Talk:Munger Hall

Comments
An interesting topic. Some comments for consideration below: All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, per Crystal ball, this may be premature, as it’s not been built. That said, the current content is Verifiable.
 * Second, it could do with a bit more balance. There are only two Reception comments, both wholly negative. That’s fine, but even within the current sources, there are at least two opposing, positive views. Ok, these are from university functionaries who aren’t architects and have clear vested interests, but we do need to present alternative views.
 * Third, it’s too short, mainly comprising single-sentence paragraphs. Even the current sourcing gives you quite a lot more to play with.
 * Fourth, four of the six sources are the Santa Barbara Independent. One of the remaining two is paywalled. The internet throws up a wider choice of sourcing. Oh, and re-format those horrible URLs!
 * Fifth - no infobox?
 * Sixth - no image? This, I appreciate, may be tricky as it’s not been built and the artists’ impressions will likely be copyright. But if possible, articles about buildings always look better with images.
 * , thank you for your thorough analysis! I created this draft only a few hours ago, so there is still much to do. Feel free to add further information if you have the time. Best, Thriley (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thriley - Will try. But RL is busy at present and I’m committed to working on an FAC for Ham House which must take priority. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thank you again, Thriley (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And sorry if I came across as churlish! I appreciate every effort to get good coverage of buildings on Wiki, and I know it is early days for this one. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all churlish. I appreciate that you took the time to examine it. Thriley (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with the WP:CRYSTAL comment,and I don't think it will be ready for article space until more sourcing and in-depth coverage is available. The ability of public institutions with a serious facilities problem to resist money being thrown at them with strings attached is a perennial issue, and I would not be surprised if the Board of Regents and the California Coastal Commission have a significant say sooner or later. I think we ought to wait a little while before article space. I disagree with the notion that there must be some kind of balancing math, but we should be including the attributes that Munger thinks are valuable, and mention that UCSB has a severe housing crunch and is under a court order to deal with it. Goldberger is the pre-eminent architectural critic in the U.S., and the project has received notice due to the publication of McFadden's resignation and objection.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the notion that there doesn’t need to be “balance” if both architects and architecture critiques have uniformly negative views on the project. There is still much to add about the reasoning behind the building and it’s actual design. I imagine there will be further stories in major media and comments by noted people in the architecture world as the days go on. Thriley (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

LA Times Op-Ed
Here’s a recently published LA Times op-ed on the project: It is behind a paywall. Thriley (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)