There is no doubt that architects are designing some stunning and inspirational learning and research spaces in universities around the world. There is significantly more attention being paid to the role of technology in supporting learning, flexible learning spaces, and comfortable and vibrant informal learning spaces. However, it seems that offices for academic staff and working spaces for HDR candidates may not be seen as representing optimal uses of space in new buildings. Rather a world of collaboration, hot-desks, shared pods seem to be being promoted and offices represented as outdated 20th century ornaments. There seems to be evidence that this is leading increasingly to academics choosing to work from home (and HDR candidates struggling to find spaces that they can call their own). What is the evidence for 21st century university buildings prioritising aesthetics and 21st century design over the practical needs of users?
Peter, usually space allocation should be driven by the job function/ needs case not individual desires. I find your point quite interesting as I go through similar arguments on a daily basis. Architects should put more emphasis on end-user consultation before design obviously reaching a consensus on cost/ programme / strategic drivers of the organization. The bad side is people still want very "comfy" offices which is usually not very cost effective nor future proofing.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Informality