MoCon Demolition Set for Summer 2010

Comments

24 responses to “MoCon Demolition Set for Summer 2010”

1. 

   February 14, 2010

   Suzy Shedd, ’80

   I am heartsick about this. The technique used here is a classic when developers wish to rid themselves of “inconvenient” old buildings: you simply stop all proper maintenance, which makes any possible rehab or re-use so expensive that it is no longer feasible. Trustees claimed they had “made no decision” about the building when alums questioned them, refusing to acknowledge what most of us said — a decision not to provide basic maintenance is a decision to destroy.

   This is not the first time Wesleyan has trashed its architectural history, but this is by far the most egregious assault in my memory. While the bulk of the blame must lie with the Bennet administration, this decision reflects very badly on President Roth as well. He (and members of his administration) have persistently framed this problem in terms of concern for “emotional connection” to the building. This meme obscures the truth: MoCon is significant architecturally and has the potential to lend its architectural clout to another use (art museum, which we need, perhaps?) Making this sound like it’s a matter of sentiment is a dishonest frame to cover administrative vandalism. Shameful.

   Reply
2. 

   February 14, 2010

   Shaun Partridge

   I love MoCon! I always loved eating there. It’s so space age groovy. My Alma Mater brother, Kapelovitz & I used to call it ModCon. This is one structure that really could be used as a art museum, dance hall…so many different options. The only good thing about tearing this down is when I finally get a time machine, I can go back there and have a lovely, MoCon, filling meal.

   P.S. Who could forget all of the people who would give speeches at the top of the stairs because of the acoustics? Does anyone remember the time this guy gave an obnoxious speech and Public Safety were called? They ended up hog-tying him and dragging him out. So many MoCon memories. Same with the MoCon Smoke-outs. Of course, those don’t exist anymore because Wesleyan sadly is not the radical college I first knew and loved.

   Reply
3. 

   February 14, 2010

   Fan of Mocon

   The accusation of alumni sentimentality is particularly unfair. All aesthetics are simply a matter of preference. Some loathe Mocon others (myself included) admire it. My mental picture of the Wesleyan campus will always include Mocon, even when it is gone. As for the economics of the decision, this excuses the lack of maintenance and those responsible for it. I have faced these issues (aesthetics and economics) numerous times over the years as I have sought to protect historic architecture in our community. There is never more than a minority that values the aesthetics of the decaying structure and the economics are always against the effort. The key to our success has always been a white knight. Alas, no such knight has appeared to save Mocon.

   Reply
4. 

   February 14, 2010

   Brian J. Glenn ’91

   I agree with Suzy Shedd’s comments entirely. If Mocon were put in the hands of the proper architectural firm, the results could maintain the presence of the current building and still offer a visionary use for future generations—and this is exactly what should be done.

   This is neither the time nor the place to go into the history of the decision to raze this landmark building. Rather, I want to point out that there is another option. The comments in the article give the impression that Mocon must be demolished because at the current time it is too expensive to refurbish. This reasoning is predicated on what is known as a “zero sum” model in which every dollar donated to the refurbishing Mocon would be a dollar less that could go to Wesleyan’s stunningly large and growing deficit. But this reasoning is not necessarily so, and we cannot know for certain unless the university reached out to potential donors. There may well be alumni who would contribute generously to the protection of Mocon who would not otherwise donate that same amount for other purposes.

   Current students may not recall the massive undertaking almost a decade ago to refurbish the ’92 Theater and the Chapel. Wesleyan invested $22 million in that project, which was completed in 2003, and now has beautiful and functional buildings that will serve another generation, as they have done in various capacities for over a century. Wesleyan does not need to refurbish Mocon at present; indeed all the university needs to do for the moment is protect the current structure from physical degradation until the time when funds are raised and the university is on stronger financial footing. This is an investment certainly worth making!

