Building for the century

Posted by admin on Feb 20, 2007 in From the Editor, Issues & Ideas | 1 comment

After air raids destroyed the British House of Commons in 1941, Winston Churchill and the Members of Parliament gathered to discuss the manner in which it should be rebuilt. Churchill believed that the building should be rebuilt according to its original form, saying, “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.”

Behind this statement lies the unquantifiable worth and dignity that a finely wrought building instils in those who live and work there. Throughout history, humankind has understood that the education of souls, the worship of God, and the function of statecraft ought to be conducted in buildings of architectural grandeur. Columns, arches, domes and spires, as well as materials like stone, brick and marble, give to buildings a sense of permanence and longevity, not only because they last longer, but also because these forms have been used for centuries, and have embedded themselves in the Western consciousness.

Unfortunately these qualities are noticeably absent from the architectural landscape of Trinity Western University. In the last issue of Mars’ Hill I took a pot-shot at the state of TWU’s buildings in my column about trees (which I see are being replaced, thank goodness). I could add to my original complaints the fact that no two buildings on our campus share a common exterior. If, as Goethe said, architecture is “music frozen,” then the thought of waking up to Northwest or listening to RNT is positively ghastly.

However, the time for complaining is past and that is why I sat down with my good friend and architecture aficionado Lauren Hosty to write this column. Lauren has had the good fortune of studying at Oxford and the Laurentian Leadership Centre, both of which are places where buildings have been built with aesthetics in mind.

The time for complaining is past because President Raymond has issued a call for input in the university’s new initiative entitled “Design the Decade: Envision the Century,” which can be accessed from TWU’s website. One element of this planning strategy is to “build a campus-wide, signature physical design” based upon “learning communities of architectural integrity.”

I see three important factors in this strategy. First, the movement towards a long-term central plan for campus infrastructure is a good step towards mitigating the somewhat haphazard appearance of TWU’s buildings. Presidents and architects, like students, come and go, and it takes a long time to build up a campus of which we can be truly proud. Thus, we need some medium of continuity to hold us in architectural unity.

Secondly, the idea of learning communities, which would combine classrooms, academic offices and dorms, may help foster a sense of ownership among students and alumni. Although this idea is foreign to most North American conceptions of universities, it is the basis for the college system of Cambridge and Oxford and, on a much smaller scale, the LLC.

I believe this style of campus could increase a sense of ownership among students. It reduces the divisions in students’ lives if the buildings they live in are also where they attend classes and meet with professors. TWU prides itself on providing education in community and this style of living embodies that vision. Furthermore, the idea of belonging to a particular academic hall has staying power with alumni who can find a closer knit home on campus.

Finally, in examining the university’s initiative, we must ask, “What is architectural integrity?” I think that in TWU’s case architectural integrity means raising the standards of our buildings to reflect the quality of education that this school provides. We are not just dressing up a shoddy product – in last year’s Globe and Mail Report Card, TWU’s quality of education was given an A. Sadly, the facilities received a C. Who knows how many students visit the campus and are influenced by the fact that, well, they’ve seen better.

Of course, creating beautiful buildings costs more money. But if they could attract a few more students every year and if they could give the alumni faith that good things will be done with their donations, then I think it would be worth it. This is in addition to the fact that well-built structures won’t be caving in with mould damage in 30 years. As the initiative states, we are envisioning the century. If we truly desire that this university to last more than a generation, we better start building like we do.

This brings us to the most important question: what exactly will our buildings look like? Being neither a student of art or architecture, I feel unqualified to answer that question and I encourage anyone who is passionate about such things to visit the website and give their suggestions.

However, a lack of professional training does not exclude me from the intuitive awe inspired by beautiful buildings. I know that the David E. Enarson gym is no match for the Trinity College Chapel at the University of Toronto; the Alloway Library is no Bodleian.

Of course, this is the West Coast and what might be beautiful in England or Eastern Canada may not fit in with the “British Columbian aesthetics,” as the new initiative desires to develop. I have no problem with a B.C. aesthetic. We certainly have a great deal of natural beauty around us to use to our advantage. However, just because one thinks of the great outdoors when they think of B.C., it doesn’t mean our university should look like a ski shop or wilderness camp. This is a university – a place for moral development and contemplation of the great ideas – let it not be mistaken for anything else.