Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mith242

Edward Durell Stone

Recommended Posts

There was an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette today about an architect not as well known in Arkansas despite his Arkansas roots. He was born in Fayetteville and studied at the University of Arkansas. He later studied elsewhere and built buildings all over the world. He's been dead for around 27 years, and a number of his buildings don't seem to be standing the test of time. he designed Carlson Terrace at the University, a dorm for married students. But it's scheduled to be demolished and work may have already started. It was almost torn down when Bud Walton Arena was being built. But the university decided to move the building just across the street from Carlson Terrace. He also designed Busch Stadium in St Louis, but it also will come down after the Cardinal's new stadium is built. His building at 2 Columbus Circle in New York City, considered by some as an important building in the style of the 20th century, is also under threat. The building won't be torn down, but will be redesigned and will alter the exterior of the building. Stone's early work reflects his modernist style of stripped down buildings. Which has also made many people of today think of many of his buildings as plain and lackluster. He's also build many other buildings around the world and also here in Arkansas. The Pine Bluff Civic Center, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the US Embassy in New Delhi India, the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, and the General Motors Building in New York just to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I was aware of Stone to the extent that he designed the Kennedy Center in Washington, and Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Really, he's up there with E. Faye Jones (from Pine Bluff, and later UA in Fayetteville) as being a renowned Arkansas architect.

Regarding Carlson Terrace, they must go. The complex is simply an eyesore that, unfortunately, is located at the entrance to the UA. The campus is growing, and the buildings need to go and make room for something else. They were built on a small budget to begin with, and now are in a state of serious disrepair. Trust me when I say that removing these buildings does not deprive the community of valuable architecture, and this in no way diminishes Stone as an architect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware of Stone to the extent that he designed the Kennedy Center in Washington, and Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Really, he's up there with E. Faye Jones (from Pine Bluff, and later UA in Fayetteville) as being a renowned Arkansas architect.

Regarding Carlson Terrace, they must go. The complex is simply an eyesore that, unfortunately, is located at the entrance to the UA. The campus is growing, and the buildings need to go and make room for something else. They were built on a small budget to begin with, and now are in a state of serious disrepair. Trust me when I say that removing these buildings does not deprive the community of valuable architecture, and this in no way diminishes Stone as an architect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I don't think most people argue that. But it is a shame some of his work seems to be under fire here recently. But yes Carlson Terrace has fallen into a state of neglect. I think the other big point is that they take up quite a bit of room otherwise maybe there would be more serious notions of trying to preserve it. As far as Stone is concerned, I was familiar with him but until I read the article I never knew he had any Arkansas roots. I guess I'm just really surprised I never heard any mention of it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has been working to catalogue and preserve the record of Stone's structures in Arkansas. Carlson Terrace may be the most well known. I see the building on a daily basis and, while I don't think it is incredibly attractive, I believe that has as much to do with the UA negelcting the complex as it does the original design of the building.

I'm very torn on the subject of Carlson Terrace: on the one hand, the building is becoming an eyesore, through no fault of its own. On the other, the UA has bascially phased out married student housing (only international students live there now), leaving married students (like me) to deal with the likes of Sweetser, Lindsey, etc. Carlson terrace could be a viable building, but it's not on the UA's priority list.

Some more of it will be coming down this year to make room for a new Ladyback Softball Stadium. Also, the structure sits on top of a watershed/creek that the UA has had flooding problems with for years. One option is to reclaim the area partially and turn it in to a small wetland. And, of course, there's always the parking issue (even with the state's largest parking deck on campus). Carlson Terrace eats up valuable flat space on campus.

In short: within the next 5-7 years the whole place will be gone. It's a shame for many reasons, but in the end it may be best. Letting Stone's work rot away like that isn't befitting to his memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same guy that designed the underground library at Hendrix? That eventually had to be removed because of flooding.

A lot of great architects from that era fell under fire later because so much built in the 1960s and 1970s looked cheesy and outdated later but it's funny how some of that is now coming back into style again and is much more appreciated. There's another famous architect from that era that designed the Fontanebleu Hilton in Miami Beach that was much maligned for a couple of decades and now the architecture makes it kind of a landmark.