   Readers may also be unaware that when the trustees named the dining hall after President McConaughy, they noted their policy of only naming campus buildings after presidents if those buildings were to be of lasting value. The trustees intended the building we know affectionately call Mocon would serve Wesleyan for generations, just as the Chapel and the ’92 Theater (which was previously the university’s library and was known then as Rich Hall) have done.

   Wesleyan has a long tradition of adapting buildings for new uses. Harriman Dormitory was redesigned to become the John Andrus Center for Public Affairs. The John Bell-Scott Laboratory became the Davenport Campus Center, which has recently become the Albritton Center. Downey House was previously the faculty club, and as mentioned above, the university library was converted into a theater. Wesleyan still has these buildings and will enjoy them deep into the future for the simple reason that the trustees and the administration engendered the will to refurbish them among the stakeholders in the larger Wesleyan community.

   President Roth and the current Board of Trustees should do the same with McConaughy.

   Reply
5. 

   February 15, 2010

   Eric Postel ’77

   I always loved the view out all the glass. Having been in charge of producing campus concerts for almost two years, I also have fond memories of some of the folks who played there such as
   Weather Report
   Orleans (with now Congressman John Hall)
   Marshall Tucker Band
   Keith Jarrett
   Flatt and Scruggs
   Robert Palmer
   David Sancious (of initial Bruce Springsteen Band and typically keyboards for Sting these days)
   David Bromberg

   and many others.

   And then there was the time I had to cancel a concert in the middle of it due to a bomb scare some idiot called in. It was a real pain to set up for concerts there and have security but I still liked the place. For one concert I was so tired that I slept on the floor behind the serving line while the main performer was on stage.

   Bye Bye McConaughy

   Reply
6. 

   February 15, 2010

   Ron Medley, `73

   I find it very hard to believe that something closely resembling McConoughy, taking full advantage of the site, could not and would not be built in the not too distant future or whenever funds became available. Any competent architectural firm could design something with a three or four story atrium and complete it according to the latest LEEDS specifications. This isn’t the ancient Pyramids we’re talking about.

   Farewell, McConaughy. Until we meet again.

   Reply
7. 

   February 15, 2010

   Jim McConaughy, ’68, MA ’74

   In spite of the many tributes and reminiscences, the truth is that building has not marshaled the stakeholders to rescue it from demolition. The building does not have a champion who can present a persuasive argument of logic or passion to a group whose mind has been made up for some time. Apparently, in spite of what seems obvious to alumni, no trustee, administrator, professor or accomplished graduate stepped up with the vision to make this building part of Wesleyan’s future.

   The building fell out of graces with the master, whose plan for some time has not included its name or its place on the map. They simply decided take it apart, bit by bit, several years ago and there was no one to stop them. The voice that the trustees have heard and listened to is that the building had to go. Was this inevitable? Was this just another example of buildings from the 1960’s that haven’t been adaptable to the 21st century? So many poorly designed buildings from that era, both public and private, have seen the wrecking ball, and many would agree rightfully so, in spite of the apparent waste. But was the building they used to call McConaughy Hall in that category? Poor design, too expensive to operate and maintain, just not “worth it” anymore?

   Put its beauty and unique design, its history, and its great versatility and adaptability which lent itself to be used for so many different special occasions, up against the needs of the university to run the place like a business, and the building just doesn’t know what to say. It cannot make the case. It has no one to make the case for it. It has no advocate in that court. It just thought that it was part of Wesleyan, like Shanklin, Fiske, Olin. It felt loved and appreciated. It felt useful. It felt that it contributed to the unique personal and group experiences that defined what Wesleyan was. It was given a glorious dedication. Famous people spoke and performed there. It didn’t think that it would have to defend itself. It carefully fit into the Foss Hill plan and contributed to the quality of the Wesleyan experience for thousands. It helped to build bridges with the community. Was it not safe to think that as it aged, it would continue to contribute and to be cared for? That if you added up all the concerts, special events, memories and experiences, it had proven its value? Apparently not. Maybe it was because the building was on the edge of the campus. Or maybe it started with the name.

