Page 1

SUBTERRANEAN LEARNING INFRASTRUCTURE Rethinking learning distribution of University students through utilising courtyard spaces within Cambridge Colleges Cambridge, UK

Angela Lo 23.04.2013 Mphil in Architecture and Urban Design (Option B): Essay 4 Pilot Thesis (9,378words)


SUBTERRANEAN LEARNING INFRASTRUCTURE Rethinking learning distribution of University students through utilising courtyard spaces within Cambridge Colleges Cambridge, UK

Angela Lo 23.04.2013 Mphil in Architecture and Urban Design (Option B): Essay 4 Pilot Thesis


ABSTRACT University expansion has prompted an unbalanced relationship between the College and University. Looking at Cambridge Colleges within the context of modern teaching approaches and contemporary inhabitation, a new specification is required for building in central locations in a saturated historical city. This study challenges the stereotype of the strictly out-of-bound lawns of Cambridge Colleges and explores the potential to utilise these courtyard spaces to maximise University capacity within city centre. This thesis begins with a physical account of the configuration and development of the colleges, which forms the backbone of the transformation (social and spatial) of Colleges overtime. A detailed Courtyard study then tests the feasibility of expanding underground. By mapping the expansion of Cambridge City, the University, and the colleges, three overarching themes have emerged. First, the potential for the redistribution of learning back into the collegiate environment; the effect on college accommodation; and, a reinterpretation of the college community. The design proposal is therefore grounded on a scheme to engage the colleges to help the University with the overall goal of increasing and improving learning and study (departmental) spaces. It proposes a strategy for integrating learning spaces into the college dormitories, with minimal disturbance to the listed buildings; high transparency, inclusivity, and connectivity, by going subterranean.


[1] Aerial view of Cambridge, U.K.


[2] The Old Court, Pembroke College, photo taken in 2012


[3] Overview of Proposal


10,000m3 Proposed Subteranean Infrastructure The Great Court, Trinity College, U.K.

.0m

11

__

__

_ __

_

.0m

_8

__

__

_ __

.5m

_7

__

_ __

__

_

__

__

_ __

.0m

m

4.0

m

0.0

__

__

__

__

-11

.5m

5m

m

-2.

-13

.5m

-10

.2 _0

__

__

__

__

__

0m -6.

N

1:200

A0_3


SYNOPSIS Introduction provides the overview of the contemporary higher educational ideologies to ground my project in context, and locate the research in its literature discourse. It then visualises the questions that emerge from the gaps in the contemporary literature, to open up a space for this thesis of architectural experimentation. The first section provides a physical account of the colleges’ external and internal layouts and organisation, illustrated as staircases and courtyard typologies, to fully understand the original occupancy of the college chambers. The section ends with an exploration on the potential of creating subterranean spaces within these unused courtyard spaces. The second part of the pilot thesis focuses on the context, the social configurations, and contemporary learning envrionment that these colleges currently contain (or no longer contain), in order to justify what the Unviersiy needs in terms of new spaces or for a reconstruction. The third part uses the themes identified in the previous section to conclude and suggest a new equilibrium between the College and University relationship, as the town saturates and University matures. The final part will be my proposal in response to the physical parimeters (part I); the researched context (part II); and the consequential social phenomena (part III). It is by no means uses architecture to solve the multitude of pressures faced by the Cambridge community, but suggests a radical, yet possible, ‘what-if’.


[site]

26

PREFACE

29

INTRODUCTION 3 Questions

52

Part 1 A PHYSICAL ACCOUNT ON CAMBRIDGE COLLEGES The original idea: a self-contained learning environment

[research/ programme]

70

1.1 Spatial Configuration 1.2 StaircaseTypology 1.3 Courtyard Study

Part 2 CAMBRIDGE COLLEGES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CONTEMPORARY TEACHING IDEOLOGIES 2.1 Macro Context: Undercurrent of university growth: Redistribution and Decentralisation of Learning College densification 2.2 Micro Environment: College role shifts from intimate study chambers to Hall of Residence 2.3 Contemporary Inhabitation [case study] Trinity College: an unusual combination of buildings Distances Functionalities and Sense of Community

130

Part 3 A NEW PHASE City Saturation Colleges v.s. University:The unparallel Growth

148 Part 4 DESIGN PROVOCATION 162

Conclusion Bibliography


PREFACE Approach: A mixture of academic research, fieldwork, and design It is critically important the research is about both physical and social dimensions, and that conclusions and proposals about its significance be placed in context. As a project, its scope of research started off with a breakdown of Cambridge colleges’ fundamental framework, organisation and layout, and then takes off to an indepth analysis of the social configurations within its physical fabric: how people inhabit the new and the old (colleges); how the ‘old’ affects the design decisions of the ‘new’; and how the ‘new’ together with the ‘old’ create a new phenomenon. It is unintentional to engage with political issues yet it is impossible not to touch on it. It is to help me and the reader to consolidate the context and understand how it could be interesting to change something in Cambridge, a city which is so resistant to changes, by suggesting something rather radical. After a series of spatial experimentation and mapping which evaluate and reassess the medieval university within its contemporary context, I wish to use design as a provocational tool to point out the potential of underground courtyards, whilst at the same time improving the lives of its users. I would like to highlight the difference it makes to be a current student in the University and living in the researched phenomena, which enables me to compare the academia discourse to first hand experience. Convenient site visits, connections to contacts, and interview arrangements provided insightful knowledge that forms the grain of the project.


COMPOSITIONAL DRAWING TO ILLUSTRATE BRIEF Reimagining Trinity College’s Great Court in the context of contemporary teaching ideologies Minimal alternations to existing facades, listed; for students: quality study space, self contained domestic facilities, new circulation/ underground network; consideration for tourists and views perspectives

Architectural language ARCHITECTURAL GROWTH

LIFESTYLE

1300s (Original) 35 inhabitants

1200

1209 founded university

1

40% residential

1300

20% chapel 20% dining 10% library

1400

NEW QUALITY STUDY SPACE

STARLIGHT/ TRANQUILITY

1500

1593 Nevile built great court

85% residential

A D G

1800

I

A

K

D L S

Q

3 2

H

F

G

B

A

C F

F A-D

G

H

P

H I

O

C B

A

J

A-E

K

N M

L

RELATION TO TRINITY LANE

2

LIGHT CONDITION

S COUR T

D Q

D E

G

Current

18th Century

NEVILLE

E

17th Century

Garret windows, Dark Study

STUDY

BED

GREAT CO

URT

TOILET 17 STEPS 15 m

16th Century

7

0.

3

1.

SHOWER

TOURISTS

68 STEPS 48 m

R

AN

G

E

3

UNDERGROUND NETWORK/ SELF CONTAINMENT

U

TH

Improve circulation and domestic spaces

SO

P

700 undergrads 170 fellows 90 in Great Court

2000 T S

R

1900

1

E

a

A

B

CO UR T

I

E&

K

C

ILL

L

D

.

NV

6

4

M

C D 5

1960s Faculties and expansion

ROOFSCAPE

NS R D

CA

B

N

20th Century

QUEE

IUS

A

P O b

W

R

A

NE

C B

c

2012 (Contemporary inhatbitation)

H

B

N

GE R D.

GO

E

F

M

INIT Y

B

L

TRA

C

C K

LAN E

7% chapel 5% dining 3% library

1700 E D

F G H I

GRAN

BU FIE RRE LD LLS S

1600

Great Gate

Ang

el C ourt

Whewel

Minimal changes to existing facades

ls

Blue Boar

TRIN ITY

STREE

T

19th Century

Wolfson

20th Century

s

irc

a

rn

te

In

ta ls

e as

g

n isti

fa

e

ad

cs

Ex

TRINITY COLLEGE, The Great Court KEY

CURRENT

KEY

TOURIST

ROUTE Analysis

Minimal changes to exlisted structures

CURRENT

College buildings

ROUTE Analysis

TRINITY COLLEGE, The Great Court

TOURIST College buildings


INTRODUCTION

Cambridge colleges within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies The university started as a confederation of colleges (A. B. Cobban 2006) each with its own singular community - a community of masters and students. It is a self-contained unit (Tapper 2000) where the institution is ‘hermetic’ (Goldie 2008) and the learning environment personal and intimate (G.M Trevelyn 1943). Today the large Cambridge University is, rather, a network of interrelated communities and activies with a complex distribution of learning, held together by a common name, one governing board, and related purposes. This great transformation is defended by some, accepted by many, documented, as yet, by few. But it should be understood by all. The University today can perhaps be understood, in part, by comparing it with what it once was - Part I of the thesis is therefore a physical account of the colleges to understand their orignal function within the historical context. John Willis Clark’s four volume ‘treatise’ of ‘Architectural History of the University of Cambridge’, first published in 1886, remains the most indepth and extensive record and representation of the medieval buildings until the 19th century. It illustrates the evolution of architectural styles since the 1200s, when the university was founded. Those described are the ideal types from which it has derived, ideal types of colleges coupled with Cobban’s discourse on the traditional collegiate tutorial system in the 1500s that still constitute the illusion of some of its inhabitants today.

The medieval University today, functioning within the contemporary context, despite its strong heritage resistance however, is not the same. It is a new type of higher education institution. As a new type of institution evolved from a traditional collegiate university model, the genisis and evolution of the self-contained learning system within the colleges is central to the transformation of the University. As yet, the concept of collegiality remains so fluid that there is perhaps no integrity to its meaning (Palfreyman 2002), and literature on the expression collegiatlity is relatively meagre.


