University buildings designed by renowned architects often face criticism for unconventional designs that may not fulfill their intended iconic roles. Sir David Watson highlighted that universities function like property companies, prioritizing impressive structures to attract talent and boost reputations. Notable examples include Daniel Libeskind’s London Metropolitan University Graduate Centre and Frank Gehry’s Dr. Chau Chak Wing Building at the University of Technology in Sydney. Sustainability is also a trend, as seen in Vietnam’s FPT University. However, the effectiveness of these buildings for staff and students is debated, with mixed research findings. Future university buildings must be flexible and adaptable to evolving needs, ensuring long-term success.
Universities, according to the late Sir David Watson, professor of higher education at Oxford and vice-chancellor at Brighton, can be seen as property companies with education appended. Estate issues consume considerable time and money and often spark emotional debates within universities.
The goal is to create impressive buildings and campuses that attract talented staff and students, thereby enhancing the university’s reputation in international rankings. However, some new buildings draw criticism and controversy for their unconventional designs, failing to serve as iconic structures.
Ambitious university leaders often collaborate with “starchitect” and wealthy sponsors to create flagship buildings. Starchitects explore unconventional designs, such as crumbling structures, irregular shapes, and angular geometries, to symbolize universities as institutions that challenge traditional thinking.
Daniel Libeskind’s London Metropolitan University Graduate Centre exemplifies this trend. Another example is the OCAD University in Toronto, designed by Alsop Architects, featuring a distinctive structure on colorful legs, suggesting the elevated importance of art education.
Frank Gehry’s Dr. Chau Chak Wing building at the University of Technology in Sydney was described by Sir Peter Cosgrove as “the most beautiful squashed brown paper bag I’ve ever seen.” The Rolex Learning Centre at Switzerland’s EPFL, designed with undulating floors, represents a similar innovative approach, with EPFL president Patrick Aebischer stating the need for flagship buildings.
Sustainability is another key trend in university architecture. Vietnam’s FPT University, designed by Vo Trong Nghia architects, features a campus rich in greenery, following the examples set by Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University and Delft Technical University.
However, the effectiveness of these buildings for staff and students remains debated. Post-occupancy evaluation, which assesses buildings based on user feedback, is recommended but rarely applied. University estate directors have developed a methodology through the Higher Education Design Quality Forum (HEDQF), but it is infrequently used.
Research findings present a mixed picture. The 2015 National Student Survey shows 86% of undergraduates are satisfied with their learning resources, yet staff often report lower satisfaction with facilities. The sector efficiency report led by Sir Ian Diamond rates 85% of HE space as good to excellent. Meanwhile, Carbon Buzz data indicates actual energy use and carbon emissions in new buildings are double the predicted levels.
Digital technologies and new learning methods demand adaptable buildings. Students often request better internal air quality, more group workspaces, computer rooms, creative experimentation spaces, and 24/7 social learning areas. Flexibility and adaptability are crucial attributes for university buildings.
European universities have endured for over a millennium, growing significantly in the last century. Their future success relies on adaptable buildings informed by thorough research.
Gallery
