USM | Portland

I know the "powers that be" at UMaine want to preserve Orono's status as the "flagship" campus of the system, but really....there's no reason we can't have multiple "flagship" schools.

The way I see it, Orono could remain the preeminent school for engineering, business, liberal arts and education (and athletics of course) while USM could become the flagship school for biology, life sciences and law.
Orono is a great school with lots of interesting and important work being done there (Orono is leading the way in composite engineering and renewable energy research)....but it can't be the only research university in the state.
 
Cosakita18 said:
I know the "powers that be" at UMaine want to preserve Orono's status as the "flagship" campus of the system, but really....there's no reason we can't have multiple "flagship" schools.

The way I see it, Orono could remain the preeminent school for engineering, business, liberal arts and education (and athletics of course) while USM could become the flagship school for biology, life sciences and law.
Orono is a great school with lots of interesting and important work being done there (Orono is leading the way in composite engineering and renewable energy research)....but it can't be the only research university in the state.
Click to expand...
Money. The state doesn't have the money to fund the system adequately now, let alone to build the facilities USM would need. And consolidating the distributed system we have now (UMF, UMM, UMPI and UMFK included) has proven to be a political third rail.
 
markhb said:
Money. The state doesn't have the money to fund the system adequately now, let alone to build the facilities USM would need. And consolidating the distributed system we have now (UMF, UMM, UMPI and UMFK included) has proven to be a political third rail.
Click to expand...
A new facility for biotech at USM can be financially supported, or helped along in creative ways by some of the companies who would benefit. Top graduates would enter into internship programs at IDEXX, Covetrus, and Jackson Labs in Bar Harbor. These companies would have a kind of "first dibs" on the best talent. Harvard and MIT does this. Maine Medical too with Tufts Medical School. It's why Google and Boeing Aerospace have built new buildings across from MIT. Interns only need to walk across the street. But yes, leave it up to administers in the UMaine system and nothing happens.
 
I think we have to abandon any ideas for a new law and graduate school on this campus. Their temporary move has now become one of concrete feelings of permanence. Covetrus is moving out of their offices this fall, and the entire building will be dedicated to four "interrelated" entities (see link). The investment has become much bigger than originally proposed in this temporary home remodel. I think they were seduced by its location to the court houses, WEX, Roux, and new activities in the East End Waterfront area (helicopter mounted mega yachts, for one). I wouldn't be surprised if they were looking for a developer to build them a fancy dorm nearby, designed to be more like apartments for that day when they finally do move back to the campus, which will be years away, if at all. Graduate level education has become much more linked to business now, because that's where the money is. It's been this way for years with Harvard and M.I.T., and now, finally, it has moved up 95 to Portland. Times are changing. I've got no problem with it.
https://mainelaw.maine.edu/new-home-of-maine-law/
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think this has become the Center for Graduate and Professional Education that was originally envisioned on campus (they even link to it in the article). Given that most of the services they talk about are really connected to Orono, and Glenn Cummings has left, I'm not surprised.
 
The next question I have is what becomes of the old law school building? I'd move the over dozen departments located in houses surrounding the campus to this building. Rent the houses out as student housing. It's not that bad, the old law school building, even though it was voted by Architectural Digest as one of the ugliest college buildings in America. Perhaps give it a nice cafe and a fireplace on the seventh floor, with views of the city. And paint the walls in brighter colors while adding new carpeting dotted with funky furniture. Could be worse. A lot worse.
 
TC_zoid said:
The next question I have is what becomes of the old law school building? I'd move the over dozen departments located in houses surrounding the campus to this building. Rent the houses out as student housing. It's not that bad, the old law school building, even though it was voted by Architectural Digest as one of the ugliest college buildings in America. Perhaps give it a nice cafe and a fireplace on the seventh floor, with views of the city. And paint the walls in brighter colors while adding new carpeting dotted with funky furniture. Could be worse. A lot worse.
Click to expand...
The law school building has structural and general maintenance issues that were beyond what the university system were willing to spend on saving it. The place is a POS (pardon mon francais) and needs to be demolished.
 
