I recently ventured to BCIT in Burnaby. The architecture of the campus was modernism at its worst. In every direction you walked there was a dilapidated concrete building accented by cold metal and glass. Finding my way through the campus was hellish, nothing separated one building’s appearance from the next. On frequent occasion I entered the incorrect building, I have never had to ask for directions so often. Those students roaming the campus seemed well versed in directing people through their concrete maze.
The architecture may have been functional or in vogue at some point. Alas in 2013 it epitomized the concept of bleak. I never believed that something as fundamentally secondary, in my books, such as aesthetics could have such a profound effect on me. From the moment I stepped on campus a depressive cloud set over me. That experience instigated an epiphany in me, I can only speculate how living in a world bedecked by cold steel and blank concrete could effect a person, could effect a society.
Those unlucky enough to inhabit those infamous prefab concrete housing complexes in post war Europe must have been adversely affected by their bleak surroundings. I am not the least surprised by the multitude of social issues, which arose in that atmosphere, a surrounding void of visual stimulus.
I count myself blessed to live in a time and location, which embraces diversity in architecture.
It’s great to have an awareness of the effects that the built environment has on us. In light of what we’ve learned in the course, do you think it’s the very principles of modernist planning that are to blame? Or is it just a particularly poor application of modernism? It doesn’t sound like there is much greenery, for example.
This university sounds quite similar to University of Calgary which is very poorly designed and creates a bleak atmosphere. I think it is interesting that Brigitte brings up the importance of understanding that this results from a failure of the designers of this space in understanding the modernist concept in its entirety rather than a complete failure of modernism itself. When I consider University of Calgary and its attempts at modernist planning (since I haven’t been to BCIT), it also seems that this architecture may have been beautiful initially but wasn’t built to last. It has become bleak over years of use which causes me to wonder; will this happen with the glass buildings (such as the EME) also?
Yes greenery was at a minimum. I doubt the architecture was ever beautiful at bcit, it obviously was more in style at one point; concrete does not seem to age well. I think glass buildings tend to age better. A large part of the problem is concrete buildings cannot be simply rejuvenated or renovated to keep up with the evolution of architecture and society in general. They are unfortunately destined to appear bleak and outdated.
I couldn’t agree more with your comment about the fate of those who lived in the post war complexes built in Europe. When I of think of the massive, uninviting appartment blocks in the subburbs of Paris, I can’t help but wonder what affect these structures must have on those who call them home. Like the commenter above, I’ve never actually been to the BCIT campus in Burnaby and so I am unable to comment on my impression of the campus. However I did look at some images of the campus online and I must say that I didn’t particularly like the look of it. I’ve never been a fan of modernist architecture, and much of that stems from the fact that I don’t think modernist buildings age very well. Often times, modernist buildings tend to look worn down and out of place, especially when they were built with a lot of concrete, which as you’ve mentioned, is difficult to maintain. Hopefully the EME building on our campus will stand the test on time considering that most of the exterior features large glass windows as opposed to concrete. I suppose time will tell!