I don't get it. Are we now holding dorms to a lower standard than other typologies, like say office or apartment buildings? If so, why? If anything, maybe we should be holding them to a higher standard considering that dorms make up such a large percentage of what is actually getting built in this city.
Maybe the city and the architectural critic community might subsidize the schools so that they can hire more creative architects who will use more expensive materials.
They will wind up hating what they themselves compelled.
Could be uglier. More importantly, where's the laundry facilities in the building? Saw no mention of them whatsoever in the pdf.
I did a bed count for the building if those plans are really identical for floors 2-12, and then 13-16, and I came up with 731 beds. Since the proposal is for only 720 beds, I'm sure they plan on putting a laundry room somewhere. My guess: 2nd floor of the building, over the proctor station(s)... just like in West Villages F/G and International Village.
The 2nd floor is beds, no evidence of laundry there. I would think it would be on the top floor. Lots of open area. Like West H.
Just because it's the NIMBYs' fault rather than the architects' doesn't make it any better.
Are there really no NIMBYs out there who would rather look at a well-proportioned building (with probably the same amount of shadow cover overall) than a squat but somewhat shorter one? Why are these people only capable of thinking in the most crude and basic aesthetic terms? They will wind up hating what they themselves compelled.