The Campus Guide: Rice University

Rating:
Summary: A masterly gem
Review: Here we go again. This is the second book in this series that I've read, and it's the second disappointment. While slightly better than the Stanford book from the same series, this book is still plagued with similar problems. Esoteric, pedantic writing. Little historical context, other than detailed descriptions of various campus plans and such. Few really good, comprehensive photographs. I guess some of my complaint with these books is that they're really written for architectural historians and should not be considered general campus guides or historical guides. General readers will be confused by the arcane, pretentious arch-speak in which buildings combine to form a "narrative" and building details "communicate" with each other. But even more silly is the over-the-top political correctness of the author. Any building design which is deferential to historical styles (including those by such famous architects as Cram, Goodhue, Robert A. M. Stern, Greenberg, Cesar Pelli and others) is inherently flawed, according to Mr. Fox. He doesn't hide the fact that he thinks that all of the structures that 99 percent of observers will find the most beautiful are the buildings that just happen to be the most worthless. Instead, he wants us to know that the real substance of good design at Rice is located in the so-called "other Rice" of support structures like parking lots and stadiums and sheds and kitchen buildings. In fact, these buildings are the most valuable because they represent the toils of "people of color." What has this to do with beautiful, artistic design I wonder? I hope these architectural historians don't take themselves seriously. I know I try not to.

Rice is a gorgeous university. Its grounds and buildings are stunning. It deserves a more artistically inclined, and less politically motivated presentation.

Rating:
Summary: Rice for the politically correct
Review: Here we go again. This is the second book in this series that I've read, and it's the second disappointment. While slightly better than the Stanford book from the same series, this book is still plagued with similar problems. Esoteric, pedantic writing. Little historical context, other than detailed descriptions of various campus plans and such. Few really good, comprehensive photographs. I guess some of my complaint with these books is that they're really written for architectural historians and should not be considered general campus guides or historical guides. General readers will be confused by the arcane, pretentious arch-speak in which buildings combine to form a "narrative" and building details "communicate" with each other. But even more silly is the over-the-top political correctness of the author. Any building design which is deferential to historical styles (including those by such famous architects as Cram, Goodhue, Robert A. M. Stern, Greenberg, Cesar Pelli and others) is inherently flawed, according to Mr. Fox. He doesn't hide the fact that he thinks that all of the structures that 99 percent of observers will find the most beautiful are the buildings that just happen to be the most worthless. Instead, he wants us to know that the real substance of good design at Rice is located in the so-called "other Rice" of support structures like parking lots and stadiums and sheds and kitchen buildings. In fact, these buildings are the most valuable because they represent the toils of "people of color." What has this to do with beautiful, artistic design I wonder? I hope these architectural historians don't take themselves seriously. I know I try not to.

Rice is a gorgeous university. Its grounds and buildings are stunning. It deserves a more artistically inclined, and less politically motivated presentation.

Rating:
Summary: A masterly gem
Review: Sadly, it is the previous reviewer who chooses to 'politicize' this gracefully-written and intricately detailed volume (based on perhaps 2-3% of the volume's commentary) --- and ultimately balanced overview of the stages of Rice's planning and growth. Contrary to what has been claimed, Fox is quite admiring of the work of Cram and other traditionalist' architects who have contributed to the physical fabric of Rice --- and provides a readable and interesting framework for this discussion of intertwining of history, planning and aesthetics. The photography fully compliments the writing.