‘English universities may be on the brink of an experiment that no one alive today has experienced’ - Peter Scott

Editor of Times Higher Education Supplement


INTRODUCTION

A ‘New’ Medieval University Cambridge University is one of the few medieval institutions that have survived themselves to the modern world. Within England, along with Oxford, they held a monopoly on university education until the 1820s. Over the past 30 years, the University, inclusive of its 31 colleges, have experienced an unusual expansive and reconfiguration type of reform, which has defined a distinctly new age of teaching for the medieval collegiate university. This new age can be described as having 2 constituent parts. First, as the ‘dissolve of colleges to the university’, evident in the discourses about the declined of the Oxbridge tutorial system (J.Gascoigne 1989, Moore 1968). And second, as the ‘centralisation of learning’ in faculties, understood as the new expression of collegiality. The second half of the University’s history (16th century present) has seen the total amount of the colleges double those in the first half of its history. However, this increase in the number of colleges fails to illustrate the scale of expansion of the University. Under the movement of higer education massification in the late 20th centuries, along with introduction of faculties, five colleges were founded between 1960-1968, and student numbers increased drastically, prompting Colleges to undergo individual expansion, densification, and challenging their traditional functions and requiring them to adopt new roles. These profound changes in the learning infrastructures have caused imbalanced relationships between the college and the university, which deserves close attention in order to refine the medieval collegiate university model. Approach My research is therefore motivated by the wish to examine Camrbidge Colleges within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies, their resistance, adaptation, and evolution in their educational role (especailly in a spatial perspective). The thesis proposes that the University is entering a new phase when the university matures and city saturates, when College expansion and University growth is no longer parallel. Colleges, being independently funded, launched themselves on a business platform whilst University structures are restricted and governed by the state. At the same time, the overall situation cannot be fully explained without the shift in college role over time. Whilst they were study chambers where students and fellows live, sleep, pray, study together in a vertical block along a single room per storey linked by a staircase that stretches a whole floor plan, it is slowly shifting towards a vast hall of residence in central locations of the city. As learning is distributed to faculties, Colleges and University relationships complicate. I am most interested in the issues that have unfolded subsequently during the research, such as a new distribution of learning as an undercurrent of the introduction of faculties during the university expansion, at a time when traditional supervision system is eroded; sense of college community questioned; college disparities arise; and phenomena of an inverse of a city as colleges in central locations become unprecedentedly residential. These topics are not imposed but offer new ingrained patterns of perception towards the colleges of Cambridge. Looking at how the colleges withstand comprehensive changes reveals an insight into the unspoken changes and alterations of the social configuration and spatial function of the colleges, which are located in a city and an ideology where urbanism and development has traditionally been suppressed.


The Invisible Modernisation Tradition and heritage resistance This transformation of university has been rather invisible, or perhaps less celebratory in Cambridge, a site of strong heritage resistance. Traditions are prescious and preserved, from the lawns in the courtyard of the colleges to the listed buildings. Pride and persistancy is also apparent in the collegiate tutorial system, where literature has been criticsed for being defensive. Resistance to change is also significant in the physical fabric, from Gothic revival when they built the new (such as Whewells court in Trinity College) to look like the old, to the recent news on Trinity College rejecting solar panels to be put on their chambers’ rooftop.

[4] New Court, St John’s College

Gap in literature discourse: It is therefore understandable that the conception of medieval university has been grounded in contemporary discourse as the old model, where spatial models of higher educational institutions have been typified into Medieval, German, Campus, British models (Campos 2001). They have been analysed in an urbansitic way, whilst Cambridge University seems to be more of an interest to historians and paired with its heritage resistance becomes frozen in the romance of its past. Whilst the moden discourse goes opposite ways from the Cambridge historians, the gap seems enlarge when one talks of virtual or transcendental learning whislts Oxbridge remains in contemporary discourse as the ‘medieval universities’. The assumption of the medieval models remain the same however fails on the general level of knowledge. How do these medieval models function under the modern world of education? There is sociology/ education literature that documented to this period of expansion, they describe the erection of individual faculties, but not the colleges. Examples include ‘The Natural Sciences and the Development of Animal Morphology in Late-Victorian Cambridge’ (Blackman 2007), ‘Natural History and the ‘New Biology’ (Nyhart, L.K 1996), and ‘The Cavendish Laboratory 1874-1974’ (Crowther J.G 1974). And many on developement of Science faculties (Forgan 1989, Greison 1978, Warwick 2003, Wilson Roberts 1980). However, like the specification of the subjects spaces and the specilisation of knowledge, the discourse is also segregated into subject based discussions and neglect the overall college and student movement. Much is written from the perspective of the education and almost fighting competitiveness of university, but primarily not of the students. For example the founding of zoology department was to compete with the German Model (blackman 2007), how ‘university was too impoverished to teach effectively... worried criticism of college based institution cannot compete with the state funded ones’. My research therefore addresses the undercurrent of this faculty phenomena.


[5] Cripps Building, student accomondation, St John’s College

Where are the people? The most recent publication on Cambridge’s architecture, ‘Cambridge in Concrete’ published in May 2012 by Marco Luilano and Francois Penz, provides an interesting and alternative perspective. Using images from the RIBA British Architectural Libarary to highlight materials to distinguish modernist architecture, in order to highlight this ‘invisible other Cambridge’. Similar to John Willis’ volumes, which he employed a rationalist’s technique, avoidance of context of architecture, in order to produce a discrete analysis of the physical fabric of the medieval and renaissance Cambridge, ‘Cambridge In Concrete’ also presented a series of photographs absent of people. The reasons are justified in the final essay as to achieve ‘an abstraction of space’ (Penz 2012) for readers to fully appreciate the quality of the architecture. However, what is also invisible, but crucial to understanding the modernisation of the university beyond the physical fabric, is the social configurations behind the shifting role of colleges and changing education approach. What have the new ‘concrete’ buildings done to the old colleges? How have the structures and function of spaces have changed within the medieval architecture, especially those of the early colleges? My research therefore locates the inherent social aspects and examines unspoken shifting function and identity of colleges within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies.


In the meantime, these are the questions I address: How has Cambridge University deviated from the preconception of the ‘medieval model’? How do the colleges resist or adapt to the emergence of the faculties? How has the relationship between the college and the university evolved? What is the impact of the change in educational approach on the social (re)configuration contained in the medieval structures?

Locating and visualising the Invisibles My research therefore focuses distinctively in the shifting functional role of colleges in the context of modern teaching ideologies. The thesis explores the social reconfigurations of these medieval colleges due to education approach and political powers, and in turn questions and reassesses the collegiate living expression itself.

What is the Saturated City like? How does the post-expansion university function? What is the new equilibrium of the old and the new colleges? What is the impact on the social configurations under the expanded and densified colleges? Do colleges still process the self contained learning environment as learning becomes distributed, scales of accomodation sites and its distances from the main college grounds? Is the college entity redundant if college acomodation becomes scattered at various locations and an inversed city emerges?

Capacity Possibility What can be done to increase college capacity in central locations? How does one bring back its original intended learning setting, in form of a self contained study unit, with the goal to improve the students’ experience? Is the contemporary network of learning distribution efficient? Do the historical colleges provide an ideal and comfortable living and learning environment? Is there a possibility to insert a nice space into the saturated historical city fabric without disturbing the existing buildings? If utilising courtyard spaces is the point of entry, how far and varied can this underground model apply to other colleges or even context outside Cambridge?

A Hidden Insertion:

Utilising Currently Unused College Courtyard spaces to create new central learning spaces My proposal is going to be a subterranean learning infrastructure under the currently out of bound lawns of the Great court of Trinity College, as a response in form of design that addresses the issues and phenomenas raised from the research process. The colleges, in this scheme, can sponsor the university by increasing their college capacities, and by planting communal study spaces within the college ground in the goal to reinstate the collegiality which is lost through the process of university expansion. By suggesting to add another dimension to the fabric, the proposal aims to open up a whole new world of building potential and new experiences. Throughout the thesis, indepth assessment and analysis of the site, context, lighting and material strategies are carried out in form of experimental architecture, to deliver a radical, yet potential and pragmatic possibility.


[6] Trinity College, Cambridge 1690

...What if all the grass becomes glass?


A Physical Account

1.

Cambridge Colleges in historical and theoretical context

A PHYSICAL ACCOUNT • The Setup • College Configuration/ Typology • Planal and Sectional analylsis • Staircases: A Vertical Layout • A Courtyard Study

This section analyses the spatial configurations of the colleges, which distills them to their basic and original form and function. This fundamental understanding will serve as a backbone to later research to foresee how the colleges’ roles have changed with the shifting of teaching ideologies and modern collegiate living in relation to the university expansion, but also lending itself as a base reference to inform future design decisions to reinstate collegiality. The 31 colleges will be examined as one entity under the contemporary context, and typified based on the following parameters: principle elements of collegiate architecture; traditional layout orientations; and staircase typologies.


Part 1. A Physical Account of Cambridge Colleges


A Physical Account

A self-contained learning enviroment The original idea for colleges within the university was to house an endowed, self governing community of scholars who eat, live, sleep, study, and pray together.


‘For much of their histories (of medieval universities), the colleges were everything, and the university counted for little.’ - Tapper 2008


[7] Aerial view of Cambridge in 2012 with College buildings in red

Ra

ilw ay

Cambridge College Buildings

City Centre N


Early churches in Cambridge in the 1200s where scholars and fellows gather to study and pray, hostels and lodges are located in proximity to them, before the colleges were founded.

Introduction The University of Cambridge, founded in 1209, has been a medieval model defined in Kerr’s ‘Idea of University’ with collegiate tradition. This collegiality differentiates Cambridge, Oxford, and some other medieval universities from the rest with its extra element added to the university on functional(educational), social, and managerial elements in additional to and external of the university.

What are colleges in (collegiate) universities? The teaching of students is shared between the college and university. The college is ‘like your family’1 whilst the university is the main authority. The colleges have the responsibility of admitting the students, yet the university examines and grades them. Apart from providing accommodation, the colleges foster an interdisciplinary intellectual community of students of mixed year groups and subject interests. The colleges provide ‘Supervisions’ in Cambridge (or ‘Tutorial’ in Oxford), which is small group or one-to-one tuitions, regarded as a succesful teaching approach, and a ‘highly respected educational framework’ (Beck 2008, Palfreyman 2008), due to its additional layer of personal support.