   It had a perfectly good name, christened it the memory of a former president who brought Wesleyan through the depression and kept her strong, paying great attention to freedom of expression by the faculty while nurturing alumni support. Over the years, this four syllable surname was too formal or too long or too something and a silly nickname was informally adopted by the next generation. The nickname stuck and soon it was adopted officially, such to the extent that the above Argus article felt no need to put the fictitious name of “MoConaughy” in quotes, either copying what they had received from the Vice President’s office or not realizing what the actual name of the building was.

   So, whether it was its geographical location, or the quality of the food, or the high B&G maintenance costs, or those above average electrical bills from Connecticut Light and Power, or the “unit cost” presentations from the committee assigned to such things, somewhere along the line, and probably some time ago, McConaughy Hall fell out of favor with the trustees, and the more recent individual voices of the alumni have not been loud enough to get their attention. Too little too late.

   In researching the life of my grandfather and the contributions he made to Wesleyan (president), Connecticut (governor) and the country (he took a leave of absence during the war to become head of United China Relief and then Deputy Director of the O.S.S.), I have come to have a much better understanding of the man I have no memory of meeting (he died a year and a half after I was born). The family was greatly honored to have this building named after him in the 60’s because it validated the appreciation of the university to the 18 years he gave it. It is, of course, a great personal loss for the family to see this building dismantled and its value discounted. But more importantly, in losing the building that meant so much to people who never even knew my grandfather (or knew what his name was), I am wondering if Wesleyan has made a miscalculation of what some of its assets are really worth.

   Jim McConaughy, ’68, M.A. ’74

   Reply
8. 

   February 16, 2010

   Ezra Silk

   Hi Jim,

   If you would like your comment posted on the Argus website as an article/post, please let me know. My email is esilk@wesleyan.edu.

   Reply
9. 

   February 16, 2010

   Paul Bostwick ’87

   This is clearly a failure of imagination. Not surprising given the recent performance of the team.

   I have nothing to add (I think the previous posters put it quite well) except to remind readers to diversify their investments of all types, not just money but time and care: James McConaughy did and to good effect: CT remembers him and I suspect the O.S.S. remembers. Wesleyan forgets. You cannot be sure which institutions will or will not respect your contribution. Think also of the building’s Architect. One hopes there is some other example of this work entrusted into more thoughtful hands.

   Oh, one more thing, that McConaughy was the President during the (first?) Depression seems especially poignant.

   Reply
10. 

    February 16, 2010

    Dave Feldman ’73 AKA David Harp

    I loved playing my harmonica (badly, in the early years) from 1970 until it was closed, on the McConaughy Grand Podium (top of the stairs).

    Why don’t we have
    A BIG FINAL MCCONAUGHY CONCERT
    during commencement/reunion in May? I’ll be more than happy to play, that’s for sure. And I bet lots of other alums would be, as well. And lots happy to attend and listen, too.

    If we can’t find the will or the power to maintain McConaughy, at least we can give it a fitting farewell…the building (and the man for whom it is named) deserve at least that much…

    Reply
11. 

    February 16, 2010

    Ron Medley, `73

    Paul Bostwick `87 wrote: Think also of the building’s Architect. One hopes there is some other example of this work entrusted into more thoughtful hands.

    I think all the original Foss Hill residence halls (both phase I&II) were designed by the same architect. I would hope that any future replacement be as mindful as possible of the surrounding buildings which are light, geometric, and ambient in feeling. I don’t think even President Butterfield realized at the time that they would be among the most flexibly durable — the most storied halls — in the history of Wesleyan. In fifty years they have gestated West College, the Sun Up Press (probably, before your time, Paul), a t.v. room where half the campus gathered to watch the evening news every weeknight (sadly, long gone) , countless hours of music rehearsal and performance, food, sledding and veiled references on “How I Met Your Mother”. Yes, my hat is off to The Architect.

