Meanwhile, Coulson (2018), Fagerlid (2021), and Holleran (2021) analyze contemporary architectural expansions at university campuses that revolve around dramatic changes to how space is used. While Holleran discusses drastic expansions specifically as they relate to brutalist structures and what students associate with brutalism, Fagerlid and Coulson tie to the other scholars in their argument that universities tend to pursue large-scale expansions that fundamentally change the university campus; for Coulson and Fagerlid, the changes are to the individual university space and academic aspirations, whereas for the first group of sources the trend is systemic to the university as an institution.<\/p>\n
The design choices that are made reflect how universities and their self-image, purpose, and social context change: from the secondary literature it is clear that architectural design and layout changes in large-scale university expansions are motivated by changes in a university\u2019s educational aspirations and by the general role of the university institution in society.<\/p>\n
The university space and purpose<\/strong><\/p>\n To understand the motivations and purpose of university expansions, Coulson (2018) argues that new expansions to both universities in the 1960s postwar era and the present day revolve around one core \u201chub\u201d building (25). University expansions are understood as necessary alterations to the campus space to reflect changing educational aspirations of individual universities. Coulson discusses how aspirations for individual universities reflect more broad societal trends towards post-secondary education and innovating fields of study\u2014universities must constantly innovate to meet the expected role of universities as educational institutions. The relationship of individual university aspirations with global educational and institutional trends is similar to the discussions about the postwar education boom. Tromly (2013), Campbell (2011), and Holleran (2021) associate the novelty of brutalism with the postwar ideology towards post-secondary education and discuss brutalism in relation to a push for STEM fields. However, Coulson, as well as Fagerlid (2021) and Hancock (2021), instead focus on changing institutional roles through the changing usage and purpose of campuses as social spaces.<\/p>\n Both Fagerlid (2021) and Hancock (2021) discuss brand-new libraries that fundamentally changed the use of their space: aisles of high bookshelves and reading desks in uniform lines were replaced by wide-open floorplans, huge banks of windows providing light, more leisurely seating arranged in groups, and collaborative workstations. Minor construction still occurred on the campus periphery, but it was secondary to more important renovations or part of a larger phase of expansion. While the scholars in this review sample only a handful of campus constructions, the unanimous examples of drastic change were chosen as strong examples of the norm, not anomalies. Surely there are minor alterations that are ongoing, like repaving walkways, new gardens or benches, or window improvements. But it seems that any large-scale\u2014and more importantly\u2014expensive expansions are only approved and attract the necessary funding when they have a justified purpose or motivation.<\/p>\n Educational trends and university expansion<\/strong><\/p>\n Following the second world war, improvements in technology, transitions in global governance (i.e., institutions like the United Nations and NATO), and the population increase from the baby boom ignited a massive wave of university construction (Owram 2018). Similar to Owram, Campbell (2011) and Tromly (2013) use an analysis of newspapers, public records, and architectural photographs to depict how universities began to adopt construction styles and layouts that were new and innovative. From Tromly and others (Campbell 2011, Gowans 1966, and Holleran 2021) brutalist architecture symbolized the streamlined functionality and innovative atmosphere of the postwar technological advancements impartial to broad political ideologies. This is important to note because it presents a conflict between individual university culture and the global perception and role of the university as an institution. Tromly\u2019s depiction of the social climate and architectural style of Soviet universities is strikingly similar to Canadian, British, and American motivations for, and intentions of, university expansion in the 1960s. Tromly elaborates on the symbolism of brutalism in the context of Soviet central planning. Technological advancements following World War II and the importance of new fields in the Cold War arms race, notably STEM fields, were prioritized by the state alongside the widespread implementation of brutalist architecture (Tromly 2013). The new brutalist and modern constructions were starkly different from existing structures, which accentuated the new buildings as landmarks that contrasted the existing buildings within the campus. This architectural contrast provoked serious questions about the mandates and role of the university as an educational institution.