za, it could be the church; and in a college quadrangle, it might be the library, a chapel, or the main gymnasium — places that many will use or visit.
The most successful examples of these major gathering places involve a type of layering: the primary exterior pedestrian path mirroring or reinforcing the path of circulation within the building; the main reading room of the library looking out over the quadrangle; the main dining hall offering views over a campus open space. All of these situations can enable a gentle intertwining, a choreography that reinforces the communal nature of the college campus.
The communal campus
Why does the physical setting of a campus matter? And how do we develop it successfully? The Turner prototypes show that American campuses are derived from planning solutions that already worked as community settings.
To improve and enhance an American campus, the first step is to understand the existing identity of the campus. Is the plan clear? Is it legible? Is it understood by the members of the campus community? Are there rules of engagement? For instance, are particular materials preferred? It is often clear when you first see a campus that it either works as an identifiable place, or it does not. We cannot attribute this to any specific flaw or virtue, but the most common reason for failure is to have a series of individual object buildings — those unrelated to each other or to the landscape they occupy — designed to attract attention to themselves, and then hope that collectively they become a place. In some cases, the worst offending buildings might be eliminated or transformed.
As an example, consider I.M. Pei’s Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University from 1973. The museum is adjacent to the Arts Quad. The buildings that surround the Arts Quad are relatively similar, Neoclassical buildings constructed in gray stone. The Johnson Museum stands on pillars and is almost white so as to advertise its unique identity. It is not part of the collective aesthetic of the campus. Of course, object buildings can work successfully if they are designed as focal points within the pattern of buildings and open space. Remember Jefferson’s library at the University of Virginia, and the Low Library at Columbia University.
The most straightforward way to approach the concept of community on campus is to design or transform the outdoor spaces to support human interaction. These changes might incorporate benches, paths, fences, trees, lampposts — a common vocabulary of elements that supports communal activities. If the campus already works as a place owing to the nature and configuration of the existing buildings and open space, then those buildings should be retained — renovated or transformed — not replaced.
It is important to understand the qualities that successful campus buildings have in common. When new campus buildings are added, there should be some rules of engagement concerning configuration and materials. It is not necessary to be stylistically autocratic, only that the new buildings should belong on the campus and help enhance and define the outdoor spaces. To a great extent, we are trying to create groups of buildings that define active outdoor rooms. Think of the campus as a place, a community with a semblance of order, where the new intervention shares important aspects with its predecessors.
Instead of dramatic, individual changes, seek gradual changes — a series of smaller steps that can tie the campus together and enhance its collective nature. Pursue changes that look as though they have been there, and that strengthen the sense of community and place. The American college strives to be a successful community; its communal aspect should express itself in the physical nature of the campus.
Gisolfi, AIA, ASLA, LEED AP, is a professor of architecture and landscape architecture at the Spitzer School of Architecture at the City University of New York. He is also the founding partner of Peter Gisolfi Associates, Architects and Landscape Architects, LLP, in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, and New Ha