, 1970

Stephenson, Mark, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:Planned Parking Lot West of Modules, May 15, 1972

Myer, John, Memorandum to Designers and users of HampshireCollege House III, Re: A preliminary listing of issuesrelating to the selection of site for House III, July 21,1969

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to The Trustees of HampshireCollege, Re: House IV (URBS) , July 31, 1971

Ashley / Myer / Smith, Inc., Hampshire College House VProgram Report, July 11, 1972

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Dudley Woodall and KennethRosenthal, Re: House V Dining, Sept. 5, 1972

Ashley / Myer / Smith, Meeting Report, July 11, 1972

Porter, Tyrus, Memorandum to Victor Lloyd, Aug. 28, 1972

Crabtree, Samuel, Memorandum to Hampshire College, Re: HouseV Food Service Facility, Aug. 23, 1972

Sullivan, Michael, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, March28, 1972

Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandum to Edward Thomas, Re: CH-Mass.180(D) - Hampshire College House V, Aug. 21, 1973

Paul, Howard, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re: HouseFive Master's House, June 5, 1973

House V Staff, Memorandum to Occupants of Apt. 78, Re: LoftConstruction and Financing Thereof, Nov. 1, 1973

The Trustees of Hampshire College, Rationale and PreliminarySpecifications for Learning Spaces at Hampshire College,Sept. 1967

Patterson, Franklin, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:Administrative Offices for Academic Year 1971 - 72 and after,Oct. 21, 1970

Jones, Edwin, Memorandum to Chester Penza, Re: HampshireCollege, May 6, 1968

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Hugh Stubbins, Sept. 6,1967

Hampshire College: The Natural Science Facility, March 2,1969

Park, David, Notes, Feb. 15, 1968

Lieberfeld, Lawrence, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Feb.15, 1969

Hugh Stubbins and Associates, Hampshire College NaturalScience Project

Davis, Brody, & Associates, Outline Specifications, Nov. 2,1972

"Hampshire College's Robert Crown Center Opened to Students",Sites and Specs, Dec. 1974, p.5

Paul, Howard, Memorandum to Anthony Louvis, Feb. 1, 1974

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to The Faculty, Re: A Few HotFinancial Flashes, Aug. 20, 1974

Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandum to Nancy Eddy, Aug. 9, 1974

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to Davis, Brody, andAssociates, July 31, 1972

Davis, Brody, and Associates, Minutes of Meeting, Nov. 27,1972

Longsworth, Charles, Athletic Recreation Center, July 20,1972

Davis, Brody, and Associates, Minutes of Meeting, Jan. 17,1973

Paul, Howard, Memorandum to Charles Longsworth, Re:Recreation Building Budget, March 30, 1973

Smi th, Francis, The School of Humani ties and Arts inHampshire College, April, 1973

Francis Smith, Memorandum to Whom it May Concern asArchitectural Planners for H&A, Re: The Humanities and ArtsLearning Environment at Hampshire College

Smith, Francis, Memorandium to Davis & Brody, Norton Juster,and Earl Pope, Re: The Humanities and Arts learningenvironment at Hampshire College, Aug. 10, 1972

Rosenthal, Kenneth, Memorandium to Melanie Shorts, Nov. 4,1975

Pferd, Martha, Memorandium to Franklin Patterson, June 28,1973

The Trustees of Hampshire College, Program for the H&A MasterPlan

Juster, Pope, Associates, Program for the Center for HumanDevelopment, June 28, 1972

Juster, Pope, Associates, Program for the Center forCommunity Affairs, June 28, 1972

The Trustees of Hampshire College, A Proposal to the EnergyResearch and Development Administration, Division of SolarEnergy, Nov. 25, 1975

Transcript with Interview with Howard Paul, Ruth Hammen, andSheila Moos, Nov. 3, 1989

Transcript of interview of Howard Atkins by CharlesLongsworth, from A Documentary History of Hampshire College,edited by Susan Dayall