Thinking of the cladding that was put on One Monument Square, part of me thinks that, should it be possible to repair the Law School building, a similar treatment might be useful. I'm thinking shiny green chrome over all the beige, and then go with green-tinted windows to match.
 
PlantArch said:
The law school building has structural and general maintenance issues that were beyond what the university system were willing to spend on saving it. The place is a POS (pardon mon francais) and needs to be demolished.
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to believe that a building built with a steel skeleton in 1972 is better off demolished. I don't mind brutalist architecture, as long as it's clean. It could certainly use a good power washing, that's for sure. I think the "ugliest building" distinction, along with the campus' lackluster social life, are contributing factors to a rationalization by the school to get something new, and in the interim, locate to a more suited area of the city. I think another building, somewhat matching in form and a bit smaller in scale (all glass would be best), built across the street connected with an enclosed pedestrian bridge would help. Currently, it's a big incongruity, a lone solider, with what is around it. It pops up from viewpoints around the city, like a white helmeted Darth Vader. The university system likes to throw money around, so do it more wisely. They had wanted to build a $55 million dollar performing arts center, and now, a $56 million dollar music and arts center. This campus primarily needs a new science building for its biology and biochemistry programs. Ballerinas, clarinet players, and painters are nice to have around, but the jobs for, few and far between.
 
Last edited:
TC_zoid said:
I find it difficult to believe that a building built with a steel skeleton in 1972 is better off demolished. I don't mind brutalist architecture, as long as it's clean. It could certainly use a good power washing, that's for sure. I think the "ugliest building" distinction, along with the campus' lackluster social life, are contributing factors to a rationalization by the school to get something new, and in the interim, locate to a more suited area of the city. I think another building, somewhat matching in form and scale, built across the street connected with an enclosed pedestrian bridge would help. Currently, it's a big incongruity, a lone solider, with what is around it. The university system likes to throw money around, so do it more wisely. They had wanted to build a $55 million dollar performing arts center, and now, a $56 million dollar music and arts center. This campus primarily needs a new science building for its biology and biochemistry programs.
Click to expand...
Rip off the exterior and cover in glass. Presto, a pretty building!
 
TC_zoid said:
I find it difficult to believe that a building built with a steel skeleton in 1972 is better off demolished. I don't mind brutalist architecture, as long as it's clean. It could certainly use a good power washing, that's for sure. I think the "ugliest building" distinction, along with the campus' lackluster social life, are contributing factors to a rationalization by the school to get something new, and in the interim, locate to a more suited area of the city. I think another building, somewhat matching in form and a bit smaller in scale (all glass would be best), built across the street connected with an enclosed pedestrian bridge would help. Currently, it's a big incongruity, a lone solider, with what is around it. It pops up from viewpoints around the city, like a white helmeted Darth Vader. The university system likes to throw money around, so do it more wisely. They had wanted to build a $55 million dollar performing arts center, and now, a $56 million dollar music and arts center. This campus primarily needs a new science building for its biology and biochemistry programs. Ballerinas, clarinet players, and painters are nice to have around, but the jobs for, few and far between.
Click to expand...
It's a bit of a moot point anyway as the building is already scheduled to be demolished once the new digs are ready.

www.constructionequipmentguide.com

USM to See Its 'Ugly' Law School Building Demolished : CEG

The University of Southern Maine's School of Law building, at the intersection of Brighton Avenue, Deering Avenue and Falmouth Street in Portland, will be demolished and replaced with a more modern facility at the same site on campus.
www.constructionequipmentguide.com www.constructionequipmentguide.com
 
"In addition, the committee endorsed a plan to demolish the current law building, citing the fact that is woefully outdated and in dire need of repair." I mean, I won't miss this thing. Who will? But demolished because it is outdated? I'd say the majority of structures in Maine are outdated, and many in need of repair. I think the "ugliest building" distinction has hurt their egos; made them feel bad about having to go in this "thing." So, demolish it and then beg for more state money to build another. I do agree that the 8 story "twin towers" dorm on the Gorham campus has to go. They look "woeful" too, in many respects, and could probably be knocked over into a pile with a gentle excavator push, like that leaning green garage thing on Washington Ave., which appears to be on the cusp of sliding down the hill to a final resting place on Anderson Street. Actually, I'd like to see that. I've walked past it, with exactly that urge, to give it a mere nudge. I think that's all it needs.
 
