University Planning

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30839, 26 August 1965, Page 12

University Planning

Sir. —Critics of the University think little of the architecture: perhaps a keen sense of “proportion” has made them lose their sense of proportion. Obsession with design. important internally as well as externally, could logically lead to a selection of staff and students on a basis of vita! statistics, to use a common phrase. It could even lead to an insistence on toilet paper perforated to give rectangles in the shape of golden section. The fundamental job of the University is to tend the lamp, and not to please, architecturally, all the neighbours, all the time, under penalty of professional death. It seems that these critics know little of the subjects taught in a university: otherwise they would know of the absence of correlation, through the ages, between scholastic excellence and architectural environment. — Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. August 25, 1965. Sir, —The cause of those who think the new university site at Ham represents the most imaginative building project since the pyramids is not going to be helped by Professor Allan’s unfortunate article. The accusations heaped upon Mr Oakley (including that gem about one of his statements being . pure sentiment and bad horticulture”) do nothing to allay the fears of many people that a golden opportunity was allowed to perish at Ham. I am not in a posi-

tion to know whether all Mr Oakley’s comments are accurate, but at least, so far from offering a disservice, they have produced a welcome breeze of reappraisal. Too often we are mesmerised into mute acceptance of everything the bureaucratic battalions care to wish upon us. If to be concerned about the aesthetic qualities of one of the most important institutions in the whole of Canter bury qualifies one as a member of the “lunatic fringe,” then, undoubtedly, we need a lot more “lunatics." —Yours, etc., R.H.H. August 24, 1965.

Sir, —1 fail to see how a new university can be described as a tragedy. Admittedly the removal of old trees is something of one (the destruction of nature always is), but to denounce the whole university project on this account is absolute nonsense. I have no doubt (hat when this project is completed the Louise Cameron Lewises and John Oakleys of this city will be among the first to avail themselves of its many and substantial benefits. If these same people are so much against the new university plan, why do they not endow us with one which is more to their taste? 1 am sure it would be very welcome. In the meantime let us not be' in too much of a hurry to criticise this longawaited and much-needed public facility.—Yours, etc., GRATEFUL CITIZEN. August 22, 1965.