Residents express their dissatisfaction at the Radian

The deadline for residents to renew leases at the Radian at this year's rate is Nov. 15.

According to some Radian residents, the luxury complex has not quite lived up to its lofty price and reputation.

Initially touted for its state-of-the-art accommodations and convenient location, complaints about the Radian have become more common, with many suggesting the building is unattractive, ill-equipped or generally overrated.

Now, more than two months after move in and as residents consider whether or not to renew leases for next year, some are speaking up about what they think the builders could have done better.

The deadline for residents to renew their leases at this year's rate is Nov. 15.

A building manager said about 100 students not living in the Radian this year have expressed interest in the complex for next year. The number of students who have renewed their leases was not available.

College sophomore Claire Beveridge said what she dislikes most about the building are the uncovered concrete floors and said builders "definitely could've done the inside better."

"It looks like there's flattened gum on the floors," said Beveridge, who lived in Hill College House last year.

Engineering junior Erik Skirkanich expressed similar sentiments about his four-bedroom apartment.

"The concrete's not too appealing, even though it's supposed to be in style," Skirkanich said. "Everyone else I've spoken with think it's a bit too revealing."

He said the main rooms and hallways had concrete floors and ceilings, with unsightly concrete columns in every bedroom.

Skirkanich has already decided that the Radian is not his first choice for living accommodations next year.

"As of right now, no," he said, in response to whether or not he would renew his lease.

Rachel Kihn, spokeswoman for Radian developer Inland American Communities, defended the building's features but encouraged residents to make their concerns known so that they can be addressed effectively.

"We appreciate our residents' feedback and take their concerns seriously," Kihn wrote in an e-mail.

She wrote that the Architype Review named the Radian a 2008 Notable Project, and the building has been recognized for its stormwater management practices.

"The Radian features an award-winning, minimalist design, with unfinished concrete elements that reflect its urban setting, and we are pleased with the feedback," she wrote.

Despite a few minor concerns, College sophomore Zach Leonsis considers the Radian a vast improvement from living in Hill College House last year.

"There have been a few issues about mail and delivery, but it's nice being the first person to use your own living space," he said.

College sophomore Rebecca Sussman is still deciding whether or not to renew her lease.

"I think it's one of the ugliest buildings around campus," said Sussman, who lived in the Quad last year. "I feel like it's a middle step between living on campus with an RA and living in an off-campus house."

Related StoriesA campus moves forward - NewsCampuses now prime spots for luxury apartments - NewsA little bit of chaos to complicate move-in - News

Comments (10)

Uh oh. This sounds like the complaints about the Paul Rudolph Art and Architecture Building at Yale. Lauded by the artistes and critics when constructed, the students loathed it. The even set fire to it. Try to remember that the great winding staircase at Furness was considered a monstrous thing for decades.

Penn students are suburbanites. They should have built nice comfy suburban-type residences (familiar McMansiony style with beautiful fake wood floors, etc) rather than attempt to make an art statement. Penn students aren't aware of or interested in art or in sophisticated ideas about architecture, much less environment (stormwater management).

[QUOTE id="9268477f-b373-4f41-9d08-5f8a4e582ac5"]Penn students are suburbanites. They should have built nice comfy suburban-type residences (familiar McMansiony style with beautiful fake wood floors, etc) rather than attempt to make an art statement. Penn students aren't aware of or interested in art or in sophisticated ideas about architecture, much less environment (stormwater management).[/QUOTE] This syndrome is not confined to Penn students. Overall, we are enduring the deadening impact of the Republican Right, the legacy of which will cast a very long shadow. On this note, Yale has selected as architect for 2 more college houses the same architect who designed the McNeill Center at Penn. The latter is a banality not capable of competing with the Law School, much less Zeta Psi, a private fraternity. Verification of the stultifying impact of our politically correct culture can be found by contrasting the design of the Wharton School to the R. Crumb exhibit at the ICA. The latter happening to contain signs of actual life.

Here I thought they bought a used silo from International Harvester and dressed it up with some big used bricks -- you know, one of those urban green type projects, like the houses made out of shipping containers. McNeil on the other hand: I thought that design was intended as a satire. It's pretty funny.

Seriously, the Hub is just as ugly as the Radian, the interiors are virtually identical, but the price is much much less than Radian. Why would you pay twice as much just to live one block closer to campus? Also, what is with Penn's fetish for this ugly architecture? Even Princeton has gone back to building gothic buildings like this new dorm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitman_College,_Princeton_University I hope that Penn doesn't rush to fill the postal lands with more ugly-as-shit architecural failures like Hill, Meyerson, Williams, Radian, and the high rises.

Well that's what happens when you purchase something sight unseen. How much can they really complain?

No more avant-garde nonsense architects. They are building these things to impress each other, not to benefit those who will live in it. Why can't they make something contemporary, subtle, modest, and more well-furnished like DOMUS on 34th & Chestnut? I don't want my building to make a statement, I want it to be a nice place to live. I don't want "urban" concrete, I want wood and real walls.

Because DOMUS costs at about $2000 a month for an efficiency? Seriously, if the worst complaint someone has about a building is that it's too ugly to live in, they really need their priorities checked. What else is wrong with the building? How about the service attitudes of the staff? How often do the fire alarms go off wrongly in the middle of the night? Are there mice? Do the elevators malfunction frequently? Is the building dangerous? Are there any actual _real_ problems with the place?

Thank you for this blog post. The commenter, then, becomes the critic who shapes the writer's next content. So I want to encourage you to keep on blogging in the same style as you writing style is really perfect.

| |

to justify the goal. Congress is resisting Obama's change of direction, which could delay investment in the pro

Comments are closed for this item.