|
1960s University Buildings
The English university system was
not greatly challenged until the 1960s - as Stefan Muthesius
says in The Post-War University Utopianus Campus and
College (2000), "there were the two old foundations
and 'the rest'"(p.59). The sixties bore witness
to new institutional planning and architecture. Until
this point, collegiate universities were generally the
norm - as opposed to campus universities which had expanded
rapidly during the latter part of the previous decade
- and the college quad, whether Gothic or modern, Muthesius
argues was seen as a means of guaranteeing the kind
of socialisation needed to foster academic and educational
progress. But the 'campus' university led to a great
deal of rethinking on the role and shape of the college.
Between the thirties and the fifties,
many of the universities outside Oxbridge undertook
significant additions to their existing sites, most
using the late classical tradition which prevailed during
this period for municipal commissions. The erection
of Senate House designed by Charles Holden in London's
Bloomsbury, dating from 1932, is an example. It has
been argued that it was not until Sheffield University's
competition for its new university building in 1953
that Modernist architecture really entered into British
academe. The competition resulted in a nineteen-storey
glass and steel tower block for the art and architecture
department, finished in 1959. Designed by Golling, Melvin,
Ward and Partners and now listed at grade II*, the competition
is probably best remembered for the Smithsons' entry.
From this point, many universities began to plan at
least one high-rise block as part of their schemes.
Basil Spence's proposals for a ten-storey engineering
block at Southampton University is such a case. It could
be claimed that the debate on university building was
somewhat pushed forward by the architectural critics
who rather suddenly took up the issue of 'Modern' university
architecture in late 1957.
During the 1950s, all planners had
to cope with existing university buildings, and tried
hard to provide a sense of completeness. Casson and
Condor, who worked first at Cambridge, and then on the
task of reorganising the large and very incomplete-looking
campus at Birmingham University in 1957, carried out
much work. The 1960s saw the reorganisation of most
non-university higher education into new technical universities
and polytechnics, many of which built afresh.
The establishment of the polytechnics
was a new and important direction for British further
education. They were created as an alternative to the
well established traditional model of higher education,
which was increasingly perceived as exclusive, conservative,
scholastic and middle class. The new polytechnics were
concerned with professional and vocational training,
and courses were justified through referring to the
social and industrial demands they were meeting. The
polytechnics were also designed to provide greater opportunities
for more sectors of society to enter higher education,
with opportunities to study on a part-time basis or
in the evenings, which enabled students to simultaneously
maintain a job. A range of courses and levels existed
to cater for the needs of school leavers, as well as
those wishing to study for a degree and beyond.
Unsurprisingly, alongside the establishment
of the new polytechnics, a new architectural language
for such institutions arrived. Two excellent examples,
which have recently come to the Society's attention,
are the School of Engineering and Science, University
of Westminster, London, and Brunel University, Hillingdon,
Middlesex. Both are under threat from proposed alterations
and redevelopment, and hence have been put forward by
the Society for spot-listing.
The School of Engineering and Science,
University of Westminster
The School of Engineering and Science
was built by Lyons, Israel and Ellis between 1965 and
1968, and initially formed part of the Polytechnic of
Central London, before it became the University of Westminster
in more recent years. The Polytechnic of Central London
was one of the initial thirty polytechnics designated
since 1966. The design has been described as 'powerful,
idiosyncratic, angular, uncompromising and intense'
by Patrick Nuttgens, who was at the time architect director
of the polytechnic in Leeds. It typifies the move towards
a brutalist aesthetic in educational buildings. The
School of Science and Engineering itself comprises an
interesting mix of forms and finishes. Numerous rooms
are expressed externally, most notably the main lecture
theatre which hovers over the New Cavendish Street entrance,
resulting in an interesting grouping of shapes. As one
of the most noteworthy external features, it is described
by Pevsner in The Buildings of England: London, Volume
One (Third edition) as an 'impressive formal entrance
up a grand flight of steps into a spacious entrance
hall, [with] a lecture theatre cantilevered out as a
central feature'. Given that this entrance is of great
merit, the Society is greatly worried by the present
proposals that risk compromising its integrity.
Of major concern is the proposed treatment
of the steps up to the entrance, which currently take
their lead from the cantilevered lecture hall. The steps
follow the hall in plan form and are set back at the
building's corner. The current application proposes
to remove this simple but striking detail, and to add
a ramp. Although the Society recognises the need for
a more suitable ramp it feels that this solution is
inappropriate because of the loss of this detail. The
suggested ramp fights for attention with the entrance
architecture and runs the risk of dominating the elevation.