+ Colleges • Admission • Eat • Pray • Teach • Sleep

= Small central university administration • Teach • Examinations

[8] Composition of collegiate university

1 As described in the Cambridge 2012 Undergraduate Prospectus

UNIVERSITY


A Physical Account Overview College configuration/ Typology Planal & Sectional Analysis Staircases: A Vertical Layout

18

19

24 23

25

28

7

20 14

6

11 16

13 12

7 12

8 31 2

27 21

10

4

9

15

5 9

20 26

3 1 17

29

Cambridge and its Colleges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Peterhouse Clare Pembroke Gonville and Caius Corpus Christi Trinity Hall Magdalene Kings Queens St Catherine’s Jesus

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Christ’s Trinity St. John’s Emmanuel Sidney Sussex Downing Girton Fitzwilliam Newham Selywn Hughs Hall

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

St. Edmund’s Murray Edwards Churchill Darwin Clarehall Lucy Cavendish Wolfson Homerton Robinson

30

The diagram above maps the locations of the 31 colleges today within the Cambridge town, giving an updated overview of the current distribution of colleges and their relationships among other colleges and the townscape. (For the series of townscape of Cambridge at different eras see Nicholas Ray’s Cambridge Architecture: A Concise Guide p.8-12) N


[9] The oldest continually inhabited courtyard in the country, The Old Court, Corpus Christi College (photo taken in 2012)

Birth of a College’s physical presence Trevelyn defines a college as ‘an endowed, self-governing community of scholars’ in his book ‘Trinity College: A Historical sketch’, which stresses the point that a ‘college’ does not necessarily include a spatial ‘place’. This can be explained by the direct translation of the latin word, ‘collegium’, referring to an organised group of people incorporated together to persue a common purpose: learning, in this case. (Occupancy of college chambers discussed in later section).


A Physical Account Overview College configuration/ Typology Planal & Sectional Analysis Staircases: A Vertical Layout

[10] The only College building that survives from the 13th century - The dining hall of Peterhouse College. Photo showing the exterior of the Hall, leading to the Deer Park.

It is only when the gradual development of the collegiate teaching system and the accompanying contrivance of the set of buildings that its standard reference as ‘a College’ is adopted. [9 The oldest continually inhabited courtyard in the country: The Old Court of Corpus Christi College, built 1352-1377 [10] The first college building : The Hall at Peterhouse of 1286


A Physical Account

(Left) Pemborke St. Edmund’s Christ King’s St John’s

Jesus Magdelene Downing Trinity Hall

Clare Sidney Sussex Gonville & Caius Girton St. Catherine’s

(Above) Homerton Emmanuel Newham Churchill

Selywn Corpus Christi Peterhouse Queen’s Murray Edwards Robinson Trinity Fitzwilliam

College typologies PLAN all @ 1:5000


‘An Oxbridge College, after all, was a total society, a microcosmic city, a hermetic institution.’ - Mark Goldie in ‘Corbusier comes to Cambridge’ 2007


This section explores the conception of original colleges as a ‘total society, a microcosmic city, and a hermetic instituition’ as described by Mark Goldie in his book ‘Corbusier Comes to Cambridge: PostWar Architecture and the Competition to Build Churchill College’ in 2007. It then considers how this concept of colleges as a selfsufficient, self contained, and intimate learning environment has remained a template for the design of contemporary colleges, but has been modified to match changes to living standards; distribution of learning to faculties; and student admission rates. I then suggest that these changes have forced the original colleges, who’s design was intended to facilitate a ‘microcosmic city’, to redeploy their spaces to match a new concept of college expectations.

Elements of Collegiate configuration The buildings provided for the learning community comprise of six main types, which I propose as the six principle elements of collegiate configuration: Functional Zoning The zoning of these six elements can be clearly shown on a plan layout, as each building usually represents one principle, each containing a single function. Residential chambers are segregated from communal buildings. A college can therefore be defined by a site that contains all six building types representing and fufilling all and only the activities of a collegiate lifestyle.

1) Chambers & studies

4) Hall

2) Library

5) Porter’s Lodge

3) Chapel

6) Master’s Lodge

Organisation and Orientation of the elements Many of the main courts of colleges share the same arrangement of the six principle elements in terms of NESW orientation as well as in relation with the other elements. From the selected colleges, the trends are listed below.

E

ENTRACE: EAST Colleges’ East range buildings are along the street, where the court is entered, creating the ‘Cambridge Townscape’ where small entrance opening into large domestic atmosphere of quiet courtyards

HALL: WEST RANGE The hall will be in the opposite range, thus most remote from public street; Kitchen is at the corner of that range, outward looking, lit, and ventilated from the outside. Because it is in the ‘end’ of the court,= it becomes the main access to a second court when a college expands.

W

MASTERLODGE: Link to HALL The Masterlodge is normally connected to the Hall providing the Master with direct access for dining.

S

CHAMBERS: South facing chambers are usually residential as it is the warmest range.

E

?

CHAPEL: East Light On North range of the court, Willis suggests in his IV volume of ‘architectural history of University of Cambridge’, that apart from the requirement that the chapel has to be on East-West axis, leaving it to be either on the South or North range. The warmer south range was used for chambers, and hence the chapel is located in the North range. LIBRARY Location of libraries do not follow a normative pattern.


PLAN ANALYSIS @ 1:1000 KEY

Six Principle Elements: Chambers and studies Library Chapel

At the scale of 1:1000, the six principles elements of collegiate configuration and their orientation are tested against a selection of five colleges, each representing colleges founded in 5 different centuries. 1) 13th century : Peterhouse 2) 14th century : King’s 3) 15th century : St Catherine’s 4) 16th century : Trinity 5) 20th century : Murray Edwards (New Hall)

Hall and kitchen Murray Edwards

Porter’s lodge Master’s lodge 12

Trinity Kings St Catherine’s Peterhouse

7

Entrance gates South range residential Chapel window East facing Link between 2 elements Relocation of element

Location: Central spine of city They are located along the central spine of the city (highlighted in red) from Trumpington street to King’s Parade, and extends Northwards to Castle Street.

Murray Edwards

Peterhouse

Castle Street

Stre

et Tru m

ping

ton


plan view:

[1] N [1]

St Catherine’s College The model

St Catherine’s College satisfies all the functional and orientation and principle: East and west gates; chapel on North range; Residential chambers concentrated in the South; and the new Library is placed slightly behind and out of the Court. Master’s lodge is beside the Hall for direct access.

King’s College

Slightly varied organisation Entrance: East (public street), West (the backs) Chapel: North range, East facing Chambers: residential blocks all in the South Hall within proximity to Master lodge and residential chambers


Peterhouse The first Peterhouse (same as Corpus) is eneterd via the yards of their attached parish churches, but the Church(Chapel) like the rest of the colleges are East facing. Master lodge is located opposite the road, whilst library and residential chambers form the main court.

Murray Edwards The new The College is not on the same plane as the other colleges on Trumpington Street, hence entrance is on the South, but the idea of a small entrance opening to a domestic, large, quiet courtyard atmosphere remains. There is no chapel within the college, and the Hall is underneath a dome (dotted circle). The courtyard is entirely formed of residential ranges.


A Physical Account Overview College configuration/ Typology Plan & Sectional Analysis Staircases: A Vertical Layout

All-in-one. With the setup and recognisation of the physical collegiate configuration, the organisation of these buildings bring the brotherhood of fellows to become an educational establishment. The plan analysis allows us to display the typologies of the physical layout and organisation of buildings. We can understand the colleges’ original learning environment as intimate, self-contained and centralised. This section has therefore provided an overview of the colleges and allow readers to foresee their changes (and resistance to changes) imposed by the changes in living standards; distribution of leaning to faculties; and student admission rates.


A Physical Account Overview College configuration/ Typology Plan & Sectional Analysis Staircases: A Vertical Layout

Trinity College

An extended version of St Catherine’s College Again, Trinity satisfies most of the principles and orientation with it’s chapel facing Eastwards, gates (red triangles) on East and West range, and Hall and Master Lodge located next to each other (linked blue and grey circle). The Wren Library is out of the court; the original library before the Wren Library was built was also slightly out of the court (black arrow). Within the Great Court, chambers are concentrated in the East and South range, which provides the best living environment. However, due to the expansion of the university the demand for students accomodation increased drastically - hence, the dominance of dark blue circles, representing the residential buildings.1

A subdivision in Markham, Ontario as a result of urban sprawl and housing sub division

This is similar to Urban Sprawl (left photo), a multifaceted concept centered around the expansion of auto-oriented, low-density development. One of the characteristics is housing subdivisions, which are large tracts of land consisting entirely of newly built residences. My design proposal later argues for the densification of the ‘city’, (ie. College) centre.

1 The themes of expansion will be explained and discussed in part 2.


Having understood the external configurations of a college, we zoom in to investigate into the internal layout within a college chamber range, in order to fully understand the college’s early occupancy function and original self-contained environment.

Residential Chambers within college

a1

A a2 b1

B b2 c1

A a1 a2

Chamber study 1 study 2

B Chamber b1 study 1 b2 study 2 C c1 c2

Chamber study 1 study 2

D Chamber d1 study 1 d2 study 2

C c2 d1

D d2

Plan of a typical garret floor layout showing chambers and studies

PLAN ANALYSIS II @ 1:500 Traditional Layout within College Chamber College accomondation blocks contain originally two types of spaces, the main space(a) and their ‘studies’ (a’). The main space was a shared bedroom whilst students enjoy a private study room, each with a window, as illustrated in diagram.

Uses of Layout in Traditional Settings The use of communal space in this traditional setting suggests that privacy preferences emphasised study privacy over more personal (i.e. sleeping) privacy. Fellow and their students therefore have very close and personal relationships, enhanced by the chamber’s layout, where each room has a shared space for beds and two closet ‘studies’.


A Physical Account Overview College configuration/ Typology Planal & Sectional Analysis Staircases: A Vertical Layout

Strict rules and porters monitoring college

Plan with furniture arrangement

- Private studies (each with window) - Shared bedroom

Surveyed garret plan of Great Court staircase N in Trinity College (Dec 2012)

- Private bedrooms - Shared study

A Shift in Privacy Preferences: Uses of layout in more contemporary settings An interesting fact I found when surveying the rooms was that there was a swap between the bedroom and studies in contemporary inhabitation.The bedroom used to be a study room, and the main space that was intended as a comunal bedroom becomes a shared study space. This is due to a shift in privacy preferences. One outcome of this shift in the use of layout is the loss of complementarities between layout and internal functions. One example is lighting. The inhabitant’s working desks (now located in the traditional ‘bedroom’, which originally required little lighting) do not face a window or have natural light in, which results in a heavy reliance on electrical lighting1. 1 Chamber conditions to be further discussed in the Contemporary inhabitation section in Part 2.