Carlson Terrace, though, that HAS to go. It just didn't stand the test of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wondered what if they keep a little bit of Carlson Terrace to at least preserve some aspect of his architecture here. Although I'm not sure what you'd do with only a small part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Its ugly now and it would be impossible to understand the small piece in the context of what the larger design was. I mean really it'll just be some dumpy old apartment. Let's be honest, if you didn't have his name attached to the complex no one would care about saving it. Bad design is bad design regardless of who created it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? Its ugly now and it would be impossible to understand the small piece in the context of what the larger design was. I mean really it'll just be some dumpy old apartment. Let's be honest, if you didn't have his name attached to the complex no one would care about saving it. Bad design is bad design regardless of who created it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying but I do think we should try to save some structures. What about Clinton's home here in Fayetteville? It's nothing special architecturally speaking. Should it be torn down too to put in an apartment complex or something? I also think sometimes it's hard to appreciate some architecture until much later. I admit I an not a huge fan of it's style either. But I think there's been a number of times where buildings were torn down because they weren't appreciated at the time and now we look back and wish we had some of those buildings now. I don't care for many of the buildings styles of the 60's and 70's. But a few more decades and I think more people might appreciate those styles more than they do now. Did people appreciate the Victorian style buildings in the 40's when they were tearing them down to put up other things? But like I said I can see your point, I'm just trying to put out another viewpoint. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton's home, Johnny Cash's home, and Daisy Bates' home are only significant because of who lived there, they aren't much to look at.

However, when you preserve a building because of its architectural history you're keeping it for a different reason. The original UAMS University Hospital was built in the 1950s by a famous architect whose name escapes me but the same guy designed Stanford's hospital in a similar fashion. Both hospitals have ledges that were supposed to preclude the need for air conditioning by shading the windows. The style was hideous and ineffective and the buildings were a problem later because they weren't designed to add AC and it was expensive to install the ductwork. No AC in the mid-South at a hospital? This architect rebounded by building Pepsi's White Plains, NY headquarters and gathering every architectural award that year for the building.

Well-known architects make mistakes I guess. Like University Hospital, Carlson Terrace doesn't really represent something worth saving to me or many others, I guess. They were utilitarian buildings that became dated very quickly and no longer fit their surroundings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aporkalypse - the name that eludes you as architect of the UAMS campus IS Ed Stone. And no, it wasn't a mistake regarding the floor-to-floor height of the building....that wasn't at all unusual at that time. As technology has advanced, the size and amount of building systems has necessitated taller floor-to-floor heights. I cannot answer the question as to exactly how prevalent A/C was when it was designed, but the use of overhangs to manage daylighting and heat gain was as innovative then as it is now...it is a great solution - AND one of the beautiful elements of the design (you should note the cast patterns under the overhangs). It is an excellent example of the Modern style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, I didn't know it was the same guy.

The old University Hospital is really an eyesore to most people and I know eventually it is slated for destruction, though its location makes that difficult.

Interesting, I always thought of it as purely utilitarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is getting off topic. Sorry, but I don't know where else to place it.

Architect, do you actually like the modern style (50s-70s) of architecture? It just seems so faceless, nameless, souless, sterile, and inhuman to me. Aside from any academic value, does the style have anything of value to offer a community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is getting off topic. Sorry, but I don't know where else to place it.

Architect, do you actually like the modern style (50s-70s) of architecture? It just seems so faceless, nameless, souless, sterile, and inhuman to me. Aside from any academic value, does the style have anything of value to offer a community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is getting off topic. Sorry, but I don't know where else to place it.

Architect, do you actually like the modern style (50s-70s) of architecture? It just seems so faceless, nameless, souless, sterile, and inhuman to me. Aside from any academic value, does the style have anything of value to offer a community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you are saying and I think I can agree to an extent. So what would say to an 80 acre tract of land being cleared to make way for say 120 of Blackwell's bullfrog style houses? :D

Ok seriously let's say you are needing to replace a large amount of a community's housing (town of about 20,000) so a few hundred to a thousand units maybe. Would you feel building a few high rises on the edge of town in the style of the UAMS dorm would be a good solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see what you are saying and I think I can agree to an extent. So what would say to an 80 acre tract of land being cleared to make way for say 120 of Blackwell's bullfrog style houses? :D

Ok seriously let's say you are needing to replace a large amount of a community's housing (town of about 20,000) so a few hundred to a thousand units maybe. Would you feel building a few high rises on the edge of town in the style of the UAMS dorm would be a good solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you saw through me. I am really only interested in the style from a planning aspect, which why I completely abhor a lot of modern architecture. That is also why I FEEL regardless of the quality and execution of some projects, specifically done in the "modern" style they will have very little value to the community in the sense of creating a stronger community as planner would like to see.

The bullfrog scenario is BS. The high rise scenario actually happened in some post WW2 projects in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah you saw through me. I am really only interested in the style from a planning aspect, which why I completely abhor a lot of modern architecture. That is also why I FEEL regardless of the quality and execution of some projects, specifically done in the "modern" style they will have very little value to the community in the sense of creating a stronger community as planner would like to see.

The bullfrog scenario is BS. The high rise scenario actually happened in some post WW2 projects in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you and I are on the same page in that "planning" is by far the most important issue. I do happen to appreciate Modern/Contemporary and eclectic/traditional, and the interplay and variety often results in a vibrant mix. This is especially true in Europe, where they very much respect the urban core and historic structures, but often mix in VERY Modern work with great results. This is especially true in Norway/Sweden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.