TC_zoid said:
I do agree that the 8 story "twin towers" dorm on the Gorham campus has to go. They look "woeful" too, in many respects, and could probably be knocked over into a pile with a gentle excavator push....
Click to expand...
Yeah, but would it really be USM without a dorm called "Dickey Wood Hall"?
 
Sorry to belabor the point, or maybe I'm not, but the law school building can be saved. I think the primary problem here is its crown. It doesn't sit correctly (it's weird). Remove this ill-conceived feature and add a top floor of all glass (to match the look of the existing windows) and use it as social space. The new Student Center at USM going up now has been designed with most of its space as exactly that--social gathering. Construct this new all glass floor so that the entire peripheral top becomes glass. The views would be fantastic (sunsets, sunrises, the White Mountains, downtown, the harbor). A cafe/lounge/meeting center creates excitement again. They had better not raze this building as there is nothing substantively wrong with its structural integrity. I don't care what the rationalizations are. The "Top 10 ugliest college buildings in America" has hurt their precious egos. A few years back I was in Padova, Italy. The central part of the town is constructed with buildings dating back 500 years. People still walk within and use them! Is the school saying that these truly ancient buildings have more structural integrity than one built out of a steel framework and reinforced concrete, a mere fifty years ago, is not? (1972) This period was the heyday of Brutalist Architecture, and buildings were built like fortresses (Boston City Hall). I think if the appearance of the crown is dramatically improved, with a greater aesthetic (easy), it won't look too bad. It truly is amazing, or sad, that an institution with an educational purpose has to simply give up like this without a solution other than to just spend more money, like a drunk paramour on Rodeo Drive. My armchair architect self won't allow it. I think my nearly thirty years in media is going to have to step inside here. Perhaps an editorial in the PPH. I'll need to do a little investigative work though, first. Easy.
 
Last edited:
TC_zoid said:
Sorry to belabor the point, or maybe I'm not, but the law school building can be saved. I think the primary problem here is its crown. It doesn't sit correctly (it's weird). Remove this ill-conceived feature and add a top floor of all glass (to match the look of the existing windows) and use it as social space. The new Student Center at USM going up now has been designed with most of its space as exactly that--social gathering. Construct this new all glass floor so that the entire peripheral top becomes glass. The views would be fantastic (sunsets, sunrises, the White Mountains, downtown, the harbor). A cafe/lounge/meeting center creates excitement again. They had better not raze this building as there is nothing substantively wrong with its structural integrity. I don't care what the rationalizations are. The "Top 10 ugliest college buildings in America" has hurt their precious egos. A few years back I was in Padova, Italy. The central part of the town is constructed with buildings dating back 500 years. People still walk within and use them! Is the school saying that these truly ancient buildings have more structural integrity than one built out of a steel framework and reinforced concrete, a mere fifty years ago, is not? (1972) This period was the heyday of Brutalist Architecture, and buildings were built like fortresses (Boston City Hall). I think if the appearance of the crown is dramatically improved, with a greater aesthetic (easy), it won't look too bad. It truly is amazing, or sad, that an institution with an educational purpose has to simply give up like this without a solution other than to just spend more money, like a drunk paramour on Rodeo Drive. My armchair architect self won't allow it. I think my nearly thirty years in media is going to have to step inside here. Perhaps an editorial in the PPH. I'll need to do a little investigative work though, first. Easy.
Click to expand...
Remove the ugly "castle top" and cover in glass - presto.
 