Stiles, Robert, The Planning and Beginning of HampshireCollege

Material from files of Trustee winthrop S. Dakin, NamingCommittee, HC I Archives BTl. Sl #3

Patterson, Franklin, Memorandum to The Trustees of HampshireCollege (Except Harold F. Johnson), Re: The Naming of theCollege Library, Sept. 21, 1970

Patterson; Franklin; MemorandQm to The Trustees of HampshireCollege, Re: Naming our Buildings, Sept. 6, 1970

Patterson, Franklin, Memorandum to The Trustees of HampshireCollege, Re: Naming Our Buildings, Oct. 20, 1970

Johnson, Harold, Memorandum to Board of Trustees, HampshireCollege, Oct. 13, 1970

Dakin, Winthrop, Memorandum to The Committee to Propose Namesfor Hampshire College Buildings, Re: Call of First Meeting,Aug. 27, 1973

Material from files of Charles R. Longsworth, TrusteeCommittee on the Naming of Buildings, HC I Archives PR2. S4#5. Sl #3

Longsworth, Charles, Memorandum to The Trustees of HampshireCollege, Re: Identification of Building Names, April 6, 1973

AppendixCInterview with Charles Longsworth

Telephone interview with Mr. Charles Longsworth,former president of Hampshire College, by MarkOribello

M.a.: This is an Interview with Mr. Charles Longsworthon May first, and, um, Mr. Longsworth, when were youwith the school?

C. L.: When?

M.a.: From when to when?

C.L.: Uh ... I, ah, started with the, ah, effort lnearly 1965 and I was there until July of 1977

M.a.: Um, So you were responsible, initially,what I have read of your files for much ofarchitecture at Hampshire?

fromthe

C. L.: Well, I originally started in si te selectionwhich I guess is the first phase of the architecture,deciding where we probably ought to try to locate theplace and I really, really spent a lot of time on thatand settled on the location we have because of itsproximi ty to the other four insti tutions of coursewhich is a principle requirement for Hampshire toexist. And because it looked to me like there was landin that Hadley / Amherst area where we are that couldbe purchased.

M.a.: And roughly how long did it take you to acquirethis land?

C. L.: It took about eighteen months ... there were Ithink eighteen different owners ... that was a veryinteresting process but it worked out very well. Thekey piece, of course, was the Stiles farm which iswhere the library is located, where Stiles House islocated, where the main academic buildings actuallyare located.

M. 0.: Um ... so why exactly did you choose that otherthan proximity? Was there a reason that you chose thatarea?

C.L.: Well, it was very undeveloped ... if you look atthe, I don't know how well you know the roads, Mark,but if you go down West street which is where theentrance is, the front entrance, and then up Bay road

1

to the back entrance, and all the way down to, I guessit's Maple street in Hadley and then turn north againto Moody Bridge road and then come east again, thatwhole sector is this couple thousand acres was at thetime very undeveloped. It's not of course muchdeveloped now where we own the land because weprecluded that but it looked like you didn't have toworry about dealing with too many owners; there weresome big tracts and you didn't have to worry abouthouses that would continue to exist in the middle ofthe campus because it was almost all agricultural.Really an ideal spot to begin.

M. 0.: Of those original, of those houses on thecampus, how many were kept ... I know that there were acouple of structures removed from the campus but thatthere are still a goodly amount of original houses.

C.L.: Well, I think the only houses that were removedwere over there in Hadley on Bay Road. On the mainpart of the campus the Stiles House and then, socalled you know which that is of course, and then theWarner House, and the house that Bob Stiles lived in,the so called Montague House, I guess that's stillthere isn't it?

M. 0.: Yep.

C. L.: And then his brick house across the road isstill there and then if you go North the Paul Thorpehouse is still there, so, and Andy Wineczk's houseover on Bay road is still there. I don't know of anyhouse except maybe down further west on Bay road onthe south side there might have been a house removedin there. But that's all I know of.