‘Staircases and courtyards - the two distinctive features of a Cambridge College.’ - Stefan Muthesius

in ‘Postwar university: Utopianist Campus and College’ 2000

‘Cues in the College’s brief... decided upon two things: Courtyards and staircases’ - Mullins 2009 on Churchill Competition


[Staircases] 1.2 Chambers Conditions A Vertical Layout College accomodation blocks are defined by staircases, it is derived from the tradition that each chamber contains its own fellow and their chosen scholars to learn live and learn from them. Each level of each chamber therefore has only 1-2 rooms. Horizontal circulation is restrictive as you cannot walk through from one end to another end of the building block. This vertical configuration encouraged intimate relationships between the scholars and the teacher, within a self- contained environment.

Close look into chambers and surveyed their conditions. Through this study of the circulation within the chambers, we find a unique staircase and vertical layout in them, which further accentuates the intimacy of the colleges.


L K D

Hall

Kitchen

F

Chambers A

M C

G Study 01

Celar under it B

B E

H

I

Typical arrangement of a college with chambers of staircase A-M

Middle solar Celar under it

A

20 m

10

no. of occupants

Solar next Cundyt

C

Solar next to it Celar under it

1:100 D

Two rooms

E

Solar over gate

F

Great Solar

(Robert de Croyland’s House, known as ‘prototrinity’, Kings hall 1337)

4

Celar under it

3

G

Under Master’s study Under Master’s chamber

2

Table showing number of students occupying in each chamber

1

1 2 3 4 0

1

5

Typical Chamber section

(Perse and Legge building, Caius College 1688)

chamber beneath it celarium upper level: solarium half Storey (extentsion 1) garret (extension 2)

10 m

1:20

[11] Plan showing 7 Chamber blocks A-G within an L block (Perse and Legge building, Caius College 1688)


[12] Two lit-up staircores in St Catherine’s College and one main one in the centre.

The planal analysis I-IV has illustrated to us that the collegiate system is organised under 6 principle elements with a specific orientation layout. These buildings with often a singular function are built overtime to form the quadruple courtyard. A variety of building works then tend to continute to carry out on with a notion of courtyards.

College Chambers: A Vertical Layout Proto-college: and its many staircases

Precisely because of the functional zoning and segregated chambers, colleges have a specific circulation strategy: a vertical layout defined by staircases. Many believe (add literature review) that the collegiate configuration began in Robery de Croyland’s House, belonging to King’s Hall in 1337, pre-trinity. Using this as a model the traditional vertical layout is introduced (left page).


Peterhouse

Photographic survey (Dec 2012): Peterhouse (above) Murray Edwards (left and below)

The staircases conditions shown vast mateiralstic and atmopheric differences between the traditional colleges (e.g. Peterhouse) and more contemporary ones (e.g. Murray Edwards). The original stacks of staircase circulation is employed as a traditional template for contemporary designs, yet it is modified to adapt to living standards and larger in scale. Apart from the difference in materials, Murray Edward’s staircases are connected in each levels whilst Peterhouse’s staircases only lead to their 1-2 rooms on each level with no corridors.

Murray Edwards


A Physical Account Overview College configuration/ Typology Planal & Sectional Analysis Staircases: A Vertical Layout

Peterhouse

Murray Edwards Circulation Staircase core

Staircase and circulation mapping Newham College

Robinson College

Homerton College

1. Peterhouse Traditional: Each level has 1-2 rooms only and horizontally not connected by corridors 2. Murray Edwards Colleges experimented different ways of modernising collegiate tradition (Howard 2010), which is apparent in their design decisions on circulation. For example, in Murray Edwards, founded in 1954 as ‘New Hall’, accomodation blocks despite being defined by staircases, one can walk through the whole level from one end to the other; providing an open circuit and flexible circulation, yet keeping to the traditional vertical stacks of staircases for each residential chamber. 3. New colleges such as Homerton, Robison and Newham rejected traditional staircases; circulation is ‘hotel like’ (Carolin 2008). and Newham colleges currently contains the longest corridor in the world!1 1 information from ‘Cambridge Colleges (Breydon)’ by Janet Jeacock (1988)


G

1/F

2/F

Staircase M

G

1/F

2/F

G

1/F

2/F

Staircase N

Staircase Survey (Dec 2012) Trinity College, The Great Court

The surveyed staircases are of similar dimensions, and decor. The Ground and first levels are almost identical, with red doors and 1.3m staircase. There are much greater variations in the layouts in upper levels, where sometimes it branches to two narrow staircases (Staircase M); or leads to a mid level consisted of only a toilet (Staircase L) before arriving to level two, where a 0.75m corridor wraps around the staircase to bring you to the otherside of the landing.

Staircase L


E D

C

B

A

F D

G

G

H C I

K

E

F

L

M

H

B

N

I

A

K

D C

L

R

B

S

A Q

c

3 2 A

P O

B

b N 4

M

C D 5

6

L

1

K

I

H

F

G

E

a D

A

B

C

Mapping of all staircases in Trinity College T

R

F

P

GREAT COURT

A-D

G

H

Q

D E

G

D

N

C

F E

B

A

S

P

C

A- S Staircase Chambers

H I

O B

A

J

A-E

K

N M

L


N

M Site section across the Great Court 1 Gonville and Caius College 2 Nevile’s gate,Trinity lane 3 South range 4 Kitchens 5 Hall 6 Fountain 7 Sundial 8 Master’s lodge 9 Chapel

L N M L

N

4 1

2

3

5

8 6

9

7 0

10


Entrance of Staircase M (The Great Court, Trinity College)


Staircase K

L

M

N

+1.5m Plan at ground level

Cellarium

1.3m width;

riser 19mm/ run 30mm

0.9m width;

+5.0m 1st level

rise 21mm/ run 25mm

0.7m width;

+10.0m Garret plan

riser 20mm/ run 23mm 0

Internal Chamber Conditions Staircase L,M,N The above plans are the surveyed staircases and spaces in December 2012. The uniform dimensions of the stairs at ground level takes you up to the next level. One flight of 1.3m wide stairs take up the whole width of the chamber block. It then becomes much narrower, to 0.9m, and much steeper as well. The staircases continue to narrow at the garret level to 0.7m.

Pros and Cons The traditional staircase creates a vertical layout and foster intimate relationshop between the fellows and students, yet it is inconvenient for circulation, especially for cleaning purposes, as the cleaner would have to carry the equipments up and down each staircase to each room. Newer colleges, such as in Murray Edwards, also has the vertical stacks staircases, but with corridors linking each block and circulation becomes more much more open, flexible and internal layout is more connected. The thesis will employ the latter layout configuration, with corridor and staircases.

The existing internal condition and experience are of stark contrast to the grand exterior of its courtyard.

“It has a crazy layout - you’ll never have seen anything like it - all wiggly staircases etc but the rooms are pretty nice.’

5m

- Marco, 5a-b room set, Staircase H, Great Court


[12]

G - 1/F Stairs, 1.3m width, 16 steps riser 19mm/ run 30mm Staircase M, The Great Court Trinity College


[13]

1 - 2/F Stairs, 0.9m width, 14 steps riser 21mm/ run 25mm Staircase M, The Great Court Trinity College


[14]

2/F Stairs, 0.7m width, 10-3 steps, riser 22mm/ run 23mm Staircase M, The Great Court Trinity College


[15]

G-1F Stairs, 1.4m width, 17 steps, riser 20mm/ run 23mm; 1F-2F Stairs, 0.9m width, 17 steps, riser 22mm/ run 23mm Staircase H, Peterhouse


[16]

2F Stairs, 0.8m width riser 20mm/ run 22mm Staircase L, The Great Court Trinity College


[17]

Staircase A, Orchard Court Murray Edwards College


[18]

Staircase E, Orchard Court Murray Edwards College (Staircases connected by corridors)


[19]

Staircase B, Wolfson Building Trinity College (transparent and colourful)


[20]

Staircase B, Wolfson Building Trinity College


[21]

Staircase Q, 2/F, New Court Fitzwilliam College


[22]

Staircase Q, G -1/F, New Court Fitzwilliam College


‘The college precint was not restricted solely to the buildings of the court and, once the collegiate system had been established, it was it was inteded that all the academic and recreational needs of the members of each foundcation should be met within the confines of the college grounds. In particular the gardens become of paramount importance as a most desirable adjunt to intellectural college life.’ - Cambridge Architecture, Tim rawle


Cambridge and its Courtyards

[A Courtyard Study]

1.3 THE OUT-OF-BOUND SITES Courtyard typologies Staircase and circulation mapping Photgraphic Survey Scale, Size and Ratio relations Volume and Light Study Building Potential?

Through an analysis of scale, size and ratio relationships between the lawns and its surrounding buildings, a detailed courtyard study then tests the feasibility of expanding underground. Using The Great Court of Trinity College as a base site, a light study, stairs and circulation typologies, volumes studies and massing options served to explore the potentials and justify possibility of a new nice space.


Aerial view of Cambridge, U.K.


Cambridge and its Courtyards


Cambridge and its Courtyards


Cambridge and its Courtyards

Court · yard noun. ‘An unroofed area that is completely or partially enclosed by walls or buildings, typically one forming part of a castle or large house.’ -definition

The Defining Element Courtyards in Cambridge colleges exceed the definition of ‘An unroofed area that is completely or partially enclosed by walls or buildings’; It has instead become the defining element of colleges. This is because each building has its own and only function, as shown in the typologies of the colleges, and since circulation is restrictive within the chambers, the courtyard plays the role to connect these buildings, visually and functionally. The diagram above illustrates the individual staircase entrances in red arrows and black arrows represent the visual connection of buildings towards the central courtyard.