    Reply
12. 

    February 20, 2010

    Matthew Weiner ’87

    Another building we will see in books and wonder how could it ever have been destroyed.

    It’s shameful that this is happening at Wesleyan. It shows such a supreme disrespect for the arts. How fascinating that a building of that architectural significance has to justify it’s financial value.

    And on that note, what an interesting message to Donors: “Wesleyan has no memory, no respect for the arts, and no desire to keep it’s promises to the very patrons of its monuments.”

    I went to Wesleyan during the Reagan years and we spent a lot of time having to prove the value of art. We were constantly under attack to justify it financially. I’m disappointed to see the same business Darwinism and specious logic of “the marketplace” applied to what is clearly an architecturally significant structure.

    And what I find the most fascinating is that it’s considered a childish weakness to have an emotional attachment to this building.

    Who decided MoCon was worthless? Who decided it wasn’t art? Who decided this was progress?

    Whomever they were, they obviously forgot that a University’s true financial health is related to its standing in the mind of its graduates.

    And yes, that is emotional.

    Reply
13. 

    February 20, 2010

    Ron Medley, `73

    Michael,
    I think it’s fine to have an emotional response to art. I and others have been paying our respects to Mocon for the better part of fifteen years, now, ever since it became obvious that the original plans for what would eventually become Usdan, would leave Mocon an orphaned building.

    Perhaps, you will recall the discussion of Wes-chat, the alumni listserv, a few months ago where we brainstormed alternate uses for Mocon.

    The nearest to a practical plan any of us were able to devise was to turn remove the glass walls and turn the whole thing into a giant gazebo. Seriously, someone went so far as to consult an engineer for a seat-of-the-pants feasibility estimate. But, the cost of replacing those fabulous panoramic glass windows (which we were told doubled as load bearing walls) with steel beams, would equal the cost
    of building a new structure from scratch.

    Every plan to retrofit Mocon for the 21st century of which I am aware, would involve an enormous amount of consensus as to what it would be used for and how much it would be wise to spend.

    You and I are both city kids. It is impossible to walk across Manhattan without bumping into the ghosts of landmarks past: the Biltmore Hotel where Holden Caulfield waited “under the clock”, the Palm Court at The Plaza. Even, Madison Square Garden, which bares more than a superficial resemblance to Mocon, sits upon the ruins of the old Pennsylvania Railroad Station.

    If these works of art were library books or drawings on a canvas we could store them forever. But, it isn’t easy slipping an entire building between two sheets of acid free paper.

    And yes, I remember, the eighties quite well; I had more than my share of ex-pottery majors slam their receivers in my ear during phonathons.

    Reply
14. 

    February 20, 2010

    Ron Medley, `73

    Matthew,
    I think it’s fine to have an emotional response to art. I and others have been paying our respects to Mocon for the better part of fifteen years, now, ever since it became obvious that the original plans for what would eventually become Usdan, would leave Mocon an orphaned building.

    Perhaps, you will recall the discussion on Wes-chat, the alumni listserv, a few months ago where we brainstormed alternate uses for Mocon.

    The nearest to a practical plan any of us were able to devise was to turn remove the glass walls and turn the whole thing into a giant gazebo. Seriously, someone went so far as to consult an engineer for a seat-of-the-pants feasibility estimate. But, the cost of replacing those fabulous panoramic glass windows (which we were told doubled as load bearing walls) with steel beams, would equal the cost
    of building a new structure from scratch.

    Every plan to retrofit Mocon for the 21st century of which I am aware, would involve an enormous amount of consensus as to what it would be used for and how much it would be wise to spend.

    You and I are both city kids. It is impossible to walk across Manhattan without bumping into the ghosts of landmarks past: the Biltmore Hotel where Holden Caulfield waited “under the clock”, the Palm Court at The Plaza. Even, Madison Square Garden, which bares more than a superficial resemblance to Mocon, sits upon the ruins of the old Pennsylvania Railroad Station.

