Subscribe!
Rubik’s Cube of life sciences – David Brussat
by David Brussat, contributing writer, architecture – “Architecture Here and There”
Photo: courtesy, David Brussat. Proposed life sciences center in Brown’s Jewelry District campus in Providence. Rendering courtesy Brown University, TenBerke
Brown has released the design of its umpteenth medical research center in Providence’s Jewelry District. It looks just like every other building of its sort, a bland, inoffensive glass and steel nonentity designed by TenBerke, with interiors by Ballinger, encumbered with a bulky name comprising the chief donor and his wife.
The William A. and Ami Kuan Danoff Life Sciences Laboratories building with its seven stories and 300,000 square feet may be nothing to write home about from an aesthetic perspective, but Brown has assembled an announcement that informs readers of the design’s interlocking multiplicity of research purposes and capacities. The announcement is a veritable Rubik’s Cube of medical/administrative rhetoric.
Brian E. Clark, of Brown’s media relations department (the writer, it may be assumed, though it does not say), may be congratulated for the fecundity of his creativity. His first paragraph reveals its flavor. It reads as follows:
Grounded in the concepts of innovation, connection and flexibility, Brown University’s planned facility for integrated life sciences research is designed to convene scientists across multiple fields of study to solve complex, interconnected health and medical challenges.
But Mr. Clark has omitted a few words! No matter, there they are leading off the second paragraph: “state-of-the-art”:
State-of-the-art laboratory spaces illuminated by natural light, a street-level education lab accessible to the public, and plentiful interior and exterior gathering spaces are among its signature elements, as illustrated in architectural renderings released on Thursday, Sept. 12.
That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? But wait! There are still 26 more paragraphs to be read!
It is a sad commentary on a building’s design that an architecture critic can find nothing at all to say about it. Maybe the critic is to blame. I presume that my friendly rival Will Morgan will produce a more informative piece shortly.
Increasingly, the Jewelry District is refashioning itself to look more and more like the Danoff building, and in the not too distant future every building in the Jewelry District will be indistinguishable from the Danoff Building. Kiss the Jewelry District’s historical character goodbye. Is there a process for undesignating a historic district once it has been so designated?
it’s not one or the other, beauty versus content… think of Music ,can be beautiful with meaningful structured content..think Beethoven
I do not agree with Mr. Brussat’s seemingly never-ending criticism of Providence’s new architecture and its design. And, more specifically, what’s happening in the jewelry district. The objective of these edifices is not to please the eye, but rather to house opportunities for growth in the sciences while creating incubators for new ideas. The intent of these structures is to provide new and exciting career opportunities and new economies. This all happens inside the building and not on the outside surfaces. Furthermore, Mr. Brussat, have you ever heard the phrase, “Beauty is only skin deep”? How about, “it’s what is on the inside that counts”? Please Stop all this negativity. We need to make Providence a hub of something- -.whatever that may be. Please, no more distraction when we’re trying to fix the real problems. Thank
You for your time. I respectfully request that you do not respond directly to me.
Thank you, Ted, for the comment – David writes on architecture, outdoor architecture and design and its impact on, specifically, Providence. Much luck with the “what’s on the inside”, of course.