<\/p>\n Campbell captures the controversy about implementing brutalist structures in campuses with long-established traditions and heritage: new brutalist structures were unambiguously associated with the new expectations of post-secondary education and prevalence in society due to the postwar population boom (Campbell 2011, 393; Owram 1996). Furthermore, Campbell argues that the use of new advancements in construction materials and techniques in modernist and brutalist architecture symbolized a change in university education and professional purpose. STEM studies became associated with the new architecture. However, Campbell stresses that STEM fields and brutalist university architecture were correlated in the postwar period, but that one did not necessarily cause the other. New buildings at British universities were brutalist due to a lack of funds for extravagant materials or designs; brutalist architecture minimized the costs to expand and prioritized how a space would function, rather than its outward appearance (Campbell 2011, 396).<\/p>\n This is strikingly similar to Coulson and Fagerlid\u2019s emphasis on how the use and conceptualization of campus space changes. While brutalist architecture proliferated alongside a push for STEM studies, Campbell\u2019s arguments suggest that the two trends were both the byproducts of the changing role of education in postwar societies, which, in turn, Owram attributes to the massive postwar population boom. Likewise, STEM fields were prioritized by the Soviet state to ensure technological advancements rivalled the United States and NATO. Consequently, Soviet university architecture was dominated by brutalist architecture, which was idealized along with the STEM careers that it came to symbolize (Tromly, 57).<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n While Owram (1996) explains the expansions from the perspective of the postwar population boom and Tromly (2013) discusses centrally planned university purposes during the Cold War, both sources agree that there was an international trend for changing the university institution\u2019s role in society. This is shared amongst other key sources that discuss the implementation of brutalist architecture. From Fagerlid (2021) and Coulson (2018), contemporary expansions are focused on changing how campus space is used. Much like the 1960s, university expansions follow international trends for what post-secondary education should provide and be used for, alongside shifting ideas about what should be studied. Campbell (2011) proves that brutalist architecture may have proliferated alongside STEM fields, but both were ultimately consequences of the increased prevalence of post-secondary education in society. One did not necessarily embody the other.<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div> <\/p>\n Appleyard, R. T. (1937).\u00a0The origins of Huron College in relation to the religious questions of the period<\/em>. 1937. University of Western Ontario, MA thesis.<\/p>\n Campbell, Louise. \u201cBuilding on the Backs: Basil Spence, Queens\u2019 College Cambridge and University Architecture at Mid-Century.\u201d Architectural History, vol. 54, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 383\u2013405, doi:10.1017\/S0066622X0000410X.<\/p>\n Coulson, Jonathan, et al. University Trends: Contemporary Campus Design<\/em>. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2018, doi:10.4324\/9781315213606.<\/p>\n Fagerlid Cicilie, et al. \u201cEngaging with Mixed-Use Design\u201d. Architectural Anthropology, <\/em>London: Routledge, 2021, pp. 121-133. https:\/\/doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca\/10.4324\/9781003094142<\/a><\/p>\n Gowans, Alan. \u201c<\/em>Twentieth-Century Canadian Architecture as Cultural Expression.\u201d\u00a0Journal of Canadian Studies, <\/em>vol. 1, no. 1, Trent University, 1966, pp. 24\u201335, doi:10.3138\/jcs.1.1.24.<\/p>\n Hancock, Philip. \u201cAcademic Architecture and the Constitution of the New Model Worker,\u201d (Mar 2011), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14759551.2011.544885<\/a><\/p>\n Holleran, Max. \u201cConcrete Monsters of the Welfare State: Discussions of Brutalist Architecture on Social Media.\u201d Space and Culture, 2021, p. 120633122110193\u2013, doi:10.1177\/12063312211019384.<\/p>\n Owram, Doug. \"5. School Days, 1952-1965\". Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby Boom Generation<\/em>, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018, pp. 111-135. https:\/\/doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca\/10.3138\/9781442657106-006<\/a><\/p>\n Talman, James John.\u00a0Huron College, 1863-1963.<\/em>\u00a0Huron College, 1963.<\/p>\n Thomas, Christopher. \u201c\u2018Canadian Castles\u2019?: The Question of National Styles in Architecture Revisited.\u201d Journal of Canadian Studies<\/em>, vol. 32, no. 1, University of Toronto Press, 1997, pp. 5\u201327, doi:10.3138\/jcs.32.1.5.<\/p>\n Tromly, Benjamin. \u201cThe university in the Soviet social imagination\u201d. Making the Soviet Intelligentsia: Universities and Intellectual Life Under Stalin and Khrushchev,<\/em> Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 53-76. doi:10.1017\/CBO9781139381239.<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":304,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mc_calendar":[],"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-174","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\tBibliography<\/h1><\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>