Mark McVay posts an interesting dilemma for architects of new university buildings. Specifically, in the design and development process, ”Who owns the idea of what the campus means? Who speaks for the whole university?”
Adding structures to a long-standing campus is a complex endeavor. Architects, and the campus stewards of the project, want something that resonates with the existing built environment, but also adds to and informs that environment. Problem is, the working groups that translate these issues between the architect and the university’s many committees, gatekeepers, and administrators often lack both the language and the authority to negotiate the right balance.
The same could be said for cultural facilities — both on campus and off. We construct them to resonate with their community environment, but also to galvanize and enhance that environment. But the same question arises: ”Who owns the idea of what a community means?” We can’t fix the problem just by adding voices to the mix, as such sprawling decision structures can dilute both the building’s fit and its clarity.
McVay’s response is to ensure a full dose of information and authority.
What should a university aim for? One way or the other, it should seek to empower design teams with as much information and discussion as possible about images, symbols, and the other subtleties of the campus. This allows design teams to be much more effective partners–and, in turn, allows them to do the best possible job of promoting the university’s uniqueness.
