Collegiate Architecture DB

I am sure you all remember a certain email received over the summer that included a questionnaire about this world literature class and our expectations of said class. Specifically, I remember a question asking us to rate our interest in the areas of painting, drawing, photography, music, architecture, and landscape architecture. I am not sure how the rest of the class rated these categories; however, anyone looking at my response will see that architecture did not score highly with me. When it comes to styles, building materials, and such…let's just say that architecture is not my forte. So during my college decision-making process, I assumed architecture had little to no influence on my final choice. Looking back on my college visits and the decisions I made, though, I am surprised to see that, despite my lack of knowledge and awareness of it, the architectural styles of different campuses did, in fact, play a rather intense role in my ultimate choice.

One of my first major decisions in narrowing down my college choices was eliminating almost all northeastern schools from my list. Was it the distance from home, the extremely competitive environment, or the freezing cold winter weather that drove me away? Partly, yes. But embedded among these reasonable and rational deductions was a very unreasonable and irrational feeling of alienation and repulsion from each campus. I recognize now that the formal, traditional, cathedral-like spires of many northeastern schools associated created this strange feeling. I couldn't help thinking of stiff and formal students with noses in their books 24/7, a rigidity of rules and regulations, and a cold and impersonal atmosphere pervading each campus, much as Ashley mentioned. Although the Gothic style can be gorgeous and impressive, it wasn't what I wanted in my college atmosphere.

My search eventually brought me to a crossroads between two schools: the University of Texas at Austin and Trinity University in San Antonio. I couldn't believe how different these campuses were: UT, a bustling city of a campus with big buildings and streets packed with 50,000 people, and little 2500-student Trinity, with its smaller red brick buildings scattered between lots of lawns and trees that felt like a small natural sanctuary in the midst of the hub of San Antonio. Yet I liked them both. Other than academics, architecture held the biggest influence on my final decision between these two schools. I decided that, as calm and serene as the Trinity campus made me feel, it didn't have the exciting and challenging side that I was searching for to round out my college experience (that, and I don't like red brick!).

My worry upon coming to UT, however, was that I wouldn't be able to find the natural and aesthetic components that I appreciated about Trinity. As Faulkner mentions, "urban design has excelled" here (413), but I still wanted to experience natural beauty. However, I have found that the original as well as the new master plan for the UT campus places a large emphasis on this balance between structure and nature, describing them as "equally important to create the ideal campus and this brilliant American invention" (Faulkner 413). Although at first glance UT really is just a bustling downtown with masses of people being herded along by the crowd from building to building, over these first few weeks I have found places that are like little sanctuaries amongst the hustle and bustle. Among these refuges are the Turtle Pond and the lawn in front of the Tower. I love how so many of the buildings are structured so that they work with and complement nature. Over orientation I learned that I could take a short cut through the business school in order to get to the Tower area because you could go in one door, then take the escalator up a floor to go out the other side, which meant less hill for you to climb. It took me a little while to realize this difference in ground levels, coming from Houston where everything stays flat, but once I realized it, I had a new appreciation for how that particular building worked with and complemented its surroundings.

One other feature about UT I wanted to mention was the controversial issue of the buildings on campus that do not adhere to the original master plan. Although I understand the desire and, in fact, necessity of cohesion throughout campus, rather than "a series of disparate pieces" (413), I agree with Law that the different purposes of the structures can and should be reflected in how they are built and styled. Surely some common elements should be retained in every building; I like that I can recognize when I leave campus because the buildings simply no longer look like UT (for example, SRD and the fraternity houses on the north edge of campus with their almost-Colonial appearance distinctly break away from the buildings of the university). However, I also enjoy seeing a unique quality in each building that not only separates it from other buildings (helps me not get lost!), but also helps to serve and embody its individual function. For example, at TCU you'll notice each college is designed for its specific subject: the engineering building has ceiling panels missing to show the wires and pipes that the engineering students will be working with, the education building has bulletin boards filled with children's drawings, and the business school looks just like an office building with glass-paneled meeting rooms. This is an interior example, however I think the principle could be applied to exterior architectural styles of UT buildings to create a cohesive, yet creative, atmosphere.