I think that Crossroads looks pretty nice. I do not think it's an insult to the history of Notre Dame football to put academic buildings up against the stadium as some have claimed, rather, I think it's a good use of the space and it hides most of the uninspired 90s addition. I think that the scale of the buildings relative to the stadium and nearby structures is appropriate. I could have gone for a little more Collegiate Gothic look, but the squared openings with a few curved lintels is consistent with the 1930 facade. It will get better with age and with larger trees. The insides were luxurious, which is typical of Notre Dame.
Unrelated to that, I was impressed with how they've redone the first two floors of the library, except that I wished they would have removed the perimeter offices on the second floor and reestablished access to the windows.
The South Dining Hall is still my favorite building on campus, with the Lyons arch in second place.
(no message)
and we all know who they are and where they comment. That group is apoplectic over the heresy of having Garth there. It is a petty and childish view that pretty much hates anything that violates their parochial views of how ND should behave. So be it.
The new "stadium" is well done and it is a good use of a structure that otherwise gets used only 6-10 times a year.
(no message)
The buildings are excellent and the project well done. Glad the decision makers made a great decision...and those who disagree are simply part of that 10 % who are wrong. Sure, as in any building project, one can nitpick it to death, but that is also a fruitless exercise. In the end, all that is Notre Dame seems to have been done quite well. But in any society, there are anti-Catholic, anti-democrat, anti-republican, anti-education,anti-football, anti-stone construction, anti-tree, anti-student, anti-gold, anti-blue, anti-........................factions. Get the idea?