In its interim report released Jan. 25, the Committee on Reimagining the Brown Campus and Community suggested that the University build a proper concert hall in the Jewelry District. While this plan has merit, considering that Brown is the only Ivy League institution without a concert venue, the recommendation as it stands poses significant problems. Before the committee draws up its formal recommendations in April, we ask its members to consider specifically how the building can cater to a wider portion of the student body, instead of falling into the framework of overspecialization that has limited the use of many other buildings on campus.
We question the value of prioritizing yet another building venture over numerous other needs. There has been a continual debate on campus over the last year surrounding the value of new or renovated facilities when the University’s need-blind admissionspolicy has yet to live up to its promise. While one of the very valid justifications for new buildings, athletic facilities and performance spaces is that they attract high-caliber students in their respective fields, the University’s priority should first be to provide those students with necessary financial support and a strong, intellectual community. Without these essential elements, we doubt students will be attracted to Brown in the first place, fancy buildings or not. We all want a beautiful campus, but most of us would agree maintaining an intellectual culture that makes the existence of that campus meaningful should come first. If a concert hall is a priority, it should not come at the expense of expanding need-blind admission.
In addition, we strongly disagree with the idea of locating a concert hall in the Jewelry District. The distance between the main campus and the Jewelry District renders the suggestion problematic on multiple levels. According to a March 11 article in The Herald, a major concern for student musicians is transporting instruments when going to rehearsal. This would be exacerbated by the inconvenience of moving equipment off-campus.
Constructing a concert venue off College Hill could create schisms within the student body, as certain portions of the population would spend a significant amount of time physically absent from the rest of the community. Separation from the main campus would make using the space extremely inconvenient for other student groups interested in using the concert hall — meaning the hall would likely be of use mainly to one institution that performs only a few times annually.
Advocates for a new building have pointed to the fact that it can be a space for guest speakers and other large events. While Brown has a number of buildings — such as Alumnae Hall, Sayles Hall and the Perry and Marty Granoff Center for the Creative Arts — that are intended to address multiple campus needs, these are often designed without properly considering the many groups that will use them. For instance, Sayles Hall draws complaints about its “muddy” sound when holding orchestral performances. Theatrical performances in Alumnae Hall often must deal with poor building acoustics as well. Even Granoff offers limited space to watch performances.
The University must take into account specific student needs in planning any concert hall, specifically by soliciting input from students and considering design limitations of the other performance spaces on campus. Expanding campus infrastructure should not merely attempt to fill one need. Any efforts to build a new hall require creative and critical thinking about how this space would fit into the existing culture at Brown.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Dan Jeon, and its members, Mintaka Angell, Samuel Choi, Nicholas Morley and Rachel Occhiogrosso. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
