Officials pan PLC's 'graceless' design
Funding blamed for functional downfalls
When the State System of Higher Education
axes construction funds, disaster can fall on ar
chitectural blueprints like it did with the University
Prince Lucien Campbell building, a former Univer
sity president says.
And even though the PLC walls haven't crumbl
ed and the demolition company hasn't showed up
yet, PLC is “utterly graceless," says Earl Pomeroy,
retired University professor.
But, “it stands the test of time," responds
George Wallman, who was the physical plant ar
chitect at the time.
"You can criticize any building," Wallman says.
"I think they (the architects) were incompetent
in the first place but in the second place they had
to work with a limited budget," Pomeroy says. His
office is on PLC's second floor.
The building is not a good building, agrees
Robert Clark, former University president. He
M think it i5 unpleasant to walk
through the halls. They have no
regard for human spirit/
— Robert Clark
worked closely with the architects when PLC was
constructed in 1960.
"I think the architects were very good," he
says.
But the building still is an unfortunate example
of spending a lot of money on a nonfunctional pro
ject, Clark says.
Suggestions from University professors could
have made the building more functional, Pomeroy
says. In the initial planning stages, he thought pro
fessors would be able to have some say about how
departments and offices would be arranged.
"We labored under the delusion that we would
be taken seriously. At one point they gave us a lot
of assurance," he says.
He worked with other history professors mak
ing a miniature model of their idea of a functional
history section in PLC.
"But they ignored all that," he says.
He thinks one of PLC’s many problems is the
offices — too small. Pipe smoke drifts from one of
fice to the next and phone conversations can be
heard through the walls, Pomeroy says.
"The main thing is it's ugly," he says. He thinks
faculty would put up with the small offices and nar
row halls if the building looked better than it does.
"These prison-like halls are no place for
socializing," he says. Because the corridors are too
narrow to hold benches, students waiting to see a
professor must sit on the floor, he says.
And Clark agrees.
“I think it is unpleasant to walk through the
halls. They are too narrow. They don't have any
regard for the human spirit," Clark says.
"I believe the public has a responsibility in
spending public money to design and provide
buildings that are both functional and approvable
by human and asthetic values," Clark says.
"The building is a box in egg-crate fashion."
Because the state system department of finance
cut funds for the PLC project, "they destroyed ef
fectiveness of architects' designs," Clark says.
So PLC problems remain because of budget
cuts, and ultimately because of a state-wide finan
cial crisis that hit the University in 1957, Clark says.
That was about the time the planning commit
tee submitted preliminary plans to the State Board
of Higher Education finance committee, recalls
John Lallas, University executive dean.
The original plans had to meet requirements
from "innumerable offices," Wallman says.
The planners had to keep in mind that not
much space was available and because of limited
space, architectural trends in the 1960s leaned
toward high-rise educational buildings, he says.
Space utililization was a national issue at the time.
Once the preliminary plans were at the state
level, Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., recommended
the state Legislature reduce PLC funds, says Jack
Hunderup, University vice-chancellor and one of
the people on the planning committee when PLC
was built.
And Hatfield, Oregon governor at the time, ap
proved only construction plans for offices, not for
classrooms or laboratories as the original PLC in
cluded, Hunderup says.
Also cut from the original blueprint was a cen
tral lobby reading area with facilities to display art,
Clark says.
"It was designed as a humanities building and
reflected something of the values of the
humanities," Clark says.
"The legislature and the executive office did
not have the proper aesthetic standards. They used
economic factors as really about the only
criterion," he says.
elevator shaft an he top of*the Pr°f' Ear,y Pomer°y The
of artistic value in the building “he says examp,e of the ,ack
After the funds were slashed. University planners tried to make
amends by saving money when possible.
So they wanted to use a University architect from the architect
school to design the building, but state policy requires its institutions to
put projects out for bid, Clark says.
Clark says he even tried visiting the finance committee in Salem to
plead for a better building. As a result of his visit, PLC professors' offices
are twice as large as they would have been if Clark hadn't made the visit.
I fhink public officials ought to be responsible for values," he says.
"People are concerned with the environment in this state. They
otJghf to be concerned with the environment in our buildings."
When Clark looks at the old buildings on cam
pus he says PLC falls short in comparison.
Out forebears left us something we can be
proud of. Our deceased can't be proud of a
building like PLC," Clark says.
And neither would the man the building was
named after, says University archivist Keith
Richards.
"Prince Campbell loved good architecture so
we named that building after him," Richards says
jokingly.
Story by Melissa Martin
Photos by Dave Kao
Cracks in the walls and floors appeared
f've years after PLC was constructed
narrow.
Pag* *2