1290 1

1

1424 2

1450 3

2

5

343 years -

1stcourt yard

1290-1633 The second court, Gisborne Court, (the smaller court highlighted in red dotted line in the aerial view), was formed 200 years later, in 1825-6.

5

6

7

Courtyard appearance

PETERHOUSE COLLEGE

4

1740

3

6

aerial view

1590 1633

1825

2013

7

4


Cambridge and its Courtyards

aerial view

Courtyard appearance

CHURCHILL COLLEGE 10 years -

12court yards

1958-1968

Formation sequence We can understand the formation of the courtyard in early colleges through the mapping of its construction sequence. Courtyards are formed from the accumulation of college buildings; whilst hundreds of years later, when newer colleges are to be built in one process, architects commonly took up the courtyard configuration too. Example 1: Peterhouse (343 years - 1 court yard) 1290-1633 Buildings were built in different years, it was only after hundreds of years that the courtyard was enclosed and surrounded with buildings Example 2: Churchill (10 years- 20 couryards) 1958 - 1968 An architectural competition was organised to design for Churchill College, in which the competition entries were criticised that the ‘Courtyards had been deemed the quintessence of collegiality’ by Collion Rowe, and that ‘the winning entry was the one more infected boy courtyard-itus, proposing no less than 20.’ This is defended by Mark Goldie as ‘arguably unfair’, due to ‘the challenge was tough, and to fit 500 rooms in upwards of 50 staircases faces the danger of sprawl.


Single Court Downing College

115m

80m

Site Confines Gonville and Caius

Trinit y

Colle

Trinity Lane

Trinity

Stree

t

ge

Senate House Passge

Additive Courts Jesus College

North Court Second Court Chapel Court

First Court


Cambridge and its Courtyards

Cripps court (post graduates)

Detached new court Selywn

Old court (undergraduates)

The backs

River Cam

Queens Road

Distant memorial court Clare College

Open court St Catherines

Jesus and Queens College formed lots of new courts, additive to the main court. Some colleges, like Downing, continued to build to form one mega court over 163 years. St Catherine’s college never closed their court, and some of the later courts are distorted and less regular due to site constrains, such as Trinity hall, Gonville and Caius. Some colleges created another court out of site (e.g. Clare, selywn)

Colleges and their courtyard formations


The forbidden lawn The universal rule on these courtyard spaces is that they are strictly out-of-bound. The highly-regarded right to walk on the grass in the college courts is exclusive to Fellows of the college and their guests. Students do however have the right to walk on Scholar’s Lawn, but only in full academic gowns. The diagram above illustrates how circulation is restricted to a grid-like routine; whilst fellows can wander on the grass or take the shortest route by cutting through them. An occasional exception is when permission has been granted by the Dean or Senior Bursar for a garden party or the college society’s summer concert. Tim Rawle describes these manicured lawns as ‘precious’ and that ‘it is exactly this empty vast green space that gives the characteristic and grandness’. The rule has been so historical that it is listed as one of the ‘minor traditions’ in a Cambridge travelguide, ‘A travel guide to the top 10 attractions’.


Circulation diagrams to show differences to map the routes of different users

Cambridge and its Courtyards

Fellows college members grid like circulation

unrestricted circulation they can wander around the lawn; or cut across for the shortest route

Tourists

photo spot at Great Gate restricted route into courtyard


Cambridge and its Courtyards

AVERAGE COURTYARD SPACES WITHIN COLLEGE GROUNDS:

26%

Total area of these unused, forbidden lawns’ (excluding sports fields and master’s gardens) is

86663m2 which is equivalent to 328 tennis courts (standard tennis court 11x24m)

KEY

Courtyard typologies (left) Downing Jesus Christs Church Magdelene

(Above) Newham St Johns

St Catherine’s Gon. and Caius King’s College Corpus Christi

Emmanuel

Selywn Clare Pembroke Queens

This courtyard study maps out the green spaces against the building footprints of the colleges. The percentage of these two elements are calculated and result is as follows. Only the ‘decorative’ lawns are drawn, green areas such as sports ground or master’s gardens are not included. The total area also does not include playing fields but only within the main site. Sampling the central colleges along Kings Parade and Trumpingdon Street, Regents Street, Cambridge colleges courtyards occupy 26% on average of college grounds. In the fourteen colleges chosen in the city centre, there is 86663m2 of these forbidden lawns in and among them. Kings, Jesus, and Downing College have above 50% of green courtyard spaces, whilst Gonville and Caius demonstrates a 50/50% of building and Courtyard areas. Detail table of all figures and percentages on next page.


Sitting in central locations, do these courtyards have building potentials?


Cambridge and its Courtyards building x100 total area

college

total area

building

%

building x100 (building +courtyard area)

%

courtyard x100 total area

courtyard

%

courtyard x100 (building +courtyard area)

%

newham 36643 8574 23 41 12380 34 59 downing 23156 6546 28 45 8129 35 55 jesus 25000 6123 24 44 7735 31 56 magdalene 14811 5056 34 66 2656 18 34 corpus 8213 3556 43 71 1442 18 29 queens 14426 7181 50 69 3162 22 31 kings 38160 8179 21 37 14076 37 63 selywn 10743 3153 29 55 2567 24 45 pembroke 21835 5288 24 62 3268 15 38 peterhouse 8150 2733 34 47 3117 38 53 Caius 8781 3163 36 50 3209 37 50 trinity 29310 9926 34 52 9084 31 48 st johns 31320 17530 56 63 10490 33 37 emmanuel 16951 6154 36 60 4164 25 40 christs 13254 6205 47 61 3911 30 39 avg avg 33.674 26.9348 Table to show figuresof college buildings and courtyards’ areas and equivalent percentages of sampled colleges in city centrea

11m

[23]

Daylight penetration in relation to window height (x) and room depth (~2x)

Small court 1 secluded level of potentially a quality learning space 3m

12m

3m

Hence in my design proposal, the depths of the rooms will be 3-4,m with windows and floor heights increasing as you go further down (section 4)

Bigger court - more building capacity

Size, Scales, and Ratio 5% of the total unused courtyard spaces is 86663m2 among the 14 central colleges would be 309m2, which means theoretically, should we use 17x17m2 of the unused lawns for building (subterranean or not) it would only alter 5% of the courtyard spaces, and this is excluding the sports fields and master’s gardens. Because of the traditional staircase stacks of restricted circulation, buildings are restricted to max. 4 levels, and with the top as garret levels, the chambers are on average 11m high. Small courts, such as the Old Court in Corpus Christi, (18x20m) the maximum underground level would be 1, in order for enough light to go in, unless the second basement level does not require natural light. (fig. 23) This study therefore focuses on the bigger courts of colleges in the city centre, where there could be more extensive alteration, such as Kings, Trinity, Jesus, and Downing College. The next page offer a light and volume study on the biggest enclosed courtyard in all olleges, Trinity’s Great court.


Light and Volume Study The Great Court, Trinity College

S B 79

.5

19

8 102.3

83

8

A-A

18 83.05m

8 AA 36 8 14 8

83.05 102.3m B

TOTAL AREA: 102.3 x 83.04 = 8496.015

1:2000

~8500 m2

TOTAL PEBBLE AREA

TOTAL GRASS AREAT

TOTAL PAVEMENT AREA

Total pebble area:

Total green area:

(8 x 2 + 9.5) x 102.3 + (37 + 19) x 8 x 3 = 2608.65 + 1344 = 3952.65 m2

(18 + 36 + 14) x 37 + (18 + 36 + 14) x 19 = 2516 + 1292 = 3808m2

Total length: 734m Width: 0.9m Total pavement area: 734 x 0.9 = 660.6m2

~4000 m2

~3800 m2

~ 660m2

3800/ 35

Given each student requires 35m2 in an accomondation (including common and domestic areas)

4000/ 35

= x115 rooms

Capacity estimation -

= x108 rooms

5

7


VOLUME STUDY 1 4000m2 x 14m(h) - 4 levels = 56000m3

VOLUME STUDY 2 3800m2 x 14m(h) - 4 levels = 53200m3

An interesting finding is the area of grass is almost the same as the stone/ pebble area, at 3800m2 and 4000m2. This study experiments with this vast space by building beneath the pebble areas (1) and beneath the green lawns (2). In both scenarios, all land has to be dug up for natural lighting. (1) proves to be better as it is connected to the existing buildings and have a larger ‘courtyard’ between the subterranean blocks. The width of the pebble area is 8m, which is ideal for a 6m deep room and 1.5m corridor.


BUILDING POTENTIAL... ?


Cambridge and its Courtyards

Massing Models ( Foam) 1:500

Massing Models (Carved) 1:500


‘Fellows took two or three pupils each, by private arrangement with the pupils, or by order of the Master. The relationship was personal and close…’

-G.M Trevelyn

The Colleges is traditionally built to facilitate a self-contained learning community, but has this ‘colleigate system’ always been the same? How has the medieval university evloved? How do the colleges withstand or adapt to the changing forces in higer education? How has the relationship between the college and the university changed? What is the impact of the change in education ideologies (distribution of learning) on the social (re)configuration?


2.

Cambridge Colleges within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies

2.1 Macro context • The Radial Expansion • The Faculty Arises • Redistribution of Learning • From study chamber to hall of residence • College Densification • Inverse Of Cities

Now that we understand the physical set up of a College, we can examine how the colleges have changed within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies. This section analyses the major reconfigurations of social and spatial structures, how the colleges have shifted from study chamber to a hall of residence during the co- expansion of the town, colleges and university. Simultaneously, under the establishment and influence of faculties, how decentralisation of collegiate community and redistribution of learning took place, creating an interesting phenomena of inverse of cities, where students live in densified colleges in city centre and travel outwards to university campuses for lectures. This understanding of the current situation grounds my design project within the contemporary context within such a historical site, as well as identifying what Cambridge needs.


Part 2 Cambridge Colleges within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies


College

Multiplicity

Self contained learning environment

of single communities

Radial Expansion/ densification with town

new C

C F F

F

Faculties

redistribute learning within colleges

tight! F C

Saturation

within college main sites in city centre result in building out of college

Inverse of Cities

Living in central locations and travelling away from city centre to work

College

£££££

Faculties/ University Town

££


How have the Cambridge colleges evolved? How do they function under the contemporary world of higher education? How do they adapt to, or withstand the comprehensive changes imposed on them by economical and education forces?