In addition, the Society is worried by the proposal
to remove the present doors and replace one set with
a glass box entrance. The proposed entrance is positioned
considerably further forward than at present, which
again would inevitably detract from the building's original
character. Although glass has been chosen to reduce
the new entrance's prominence, the choice of material
is a significant departure from what presently exists,
and is not in keeping with the rest of the building.
Finally, we are concerned at the choice of wood decking
for the area to the right of the entrance. Clearly,
this is at odds with the original building material,
and we have recommended a solution more in keeping with
the original fabric.
Moving away from the entrance, the
building's white concrete circulation towers sit next
to curtains of bronze framing and glass. Internally,
the building is also carefully organised and the design
very clean, being both light and functional with white
walls and tubular rails. The ground floor accommodates
the communal complex, a key element of the design that
comprises the administrative suite, dining and common
rooms, sitting areas and the lecture theatres. The upper
floors comprise a seven-storey laboratory block to the
east, and a four-storey tutorial block to the south.
The library and lecture theatres form a link between
the tutorial and laboratory blocks.
One of the building's major achievements
was fitting such a large school onto the site, which
is a mere 1.198 acres. Not only was this far from an
ideal site in terms of size, but height restrictions
were also imposed on the building in deference to a
future hospital to be built across the street. This
led to the rather ingenious design described above,
and can be seen as an example of restrictions leading
to a considered and well thought-out design.
The Society views this building as
one of the most striking 1960s polytechnics. Not only
is it of special interest architecturally but it is
also important historically, since it played a part
in the establishment of the polytechnic, an important
step that has shaped British education since the sixties.
Brunel University
Brunel University takes it name from
Isambard Kingdom Brunel, one of the most famous of Victorian
engineers. As an inventive, imaginative man, who embraced
new technologies, Brunel University sought to emulate
his qualities of creativity, ingenuity, rigour and excellence
in adopting his name.
Brunel University was one of ten new
universities created from colleges of advanced technology,
and quickly became known for its science, engineering,
technology, social science, law, politics and economy
departments. The original Brunel College was in Acton,
although three further sites in Egham, Twickenham and
Isleworth became part of Brunel after the 1960s: for
example, the Runnymead Campus in Egham, Surrey, joined
in 1981.
The Hillingdon site, however, was
developed in the late 1960s, following a decision to
relocate from Acton as part of the colleges upgrading
from a College of Advanced Technology in 1962. The master
plan for the new university was prepared by Sheppard,
Robson & Partners in that year, and the principal
phases were built in 1965-7, mostly by the same architects.
One of the most important requirements of the governors
was that the students should feel loyalty to the university,
rather than to specific departments. The Hillingdon
site was developed with this in mind. Thus, the buildings
were interconnected, and designed to bring together
students of different disciplines.
The residential block was intended
to accommodate as many of the students as possible.
It has a series of terraces oriented east-west, built
up of three and four-storey units, each with 30 students
living off one staircase. The terraces lie along a slight
slope of rising ground on the south-east of the site.
They are of load bearing brick construction with concrete
floors and roofs with a red stock external facing brick.
A central refectory building also contributed to the
community feeling. This building, together with the
administration block and central lecture theatre block,
has a reinforced concrete structure with standard pre-cast
cladding panels and string courses, as well as a regular
metal grid.
The administration block, with council
chamber and committee rooms, is a simple office block
and is linked to the large assembly hall, 300-seat theatre,
and library by an enclosed court and shopping mall.
In the centre of the complex, the central lecture theatre,
constructed of reinforced concrete, contains classrooms,
lecture rooms, and theatres, drawing together the spaces
that might normally have been associated with separate
departments. It includes 14 lecture rooms with stepped
floors supporting 50, 100 or 180 seats. Six large theatres
form an expressive and impressive centrepiece to the
campus. Some of the lecture theatres are currently being
upgraded to 21st century standards and we fear that
more upgrading work might take place in the near future.
This building is particularly interesting and powerful
and we have put it forward for listing in order to safeguard
its integrity.
On tiny budgets expert practices like
Lyons, Israel and Ellis and Sheppard Robson & Partners
produced a number of buildings of genuine power and
conviction. These are among their very best works, and
deserve to be better known and better treated.
Back to list
|