Throughout the ages institutional buildings have been designed to exhibit different messages that "the state" wanted to project. Power, strength and wealth were common with monarchies. After all it was important to show the monarchs importance and ability to construct something monumental. In a democratic republic, we have chosen a variety of images. In the early days strength and stability were important but these have given way, in some cases, to utility and efficiency. Part of this shift is the limited amount of funds available and the higher cost of labor. Still, there have been several meeting where the "perception of extravagance" has been a concern. It has been said that, "To show we are good stewards of tax payer money, we can't have anything that looks that extravagant." As a slave to function instead of fashion, I have often nodded along, pushing for extra square footage versus architectural fussiness.
Of course no one wants a building project to be "ugly," but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I worked with one inspiring architect that always mentioned that beauty does not need to cost more. I also worked with a contractor who in pre-construction design review meetings mentioned that every new corner on a building cost more. In a design class at San Jose State, the professor talked about Tower Hall and while the design looks extravagant in a combination of historic revival styles, the brick detailing is very limited and really, it is just a concrete building. The truth of the cost of beauty is as allusive as beauty itself, but is it something that school buildings should strive for?
I was recently listening to the TED Radio Hour where "beauty" was the theme of the week. One of the highlighted speakers talked about the importance of beauty in school design and affect it has on behavior. I have heard other research on well kept buildings producing less problems then ones left messy. An area that is has graffiti will more likely be a target for more graffiti. Any fan of Blue Bloods knows the broken window concept of a place with one broken window will soon have many and from there it is downward spiral.
So the next time you drive by a beautiful school will you see it as a beacon of a community that supports education or a Taj Mahal? Should we be concerned with beauty in schools? Should we assume that beauty cost more? There are a lot of grey between the yes and no answers in these questions, but as in most things in life, I hope we find the happy medium. Schools should be inspiring and clean but there is a line that stretches beyond reason. Still, somethings that look extravagant may not cost as much as you think.
Would you like another perspective.... Interestingly enough after this post was put up I ran into another publication running a story on "Building Beauty" in the California Educator check out page 26.
Of course no one wants a building project to be "ugly," but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I worked with one inspiring architect that always mentioned that beauty does not need to cost more. I also worked with a contractor who in pre-construction design review meetings mentioned that every new corner on a building cost more. In a design class at San Jose State, the professor talked about Tower Hall and while the design looks extravagant in a combination of historic revival styles, the brick detailing is very limited and really, it is just a concrete building. The truth of the cost of beauty is as allusive as beauty itself, but is it something that school buildings should strive for?
San Jose State Tower Hall |
I was recently listening to the TED Radio Hour where "beauty" was the theme of the week. One of the highlighted speakers talked about the importance of beauty in school design and affect it has on behavior. I have heard other research on well kept buildings producing less problems then ones left messy. An area that is has graffiti will more likely be a target for more graffiti. Any fan of Blue Bloods knows the broken window concept of a place with one broken window will soon have many and from there it is downward spiral.
So the next time you drive by a beautiful school will you see it as a beacon of a community that supports education or a Taj Mahal? Should we be concerned with beauty in schools? Should we assume that beauty cost more? There are a lot of grey between the yes and no answers in these questions, but as in most things in life, I hope we find the happy medium. Schools should be inspiring and clean but there is a line that stretches beyond reason. Still, somethings that look extravagant may not cost as much as you think.
Would you like another perspective.... Interestingly enough after this post was put up I ran into another publication running a story on "Building Beauty" in the California Educator check out page 26.
Comments
Post a Comment