M.O.: If I could change the subject a little bit?

C . L.: Go ahead.

M.O.: In The Making of a College that I believe youand former president Franklin Patterson prepared itdiscussed an urban campus, as it were.

C.L.: Yes.

M.O.: Why exactly was that desirable?

2

C. L.: Well, I I d have to go back and look at thatdiscussion to get it in context, but by urban I thinkwe were simply talking about a ... a densely, ratherdensely populated campus where there could beinteraction and proximity of people and ideas as wellas efficiency for building relationships andinterchange; since we're out there in the country wedidn't want to spread things out so much that peoplehad to stagger through the snow or never saw anyone.

M.O.: There is a ... one of the things that came up inmy discussions with Howard Paul was that there was anidea of Hampshire being a bicycle campus. Was that, atany point, really a major design consideration?

C.L.: Well, it was a major designconsideration .. uh ... I don't recall specificdiscussion of that but the equivalent of that is totry to preclude its being as heavily populated byautomobiles as some campuses and so we did create thatring road, and there was a big argument about whetherto put any parking inside the ring road as you nowhave up there behind the Arts Village and so forth.The automobile is a great threat to campuses and wewere aware of that and we were working to try to nothave it be visible from every point on the campus. Ithink we did reasonably well; if you look at theAmherst campus there are automobiles right packed intothe very center of that campus much to my distressbecause I'm chairman of the board at Amherst.

M.O.: Why ... or How and Why was Hugh Stubbins chosen asthe first architect for the campus?

C.L.: Well, how he was chosen ... there weren't many ofus, remember that, there were just a few people, andamong us we decided on whom, we decided whatarchitects we ought to look at and we were going tolook at five or six, six or seven different architectsand I guess that was based on reputation and somebodyknew a building someone had done, like Ben Thompson,for example, who was a well known architect, still is,and had done a number of college and university andschool buildings. So we assembled a little list andthen Harold Johnson and Patterson and, I thinkWinthrop Dakin, and I, went touring, and we wentvisiting the architects and listened to presentationsand looked at their buildings and looked at theirbrochures and the consensus, and I think this was led

3

primarily by Harold Johnson, was that Stubbins was theright guy for us, so we chose Hugh Stubbins.

M.O.: Was there anything in particular that stood outas special about him?

C.L.: Well, uh, I don't really remember what buildingsof his we saw. I think he had done a theater atHarvard or Radcliffe or maybe a library at Harvard orRadcliffe that we liked, and I don't remember whatother college or university buildings he had done atthe time. That style that you see at Hampshire in theearly buildings was very much in vogue in the sixties,that concrete frame wi th brick infills, and he wascertainly doing that as were some of the otherarchi tects we looked at. We thought their planningcapability was pretty good and they teamed up wellwith Sasaki, whom we had in mind, had had help from inthe making of the college and initial thinking aboutthe campus. Wasn't anything very profound aboutit ... it wasn't a long, carefully researched process,it wasn't a competition, it was just a bunch of peoplewho went to see a few archi tects and said 'I thinkthis is our person' (laughs) And we did it.

M.O.: In your opinion, sort of looking back, how welldo you think Stubbins brought the philosophy from TheMaking of a College to sort of a physical being?

C.L.: If you look at some of the other buildings andthe successor architects I think you can see from whatwe did that we thought, uh, we were getting too muchmonumentality and inflexibility from Stubbins. If youlook at Prescott house, for example, I don't know howwell that's worked out but it was certainly an effortto create a variety of spaces and a lot more interestand a lot more possibility of integrating social andacademic life than is possible in the formality ofDakin and urn, what's the name of the other house?

M.O.: Merrill House?

