University Planning

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30831, 17 August 1965, Page 14

University Planning

Sir, —Full credit to Mr John Oakley for his description of the activities at Ham. Dr. Pownall receives marks for his loyalty to the Ministry of Works, or sho -Id it be for his keen sense of humour in describing as “imaginative and exciting” a lecture hall which would not be incongruous at a fun fair and the larger buildings possessing the same aesthetic values as an egg crate? The ghastly concept could even now be camouflaged, but only by immediate and strong support of Mr Oakley’s views and by some bold admission from the council. Is it’too much to expect or is the subject to be dismissed with a few inverted commas?—Yours, etc., H. J. STRANG. August 14, 1965.

Sir,—John Oakley’s account of the mistakes at Ham makes depressing reading. It is a hot surprising consequence of using the Ministry of Works as an architect. Government departments do not foster soaring imaginations and the Ministry of Works, in particular, has long specialised in heaving and gouging the land. Much as the university council is to blame for an unsuitable choice, it is more blameworthy for failing to keep its architect under tight restraint. No doubt the council hesitates to cross the Government planners for fear of drying up the funds. Such a combination should never have been loosed on “Ham” and “Okeover.” The vice-chancellor might be confident of the results, but he has not refuted Mr Oakley’s statements and fears.—Yours, etc., J. S. POLLARD. August 14, 1965.

Sir, —The letter by “Most Melancholy" raises some interesting points. It is undesirable to have the university on the outskirts of the city, but where is there room for it m the centre? I see no reason why the Minister of Works should not design the university. The Moscow University is an outstanding example of an architectural masterpiece designed and built by State-controlled organisations. Our design is to me not dull and ugly, but utilitarian and cheap. One must remember that the designer’s first consideration is cost; he may feel that aesthetic values should come before cost, but he has no choice in the matter. Robin Gormack criticises crude engineers with no aesthetic values. I am an engineering student who has taken a considerable interest in fine art.

Many engineers have high aesthetic values, but they must work on a very limited budget. The simple and practical is to me often aesthetically more pleasing than the ornate and useless. —Yours, etc., ENGINEERING STUDENT. August 16, 1965.