4 types of expansion emerged as themes to explain this phenomena 1 The Radial Expansion 2 The Faculty Arise 3 College dens ification 4 Inverse of Cities

7

10

4 79

4

5

5

2 2

8

9

11

3

3

1

1

1200

1400

1 The Radial Expansion Growth of University with Town

KEY

Similar to the concentric ring model created by sociologist Ernest Burgess1, which according to the model, a city grows outwards from a central point, the above drawing shows the accumulation of colleges built within the city centre, and gradually expands with the town as the city centre densified. Each diagram is two hundred years apart. The latest colleges, in yellow, such as Girton and Homerton, are especially far away (2 miles). It is worth noting that the colleges have also continually individually expanded by building within and, or, of of their site in parallel to the new founded colleges. (further explained in section 3 on densification) Until the seventeenth century, Kings Parade was still known as the ‘High Street’ where dwellings flanked both sides of the street, and the South side of Bridge Street survived until the 20th century. The colleges gradually increased in wealth and status when they bought up and demolished the town houses to expand or found new colleges. Downing College (red line) site boundary (black) College buildings (yellow) ‘Downing Terrace’ ; Town houses bought down and converted to student accomondation

1 Burgess E.W. (1924)”The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project” Publications of the American Sociological Society, 18:85-97

1200-1400 (Red)

1400-1500 (Purple)

1500-1600 (Blue)

Peterhouse Clare College Pembroke Caius Trinity Hall Corpus Christi

Magdalene Kings Queens St Cat’s Jesus Christ’s

Trinity St. John’s Emmanuel Sidney Sussex

1600-1800 (Green)

1800-1900 (Yellow)

1900-2000 (Grey)

Downing

Girton Fitzwilliam Newham Selywn Hughs Hall St Edmunds

Murray Edwards Churchill Darwin Clarehall Lucy Cavendish Wolfson Homerton Robinson

Downing College, founded in 1800, was the only college founded between 1596 and 1869, and is sometimes described as the oldest of the new and the youngest of the old.


Foundation and location of COLLEGES over the past eight centuries

Girton College

17

7

7

10

10 13

13

15

15 12

12 79

4

79

4 5

5 2

2

14

8

9

14

8

11

9

11

3

3

1

1

16

1600

1800

1850

1900

Homerton College

800 hundred years of history‘If knowledge is gained through the passage of time, then Cambridge would be dripping with it.’ - Mark Goldie

Multiplicity

of single communities

+ Expansion (Radial)

This increase in the number of colleges results in the multiplicity of individual self-contained learning communities, constituted of a parallel series of ‘hermetic institutions’ (Goldie 2007). Learning happened in the tradition of stack of a staircases as discussed earlier in Part 1, where each staircase represented a fellow with his chosen group of students. Precisely because of the centralised layout of the colleges, each of these members eat, pray, learn, and stay within the staircase block with their fellow. Collegiality within the colleges is not challenged, but instead competitions between colleges are encouraged (Tapper 2008) as a result of the mutiplicity process, which further enhance the sense of pride and belonging of each individual college.


12

7

Senate House located in city centre

The ‘University’, on the other hand, was ‘almost hidden’ quoting Howard, during the time when david loggan published the series of engravings of the colleges in 1688. Deborah Howard’s writing on ‘Fabric of Rivalry’ vividly depics how the rivalry of Town and Gown was played out in the townscape of Cambrige: the earliest university building was ‘tucked into a small court’ known as School Quandrangle, dating back to 1370-1475. It was not until the erection of James Gibb’s Senate House (1722-1730) that the university itself acquired a public presence.


COLLEGES within the context of the UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY

= +

Colleges • Admission • Eat • Pray • Teach • Sleep

small central university administration • Teach • Examinations

[24] Composition of collegiate university

‘For much of their histories (of medieval universities), the colleges were everything, and university counted for little.’ (Tapper 2008) The polarity in Tapper’s Statement, between the ‘college’ and the ‘university’, would be a confusion for the public. But, the purpose of my research is to reflect on the historical roots and educational value of this polarity to advance a few thoughts on the changes in the significance, functional role and control of the colleges to the university (and vise versa). This allows me to question and revise the expression of collegiate learning and living by examining the Cambridge Colleges within the context of contemporary teaching ideologies.

Centre: University Periphery: Colleges

[25] University as the confederation of colleges

Until the mid 19th Century, both Cambridge and Oxford comprised a group of colleges with a small central university adminsitration, rather than university in the common sense (Cobban 2006), fig 24. Hence an alternative perspective on these interdependent yet separate bodies is that the universityis the federation of colleges, and due to this inclusive nature, they are governed by a federal system, and federalism suggest the possibility of a fluctuating power balance between the centre(University) and the periphery (colleges), which Cobban defines as the fundamental centrifugal character of the university with the colleges (Fig. 25).


1

2

Peterhouse 1284

University founded 1209

Clare 1326

3 4 5 6

7

Corpus Christi 1352 Trinity Hall 1350

8

KIngs 1441

Pembroke 1347 Caius 1348

9

10

11

Queens 1448

Jesus 1496

Magdalene 1428

St. Catherine’s Christ’s 1473 1505

2

1 11

Faculties are highlighted in grey: 10

1 West Cambridge Site 2 Madingley Rise Site 3 Sidgwick Site 4 Silver Street/ Mill Lane site 5 New Museum Site 6 Downing Site 7 Old Addenbrookes site 8 Chemistry Dept. 9 Engineering/ Architecture Dept. 10 University Libary 11 Centre for Mathematical Science

5 6 4 3

7 9

‘Cambridge, defined by antiquity of its foundations, venerability of traditions, yet success in research and teaching to experiment and innovate.’ (Goldie 1997) This suggests that not only are the faculties places of learning with complex practical requirements, but they also need to define intellectual/ social aspirations of higher education. However, ‘Departmental structures at cambridge tend to evolve adhoc rather than being created afresh and clearly layout’ refering to New Museum and Downing site (J Blackman 1972). 5

3

9

11

1

12

8


13

14

15

Trinity 1546

The Expansion Timescale

16

Emmanuel Sidney Sussex 1584 1596

Downing 1800

St. John’s 1551

17

Downing 1800

17 18 19

Girton 1869 Fitzwilliam 1869

20 21

22

Hughs Hall 1885 Selwyn 1882

Newham 1871

St. Edmund’s 1896

23

24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Churchill 1960

Murray Edwards 1954

Robinson Robinson 1979 Homerton 1976

Present 2013

Darwin 1964 Clarehall 1965 Lucy Cavendish 1965 Wolfson 1965

+ FACULTIES

The University appears to gain recognition, when the faculties arise, and learning started to happen out of colleges, due to the specification and specialisation of new subject requirements.

2 the Faculties arise After the Cambridge University Act formalised the organisational structure of the university, the study of many new subjects were introduced, such as theology, history and modern languages. Colleges took part in this faculties phenomena in the form of funding and releasing land to erect university buildings. Resources necessary for new courses in the arts, architecture and archaeology were generously donated by Richard Fitzwilliam of Trinity College. Between 1896 and 1902, Downing College sold parts of its land to build Downing Site, comprising new scientific laboratories for anatomy, genetics and Earth Sciences. During the same period, the New Museum Site was erected, including the Cavendish Laboratory, which has since moved to the West Cambridge Site, and other departments for chemistry and medicine.

A New Map of Learning These new sectors of departmental sites result in a redistribution of learning, as shown on diagram in dotted lines, as college memebers begin to travel out and professorships becomes complex. Deborah Howard describes this as the university ‘escaping from the confines of the college rooms to egalitarian modernity’ (Howard 2010). For example, a professor might be a fellow in one college but teaches in another department, a student may live in one college but travel to another department to listen to a professor’s lecture (who may have a fellowship in a different college), and (the student) returns to supervision in their own college. Whilst the university runs exams at the end of the academic year, the colleges would provide mock exams for their students. This creates college disparities.1 Related to idea of a university, which has been discussed excessively by (Newman 1852), (Flexner 1930) and (Kerr 1963), the medieval university, perceived as a ‘single community’ comparable to a ‘village with its priest’ (Kerr 1963) has evolved to a town(A one-industry town with its intellectural oligarchy(faculties); and with the new network of learning and and colleges expansion, it is comparable to Kerr’s idea of multiversity in America, where it transforms into a ‘city of infinte variety’. Resources and teaching are shared and learning communities mixed. Whilst the selfcontained college environment remains, and arguably enhanced. The college communities increase in the sense of individuality as colleges increased in number; While there might be a new network of learning, colleges remain the personal cores. 1 Because students are tutored in their colleges, student welfare may differ from college to college, in terms of supervision hours, resources, and funding, which creates disparities between colleges. This will be futher discussed later in Part 3.


Gentlement’s club no more? At the same time (of the global higher education expansion), the traditional colleges also gradually introduced changes. By 1980 all of the formerly male colleges accepted women. Women doubled to 40% of the student body after 1976 (Soares 1999). Julian A Soares’s ‘The decline of the privilege: The modernisation of Oxbridge Univeristy’ described how Oxford emerged as a reluctant moderniser.

‘1960s the tripling of participation in higher education, the beginning of the long transition from a higher education population of eighteen year old boys to a population of mature students, part-time students, and a preponderance of women students.’ - GM Trevelyan (Trinity College: a Historical Sketch)

80 70 60 50 (%) 40 30 20 10

Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2009 Global higher education massification

East Asia & Pacific

South & West Asia

Central Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

North America & West Europe

Central & Eastern Europe

Sub saharan Africa

Arab states

2000 2007


‘Middle of a tremendous activity, which no one can call revolutionary, nor conventional’ - Kerr (1963)

new C

C F F

F

F C

Massification of Higer Education To put things into scale, the expansion of the university had been minimal comparing to the expansion in in1960-1968. The transformation was more extensive than any other (Altbach 2010) due to the sheer numbers of institutions and people involved. Global forces: It was the time of post-WWII, and government wanted to use education as am appeal to change British life, and there was a widespread consensus that the expansion of universities was central to this modernisation of Britian. The reform of the university was therefore unprecedently greatest having been funded by the government, when the faculties arose.