C.L.: Yeah, Merrill. And those were really modeled,those were kind of modeled on the Harvard / Yaleprinciple - a Master's residence and a proximate, avery proximate house with some amenities. But Stubbinsturned out to be a pretty inflexible guy. We, uh, forexample, he wanted to design the room interiors andthe furni ture and then bol t the furni ture to the

4

floors; and I set off in a different direction and gotthat modular furni ture designed and buil t which Ithought gave people a certain amount of flexibility; Idon't know how long that lasted or whether that'sstill there or if anybody uses it or likes it but, so,I think, I don't think it was a triumphal decision tohave chosen Stubbins. They did a responsible job but Ithink it was a ... it wasn't a very faithfulrepresentation of what we had in mind. I actuallythink the, urn, what Greenwich, I think Greenwichexpressed a lot better what we were trying to do eventhough it was not gonna last us long.

the sort of, wholefrom being wholly

M.a.: Well, when didcampus start to shiftmonumental architecture?

physicalStubbins'

C.L.: Well, after we built, I think Cole was the lastbuilding to be built, wasn't it? We built Cole, andJohnson, and Patterson, and Dakin and Merrill, and Ithink that was it.

M. 0.: Was there a conscious decision to move ln adifferent direction?

C.L.: Well, there was, sure, yeah. Very much so. WhenI became president, and as we began to realize theplace, why, it was a very conscious decision to getarchitects who were more imaginative and more flexibleand to create some architecture that's more fun, andwould reflect what we were trying to do which wascreate an integrated community with lots of optionsfor students instead of the very limited options thatwere in Merrill and Dakin.

M.a.: What were your feelings about the campus whileit was being put down on paper? What were some sort ofmajor emotions, as it were, or what philosophies thatyou wanted to see in this campus?

C. L.: Ah, boy, you know, you're trying to ... you'reasking me to recall things that occurred twenty fiveyears ago and I'll tell you, the major, the majoremotion we had was anxiety about get ting the placebuilt and opened, and every year having new housingand new classroom space so we could keep growing,because if we did not grow it to about thirteen tofifteen hundred in four years we were gonna go out ofbusiness. So it was not a leisurely exercise in

5

reflective thinking about ... just what step would bestmanifest the Hampshire philosophy. We weren't ignoringthat, but our real concern was, 'Can we get this damnplace built and opened in a suitable form that willcontinue to serve the students and the faculty well'And that was a real struggle because every fall we hadto have a new dormitory ready to go. I think, however,there were some overriding considerations, forexample, the proximity of the library and the CrownCenter. Now that was a very conscious and I think,good, decision to try to recognize that you don'tcompartmentalize life on a campus. You don't put ... thelife of the mind isn't the center and then on theperiphery you put the life of the body and spirit, uh,these things all work together and you ought to beable to move among them freely. That was a veryconscious decision, a conscious decision to createCole as a super flexible building; we had to fight thescientists on that because scientists want to havededicated space that's peculiar to each of theirinterests and we wanted to have space that could bemodified as different people came along and as thedisciplines changed. Obviously there was a great dealof excitement, that was probably another majoremotion ... as we went.

M.O.: In your opinion, were there any sort of majordepartures from the philosophy of the school? Irealize you've touched on some of the inflexibility ofsome of Stubbins' architecture.

C. L.: Right.

M. 0.: Do you feel that, on the whole, the campusreflects to some degree the sort of guiding principlesyou and Franklin Patterson tried to ...

C.L.: Oh, I think very much so, as it evolved, becauseI think the Arts Village is probably one of the bestmanifestations of it. The buildings are notformidable, they're informal, they're flexible,they're accommodating, they welcome use, they're notexpensive, uh, that's the kind of architecture weshould have created from the first place, rather thenthe sort of heavier, and monumental ... they're almostpyramidal in their life (laughs) dormitories orhouses. I think as we went we did pretty well, I'mreally quite pleased with how the thing evolved as wewent along. I have no idea, because I'm not really

6

current on Hampshire, whether the buildings areregarded as successful from the student's andfaculty's point of view, but obviously I hope theywould be.

