People are discussing this design as if it is an actual design worthy of discussion. What it is is the product of a bum amateur "architect" wanting to feed his narcissism and legacy who just happens to be a billionaire. That and universities that have become slaves to money and fundraising. Charles Munger is apparently one of Buffet's cronies at Berkshire Hathaway.
It's telling that the committee was basically not involved at all and the complaints and resignation of one of the senior architects on said committee was basically dismissed without a second thought. Why even have the committee at all?
This building is an abomination about everything that is known about architecture and living spaces and flies in the face of increasing rates of student mental health issues and disorders. It's nauseating that the answer to "you're not happy inside?" is just "go outside".
Here's an except from another article I found:
> "Everybody loves light and everybody prefers natural light. But it’s a game of tradeoffs,” Munger said in an interview. “If you build a big square building, everything is conveniently near to everybody in the building. If you maximize the light, you get fewer people in the building.”
Munger is off his rocker and seems to follow a principle of maximal packing in his "designs".
I'm right there with you. That's a great suggestion that highlights the disconnect these people have with reality.
Munger also believes that wealth inequality is basically just an accidental byproduct of apparently necessary policies and that it will eventually just go away by itself. I suppose in that light, it's not hard to believe why he thinks this building is a good idea.
*edit: I did just realize, however, that the floor plan for this dorm might make an excellent layout for a large number of bedrooms in a game of Dwarf Fortress.
--------
Agreed. His assumptions seem questionable... the whole design is built around the idea that forcing students to interact is objectively good. Even ignoring the pandemic, there's no justification for this other than his assumptions that it's somehow "good".
He's a Billionaire Republican, and that alone is enough to condemn him in the present day. He does also seem to be one hell of a narcissist.
This guy is 97... he was 16 years old at the outbreak of World War II. If he has any idea what it's like to be an undergraduate, that knowledge is dated 1946.
But UCSB can't seem to turn money away, even for an obvious vanity project, because Billionaire Republican.
It would be actually an interesting challenge to build dwarf housing where everyone does get a window into a skylight or even, gasp, somewhere where Sun might shine!
It's telling that the committee was basically not involved at all and the complaints and resignation of one of the senior architects on said committee was basically dismissed without a second thought. Why even have the committee at all?
This building is an abomination about everything that is known about architecture and living spaces and flies in the face of increasing rates of student mental health issues and disorders. It's nauseating that the answer to "you're not happy inside?" is just "go outside".
Here's an except from another article I found:
> "Everybody loves light and everybody prefers natural light. But it’s a game of tradeoffs,” Munger said in an interview. “If you build a big square building, everything is conveniently near to everybody in the building. If you maximize the light, you get fewer people in the building.”
Munger is off his rocker and seems to follow a principle of maximal packing in his "designs".