1953 (100,000)

1962

(130,000)

1967 (200,000)

1980

(558,000)

[26] Diagram to show total number of students in higer education in the UK: Each man represents 10,000 people

A central phenomenon of 21st century higher education is massification- the prodigious growth of education and expansion of enorollments that has taken place worldwide in the past 30 years (Rumbley 2010). There are now more than 150.6 million tertiary students in the world, roughly a 53% increase over 20001. In the UK, in 1953, the total number of students in all universities was less than 100,000, and Oxbridge each with 4000 students dominating the university sector. The number had risen to 110,000 by 1960. The committee of Higher Education was established in the year after, and speeded up the rate of expansion of student numbers and increasing dramatically the number of institutions. In 1962 there were 130,000 students, and by 1967, no more than 5 years, it increased to 200,000 and an additional increase to 558000 by 1980! (Fig. 26) This rapid enlarged infrastructure is described as a ‘high tide’ within a ‘wave of growth’ by Nick Bullock in ‘British Universities on a Rising Tide’ and subsequently an ‘Anxious age’ by Nicholas Ray in ‘Architecutre in Cambridge 1970-2000’, commenting on the challenges architects face with Massification, debating between being ‘conservative’ to build within the historical fabric or ‘progressive’ in terms of architectural styles to represent the modernisation and advance in technologies.

1 Figures sourced from Change, Journal of higher learning Mar 2011 issue


(from left to right) Michael House (earliest surviving building of the college)/ Great Court/ Neville’s Court/ New Court -16/17 centuries

Bishop’s Hostel/ New Court/ Whewell’s court/ Angel Court - 17/18th centuries

Buying up townhouses to form Angel Court/ Blue Bore Court/ new Wolfson Building - 19/20th centuries

This series of drawing map out the extent of Trinity College’s buildings and illustrates how it has expanded and densified over the past 600 years.

Expanded across River Cam/ purchased fellow’s gardens from university/ Burrell’s Fields accomodation site - 20th centuries [27]


Site of buildings before Michael house and Kings hall merged to found Trinity College

3 College Densification As a result of the massification of higher education, university enrollment increased drastically. The urgent need to accomodate the enormous amount of student caused an interesting emergence in the city centre: college densification. New college buildings are often erected in close sites to accommodate and concentrate students to maintain the sense of community and collegiality. The illustration (Fig. 27) shows Trinity College from 600 years ago since it was founded, it has bought up street housing to convert to student accommodation as well as building within the site to take in more students.1

1 A detail case study of Trinity College’s buildings is included later in the section ‘Contemporary Inhabitation’


Put simply, higher education, like the economy, is addicted to “more”. - Peter Scott professor of higher education studies at the Institute of Education

Aerial photo showing Cambridge Townscape: St. Botolph’s Church surrounded by St Catherine’s and Corpus Christi college accomodation buildings


Expansion

Densification

A Duality


During the first wave of growth, the university expanded to satisfy demand, to meet the need for an enlarged infrastructure and to accomodate the larger number of students. Then, the deeper implications of the massification began to unfold. There are two phenomenas of social reconfiguration that emerged as a consequence of the expansion of university and densification of colleges.

(blue circles) Student acccomodation/ residential chambers

PHENOMENA 1 From Study Chamber to Hall of Residence

R Hall Master Lodge R

Library Porter’s Lodge

R R

R

R

R

New court

R R

R

Residential (R)

R

chapel

R

Main court R

R

As a result of the expansion and desification of the colleges, the college becomes proportionally more residential. Whilst the college densifies, the new buildings built are mostly residential. The diagram shows how the percentage of residential spaces increases within Trinity College(fig. 28), which increased from the original 40% within the single great court, where all principle elements of a traditional college makes up buildings that form the great court, to 85% today, after the insertion of Blue Boar Court, Angel Court, and Burrels Fields and the insertion of Wolfson Building. While colleges expanded and densified, learning is distributed to faculties, and colleges become dormitories.


Minimal alternations to existing facades, listed; for students: quality study space, self contained domestic facilities, new circulation/ underground network; consideration for tourists and views perspectives

ARCHITECTURAL GROWTH

LIFESTYLE 1200

1209 founded university 1300

1400

1300s (Original) 35 inhabitants

40% residential 20% chapel 20% dining 10% library

1500

1593 Nevile built great court 1600

1700 E D

C

B

A

F D

G

G

H C K

E

F

L

M

H

B

N

1800

I

A

K

D C

L

R

B

S

A Q

c

7% chapel 5% dining 3% library

2012 (Contemporary inhatbitation)

3 2 A

P O

B

b N 4

M

1960s Faculties and expansion L

K

I

H

F

G

A

B

C

2000 T

C F

F E

P

A-D

G

H

Q

D E

G

D

P

H I

O

C B

700 undergrads 170 fellows 90 in Great Court

B

A

S

R

1

E

a D

1900

C D 5

6

GO

I

85% residential

A

J

A-E

K

N M

L

[28]

How are values of collegiality reconstructed in response to the 21st century pressures of massification and managerialism?

Domestic Re-Scale Not the matter of number, but the matter of size

LIGHT CONDI

The addition of new colleges matters less than the ways in which each college was expanding its size to match the primacy Current of its new role as a place of accomodation.

The sense of community is not lost from the redistribution of learning or the faculties, but from how the colleges grew in size in the 60s, when the expansion increased at an unprecedented scale and college built accomodation buildings to fit more students into their self contained space. BED

S

It is only when colleges expand to a certain level that sense of community is contested, traditional practices erode and self-contained environment questioned. TOILET 17 STEPS 15 m

Communal buildings are no longer in intimate connection with residences, the intrusion in the enclosing wall surface of a variety of large elements, such as chapel, dining hall, library which provide the basic unit of scale are difficult to bring into a relationship that matches with the demand for student accomodation. SHOWER 68 STEPS 48 m

3

1.

7

0.


[29]

‘How could 500 sizable rooms, in the upwards of fifty staircases, be provided, all within easy reach of communal facilities? The danger was sprawl.’


Domestic Re-Scale (contined) For new ‘built-in-bulk’, all-in-one colleges, a common challenge found in the entries for the Churchill College, which architectures were to design a new college from scratch, was finding the appropriate relationship between the large commnal buildings and the domestic scale suitable for residences, and the sheer number of the latter that were called for (Mark Goldie 2007) The winning and built entry, by Richard Shepperd, (fig 29), is a core-perihery model consisting of ‘suburbs’ where there are nine main residential courts branched out and connected to the main court with the hall and chapel.


Downing Terrace 41-43

Downing College Bought up townhouses and converted to part of college to provide accomondation for students

How does the collegiate system perform in the environment of contemporary teaching and learning? How have traditional structures and spaces of the buildings changed under the contemporary inhabitation of the students of Trinity?

Lensfield Road 56-58


North Court

Underground tunnel to north court

Student accomodation: Park Terrace

Emmanuel College Bought up townhouses overlooking parker’s piece; underground tunnel across road (emmanuel Street) to North Court

Distances and sense of communitiy College accomodation diffused into the Townscape

Unlike Trinity, some colleges do not have extra space allowed for densification, but instead some colleges like Downing and Emmanuel bought up town houses and land to provide additional accomodation for their college students. The red line shows the college site boundary, and convernted-townhouse student accomondation as yellow. Buying townhouses proximite to the main college site is ideal for a college community, however, not all colleges are capable financially or spatially to do so. Later in the section we will analyse three colleges in the dense city centre and identify how they have responded to cater for the increase in student numbers.


Live

Work Live

Work

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

LONDON/ major cities

[31]

Cambridge University Buvildings

Cambridge College Buildings


[30]

Cambridge College Buildings Cambridge University Buildings City Centre

PHENOMENA 2 The Inverse of Cities Kerr in his ‘The Uses of University’ described his idea of university by comparing it to a city: ‘It (the university) is also a system of government like a city, or a city state.’ But apart from the governing system, Cambridge University, in terms of regional zoning, also resembles an inverse of a city.

Inverse of Cities

Living in central locations and travelling away from city centre to work

There are two reasons that contribute to this phenomena. First, the arise of the faculties leading to the decentralisation of teaching systems, so that learning is not only provided in the college but distributed to the departments (highlighed in grey in fig 30). Second, precisely because of the expansion of the university, colleges built more accomodation to cater for the increase in student numbers, and hence become densified and highly residential, eroding the original self-contained intimate college environment as they slowly resembles student dormitories. Because the colleges become highly residential, and take up the central locations in city centre, departments are erected mostly further away from the city centre. This generates an interesting situation, where the city centre is highly residential (within college grounds, as welll as town houses bought up by colleges) and students travel away from town, outwards, to their faculties and libraries to work or learn, which is the inverse of a typical city where people commute into the centre for work (fig.31).


[Case study] Micro realities 2.2 CONTEMPORARY INHABITATION Functionality, distances and sense of community Trinity College

Main site The Great Court Bishop’s Hostel Nevile’s Court East site Whewell’s Court Blue Boar Wolfson Building West site Whewell House Butler House Burrell’s Fields

Like in urban cities, the expansion and social rescaling results in college disparities; distances generate the major and minor college sites; sense of community within colleges are no longer the same.

In order to fully understand the impact on collegiate social configurations from the massification, expansion, and densification, this section furthur studies the contemporary inhabitation of students to examine the relationship between changes in approach to education and the deployment of college spaces, and students’ learning routines. Based on the current students’ living and learning locations, consequencial themes such as college disparity and inequality emerge.


What is the impact on Individuals from this massification phenomena?