    If these works of art were library books or drawings on a canvas we could store them forever. But, it isn’t easy slipping an entire building between two sheets of acid free paper.

    And yes, I remember, the eighties quite well; I had more than my share of ex-pottery majors slam their receivers in my ear during phonathons.

    Reply
15. 

    February 20, 2010

    Ron Medley, `73

    sorry for the double post.

    Reply
16. 

    February 21, 2010

    publius

    Ron Medley ’73 is definitely the alum of the year

    Reply
17. 

    February 21, 2010

    Anonymous

    It’s not the real Matthew Weiner; he spelled “its” wrong. Also, the building was hella ugly and the school is falling apart in much more significant ways than the loss of some moderately dope, if hella ugly, architecture (i.e. there’s no longer any canonical or rigorous/consistent theoretical basis in virtually any major–and so each is basically composed of 10 unrelated 100-level classes).

    Reply
18. 

    February 21, 2010

    Ron Medley, `73

    It’s okay. Ron Medley wasn’t quite himself either.

    Reply
19. 

    February 22, 2010

    Michael Bay ’69

    bring it on, suckas

    Reply
20. 

    February 22, 2010

    Michael Roth ’78

    I am Michael Bay.

    Reply
21. 

    February 26, 2010

    Brian J. Glenn ’91

    The following email from someone at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, dated Feb 25, 2010, was sent to an alumna, who has shared it on Weschat. Thought I would pass it on.

    Brian J. Glenn ’91

    # # #

    In response to your recent inquiry, the CT Trust for Historic Preservation has been working to encourage the preservation of McConaughy Hall, but without much success.

    The 1962 cylindrical dining hall and the related Foss Hill development (1957-1962) were designed by architect Charles Warner / Brown Lawford & Forbes in a modernist style that incorporated many native materials. McConaughy Hall and the Foss Hill buildings are historically and architecturally significant as an expression of Connecticut Modernism and as an important chapter in the development of the Wesleyan campus.

    I met with some of the faculty and staff at Wesleyan in the summer of 2007 to take a close look at McConaughy Hall and the related Foss Hill section of the campus. At the time of my visit McConaughy Hall was in very stable condition even though it was no longer in active use. The building’s large volume and multi-level access seemed to offer many opportunities for adaptive reuse.

    Unfortunately, the college was not responsive to my suggestions for preserving the building, securing it from damage, and exploring creative options for adaptive reuse. As a nonprofit organization, the leverage of the CT Trust is limited, but I hope that there might be sufficient interest among the Wesleyan alumni to explore the issue more completely before deciding on demolition.

    The Connecticut Trust and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have been working with the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism to document and preserve many of the state mid-20th century Modernist buildings. We have had some success in Hartford, New Haven and New Canaan, but many of the modern buildings by important architects have been demolished or are in danger of demolition.

    With the current media focus on sustainability, the CT Trust has been emphasizing that the adaptive reuse of existing buildings is the most cost effective type of recycling. Any existing building contains a high level of “embodied energy” – the energy that was expended to produce and transport the original materials and erect the building. That embodied energy is lost when the building is demolished and the materials are sent to a landfill. A life-cycle analysis of existing buildings will often demonstrate that appropriate rehabilitation and adaptive reuse can meet or exceed the performance of new construction.

    I hope that you and other members of the Wesleyan community can persuade Wesleyan University to take another look at the options for adaptive reuse of McConaughy Hall.

    If I can assist in any way, please let me know.

    Thanks,
    —
    Gregory Farmer, Circuit Rider
    Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation
    National Trust for Historic Preservation
    940 Whitney Ave.
    Hamden, CT 06517

    Reply
22. 

    April 14, 2010

    Paul D O’Brien, Class of 1964

    My fondest memory of McConaughy Dining Hall is hearing Martin Luther King give a speech there during one of his frequent visits to the campus in the early sixties. He was impressive.

    Reply