M.O.: I think a lot of students,in research, tend to overlooklike, and sort of fixate on thethe inflexibility of some of the

from what I have seenthe parts that theymore difficult parts,rooms ...

C.L.: Yeah, we did create, I think, going back to giveStubbins credit, I think we created some verysuccessful lecture spaces in Patterson. I think thoserooms worked well, I don't know how they're used now,maybe the current mode of teaching doesn't employthem, but for what was going on at the time, thosewere very advanced sorts of rooms, and very useful.

M.O.: Did you have sort of a vision of how studentswould react on a social level, in a general sense,when you were planning these buildings and you wereplanning the campus?

C.L.: Well, you know, remember, Patterson waspresident, and he had a view, I think, that wasstrongly influenced by Oxford and Cambridge andHarvard and Yale of a facility that accommodated abenign mastership and eager students. I don't thinkthat the campus was envisioned for the kind ofstudents who came there in the sixties, who weretotally irreverent and totally independent, and weregoing to remake it according to what they thought wasright no matter what kind of bricks and mortar werethere. (laugh)

M.O.: Do you have sort of a ... there were the questionsI had .... Do you have any thoughts on the campus ingeneral? My paper isn't so much on a historical level,when things were built but rather why things werebuilt, and I'm trying to get insight from people whowere involved in that.

C.L.: Well my view of the campus is that the road, thering road, is too wide and too much like a highway,and that the arrival is entirely too dramatic; it'slike arriving at some kind of a Taj Majal, to come upand look in to those big buildings. I would havepreferred that you kind of find yourself on the campusafter driving in. It's not a celebratory drive up the

7

great introductory road like going into a hugesouthern plantation. I'd like to just find yourself onthe campus in a much more rural setting, smallerscale, uh, more intimate than it is. And with morebuildings, more and smaller buildings. You can't helpbut have buildings of some size and a library andscience space and so forth but I think those buildingswere backward looking rather than forward looking.

M.a.: Do you think the later architecture, the mods,

C.L.: They're much more what like I'm talking about.One of the interesting things that, this is perhaps anaside, but we had very, very good cost control, HowardPaul did a fabulous job on that, and we did not runover our budgets much at all and that was absolutelyessential if we were going to be able to do thisbecause money was clearly limited. The fact the placegot built as it did was something like a miracle, Ithink, and it's served as well as it has, with thedeficiencies that I've mentioned.

M.a.: There were several buildings that weren't built,one was the Humani ties and Arts building, which Ifound very interesting.

C . L.: I '11 tell you what happened there i that wassimple, and we were lucky. We started out with a greatbig building, a big, big building, a building to houseall of the arts and some of the Humani ties, and wewere having trouble raising money for it. It wasduring a period of high inflation and we actuallyfound that the building cost was escalating fasterthan we were raising money, and it finally occurred tome that the only way to do this was to break it intopieces and do one piece at a time. That's what we did,so that's how we started with a painting building, andthen we did the dance studio, and eventuallyPhotography building and we got it done eventuallybecause we took off, we did one bite at a time, and itturned out to be a better result, I think.

M.a.: The other building that was never built that Ifound somewhat interesting was the student pavilion,which, on the original master plan appears.

C.L.: Yes, sort of a student center idea.

8

M.O.: It originally appeared on the east side of theMerrill Quad and then moved across the street ...

C.L.: We were on the verge of it several times, but itwas a mat ter of two things, one, money, and two,whether this was really something that would be used.It 1 S very, very hard for college administrations tocreate spaces for students that the students want, andthe most successful thing like that I've seen was atWilliams college where they just had an old barn, likeour Red Barn, and students just took it over and didwhat they wanted to with it.

M.O.: Well, that's pretty much it for me, thank youvery much

C.L.: You're welcome. Nice chatting with you.

9