TC_zoid said:
Sorry to belabor the point, or maybe I'm not, but the law school building can be saved. I think the primary problem here is its crown. It doesn't sit correctly (it's weird). Remove this ill-conceived feature and add a top floor of all glass (to match the look of the existing windows) and use it as social space. The new Student Center at USM going up now has been designed with most of its space as exactly that--social gathering. Construct this new all glass floor so that the entire peripheral top becomes glass. The views would be fantastic (sunsets, sunrises, the White Mountains, downtown, the harbor). A cafe/lounge/meeting center creates excitement again. They had better not raze this building as there is nothing substantively wrong with its structural integrity. I don't care what the rationalizations are. The "Top 10 ugliest college buildings in America" has hurt their precious egos. A few years back I was in Padova, Italy. The central part of the town is constructed with buildings dating back 500 years. People still walk within and use them! Is the school saying that these truly ancient buildings have more structural integrity than one built out of a steel framework and reinforced concrete, a mere fifty years ago, is not? (1972) This period was the heyday of Brutalist Architecture, and buildings were built like fortresses (Boston City Hall). I think if the appearance of the crown is dramatically improved, with a greater aesthetic (easy), it won't look too bad. It truly is amazing, or sad, that an institution with an educational purpose has to simply give up like this without a solution other than to just spend more money, like a drunk paramour on Rodeo Drive. My armchair architect self won't allow it. I think my nearly thirty years in media is going to have to step inside here. Perhaps an editorial in the PPH. I'll need to do a little investigative work though, first. Easy.
Click to expand...
I'm likiing it!!!

800x0_s3-52139-Screen-Shot-2021-05-12-at-9_20_50-AM by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
 
See that ugly crown? Can you say "power wash?" Sometimes a "hat" can be ugly. Just look at the Royals. They're known for that too.
 
TC_zoid said:
Sorry to belabor the point, or maybe I'm not, but the law school building can be saved. I think the primary problem here is its crown. It doesn't sit correctly (it's weird). Remove this ill-conceived feature and add a top floor of all glass (to match the look of the existing windows) and use it as social space. The new Student Center at USM going up now has been designed with most of its space as exactly that--social gathering. Construct this new all glass floor so that the entire peripheral top becomes glass. The views would be fantastic (sunsets, sunrises, the White Mountains, downtown, the harbor). A cafe/lounge/meeting center creates excitement again. They had better not raze this building as there is nothing substantively wrong with its structural integrity. I don't care what the rationalizations are. The "Top 10 ugliest college buildings in America" has hurt their precious egos. A few years back I was in Padova, Italy. The central part of the town is constructed with buildings dating back 500 years. People still walk within and use them! Is the school saying that these truly ancient buildings have more structural integrity than one built out of a steel framework and reinforced concrete, a mere fifty years ago, is not? (1972) This period was the heyday of Brutalist Architecture, and buildings were built like fortresses (Boston City Hall). I think if the appearance of the crown is dramatically improved, with a greater aesthetic (easy), it won't look too bad. It truly is amazing, or sad, that an institution with an educational purpose has to simply give up like this without a solution other than to just spend more money, like a drunk paramour on Rodeo Drive. My armchair architect self won't allow it. I think my nearly thirty years in media is going to have to step inside here. Perhaps an editorial in the PPH. I'll need to do a little investigative work though, first. Easy.
Click to expand...
Anything can be saved for a price. The bottom line is that the building simply cannot be retrofitted to perform the functions it needs to. Basic repair costs alone are in excess of $20 million without any real re-visioning of the place. They would only be throwing good money after bad by trying to bring the place up to standards. The argument that they should is ridiculous.
 
PlantArch said:
Anything can be saved for a price. The bottom line is that the building simply cannot be retrofitted to perform the functions it needs to. Basic repair costs alone are in excess of $20 million without any real re-visioning of the place. They would only be throwing good money after bad by trying to bring the place up to standards. The argument that they should is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Basic repairs for $20 million? Why don't other buildings that are 50 years old, including all the turn of the 20th century buildings in the Old Port, in need of $20 million in basic repairs? They simply want new state-of-the-art in EVERYTHING. Cape Elizabeth is going to build some new school buildings, for $127 million. The high-tech Passivehaus Friends school in Yarmouth was built a few years ago for $4 million (Kaplan Thompson). Ask a school system what it needs for money to build something, and they will get the quote that is ten times higher. Always. The Law School building isn't any worse than any other building on the USM campus, and those are doing just fine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top