The impact of the housing-boom from the university expansion over the past 30 years can be revealed by studying the micro realities (altered social configurations) within the colleges. These micro realities, when put into a larger context, in turn display the discrepencies of colleges. This challenges the concept advocates in the 2012 Cambridge prospectus for prospective students, in which it states that ‘it is not the case that some (colleges) are better’. Like a society, friction and disparities increase with size. The inherent individuality and new scale colleges allowed its own subculture to flourish. Whilst the last section looked at the macro context of the university expansion, this section focuses on the differences between the colleges, by disecting the map of learning distribution into individual perspectives of the students today. This section begins with a close study of Trinity College. By looking at the contemporary inhabitation of student rooms and interviewing the students, one can examine the relationship between the change in approach to education and the deployment of college spaces, and the students’ living and learning routines. A secondary theme that branched out from the section is the diluted sense of community. This theme arises when distances increase as the colleges grow in scale. This section highlights the heightening concern of the unspoken college discrepencies, by revealing the majority/minority communities among and between the colleges under the expanded university and ‘inversed’ city, as a result of the individual colleges all sought to withstand and adapt to comprehensive changes.


Great Court 1599- 1608 Various architects: Thomas Nevile James Essex

Nevile Court 1614

Bishpop’s Hostel 1671 Robert Minchin

New Court 1825 William Wilkins

Whewell’s Court 1860, 1868 Anthony Salvins

Purchase of the Fellow’s Garden from the university 1872

Whewell House, 62 Grange Road 1907 Amian Champneys

Angel’s Court 1957- 1959 Houses conversion H. C. Husband Wolfson Building 1968- 1972 Architects Co-Partnership and then 5th studio

Butler House 1978- 1979 David Roberts and Geoffrey Clarke

Blue Boar Court 1989 Houses conversion MJP and wright

Blue Boar Court 1989 MJP Architects Wright

Burrell’s Field buildings 1995 MJP architects

[32]


[33]

Buildings of Trinity College An unsual combination of buildings: The above (fig. 33) is a bird’s eye view drawing of the current Trinity College grounds and all buildings in the drawing are belonged to the college, spanning across four streets (Sidney Street, Trinity Street, Queens Road, and Grange Road) and River Cam. The historical site has built buildings in each century since the 1300s, displaying a juxtaposition of typological uphavels.1

(fig.32) Chart showing list of the buildings broken down into sub-sites within the college


Burrell’s Field 185

E D

C

B

A

F D

G

New Court 112

H I

K

E

F

L

M

B

N

G

Nevile’s Court 76

C

A

H I K

D C

L

R

B

S

A Q

c

3 2 A

P

Bishop Hostel 20

O

B

Great Court 44

b N M

C D 5

6

4

L

1

K

I

H

F

G

E

a D C

Angel court B 76

A

T R

C

C ll’s we 0 9 P

O

H I

rt

ou

A

A-E

ing

a Great Gate b Queens Gate c Nevile Gate

B

G

uild on B 90

GATES

C

t

Chapel Master’s Lodge Hall Foundatin Clock Tower Sundial

P

E

A-D

H

our

1 2 3 4 5 6

Q

fs Wol

A- S Staircase Chambers

D

C oar e B 46 1

GREAT COURT

G

Blu

N

D

he W

F

F E

B

A

S

J K

N M

L

Pearce Hostel 112


17th century

18th century

(The Great Court)

(The Whewell’s Court)

(Blue Boar Court)

(Burrell’s Fields)

(Wolfson Building)

20th century

Juxtaposition of typological uphavels: Trinity College accomodation buildings from left to right in chronological order.

(left)

Mapping of all the staircases and distribution of students within the buildings Court

No of rooms Assigned via the following Ballots:

Angel Court 76 Bishop’s Hostel 20 Blue Boar Court 146 Burrell’s Field 185 Great Court 44 Nevile’s Court 8 New Court 112 Pearce Hostel 95 Whewell’s Court 90 Wolfson Building 90

Undergraduate Fresher’s/Side F Fresher’s Main Main/Undergraduate Fresher’s/Side Fresher’s Main/Side F Fresher’s Main Main Main Main Mainly 3rd years Undergraduate Fresher’s


study

bed

Whewell’s Court, H4 ‘Whewell Court is lovely, and we over look an internal courtyard which you can greet your friends as they walk past.’ -Kirolis, 3rd year economist

Butler’s House, Burrell’s Field ‘If you wanted to see a range of rooms you’ve come to the right place- I was given the worst room of the entire college because I didn’t do well in my exams last year and was put last in the ballot room allocation system...!’ -Piotr, 2nd year engineer

Wolfson Building, above Sainsburys ‘All first years live in this building, which is above sainsbury’s and is not really traditional, but it is socialable as you meet people easily at the transparent circulation core. But personally, I don’t like the internal corners and corrior design.’ -Chris, 1st year


The Great Court, South Range ‘We experience the ‘College tradition’ which involves wearing an evening gown out through the great court to another staircase block to shower.’ -Marco, 2nd year Natural Science

Whewell House, Grange Road

‘I picked my room because of its proximity to the Maths department, and I dont need to go into college often. The only drawback is sainsbury’s is ‘too far’.’ -Michael, 2nd year Mathematician

Whewell House, Grange Road

‘It’s funny how the view from my room is the view which tourists pay hundreds of pounds just to fly over and come to take a picture of - The Great Gate of Trinity College... Here in Blue Boar Court, there are level differences among townhouses but generally the ground floor is connected.’ -Adam, 2nd year Natural Science

The style of rooms varies - from the medieval (with little arched windows), through spacious Victorian and Edwardian, to practical modern


Photographic survey of interior spaces and staircases


Only window

lamp lamp

Bed

lamp

lamp

Study

1. Bishop Hostel B8

Bed

Bed

Study

small window lamp 2. Great Court H5

Small window; table lamp on on a bright day


3. Butler House Burrells Fields

Additional light sources Window

My work station lit up by two additional light sources.

Lighting Conditions When I was surveying the rooms, one unexpected and unusual phenomena I noticed was the number of extra lights students put in their rooms, especially in the older buildings within the college. This suggests lack of natural light is one of the problems within the contemporary inhabitation. 1. Bishop’s Hostel- the room has 6 table lamps in total. 2. Great Court - The study tables are not near windows and it is a room in the garret thus artificial light is almost constantly on. 3. Butler’s House- An inhabitant complained about his room being too dark to study and received two Ikea standing lamps from accomodation office.


1

2 3

TRINITYHALL

CENTRAL MAIN ORIGINAL COLLEGE SITES

Trinity hall additional accomondation 1 Wychfield site 2 Bishop Bateman court/ 3 St Clement’s

1

Trinity Hall (pink) Two new accomodation sites North of college main site

Faculties/ Trinity Departments Hall

Clare

Gonville & Caius

Girton

2

1 CLARE COLLEGE

Clare college additional accomondation 1 Gillspie Centre 2 The Colony

Clare College (yellow) Two accomodation sites away from centre college main site only contains Hall, buttery and common rooms


Girton additional accomondation 1 Wolfson Court

GIRTON COLLEGE

Girton College (blue) Additional accomondation located much nearer to city centre and university than university Because of this, students in Girton generally prefers to live out of college, and sense of community/ collegiality is especially lost in this example as it is merely a hall of residence. Wolfson court is especially close to the maths and science centre as well as west cambridge site too.

Maths and science centre

West Cambridge site

1

GONVILLE AND CAIUS UL

New Museum site

Gonville & Caius College (green) Additional accomondation(West Road Site) located much further from city centre but promiximity to Sidgwick Site (Main Arts faculty buildings)and other departments.

Sidgwick Site

Mill lane site

Downing site

Old addenbrookes site Arch/ Engineering

Chem.

Distances and sense of communitiy (continued)

Whereas there are vast differences in the college experience among the students within Trinity College (depending on which building they inhabit), this section looks at extreme examples of relocating students to live outside of the college environment. Major/ Minor college sites tight!

Original tutorial system is eroded, if students were living out of college, coming into college for supervision seems the same as travelling out to a department, and hence college entity is redundant. For example, a Gonville and Caius student living in the out-of-college accomodation(green), such as the West Road Site, would not need to go into college unless for specific reasons. Yet if the student’s department is in Sigwick Site, which is adjacent to the college’s away accomodation site, learning and living for that student is once again of high proximity, except the learning asepct is shared with other colleges.


(university)

College Accomodation

GIrton Colege

centre of mathematical sciences

Girton College Accomondation Wolfson Court


?

Self-Contained Learning environment

Learning distributed to faculties but college entity remains intimate and as one

New accomodation close to university

Colleges expanded out of main college site

New centralised learning

An enlarged form of selfcontained learning emerged

[34]

Distances and sense of communitiy

Locations of the new accomondation sites in relation to university Because the traditional colleges took up the city’s central spaces, departments are built further away from town centre. However, the college also needed to expand, building within the collge site, in which densification occured, as well as expanding out of their college sites. Many of these new accomondation sites are proximite to the departments. The interesting phenomena (shown in the aerial plan views on the left and in the next page) is that university sites erected after the 60s are surrounded by new college accomodation buildings. Hence a new way of perceiving the distribution of learning is that it is inversed as well, rather than having colleges as the central learning space, the faculties/ university sites becomes central to the learning environment, at a larger scale. The side effect of this is the original college’s entity is questioned by the perpectives of the college students living in the away accomodation sites (fig. 34).


Aerial view

Burrells Fields (Trinity college accomodation

KEY

Robinson College University Library

University Sites College sites

Clare Hall

Analysis

University Library Site

Clare College accomodation


Aerial view

Gonville and Caius accomodation

Sigwick Site Selywn College accomodation

Newham College accomodation

Analysis

Sidgwick Site


City Centre and Main College courts

University Library Site

Sigwick Site

University Sites College new accomodation sites Emergence of enlarged forms of regional centralised learning between colleges and university

Trinity Hall

Clare

Gonville & Caius

Girton


West

UL

Sigwick

Centralised learning

Independent Colleges providing selfcontained learning and living environment

Learning distributed

Colleges are concentrated in the city centre, and faculties and departments further away.

Increased need for Accomodation

College accomodation built near faclties (dotted lines)

Learning distribution

New, larger form of centralised learning

between the colleges and faclties


St Edmunds College

2200

West Cambridge Site 14:00

Engineering Department

16:00 University Chemical Laboratory 10:00

‘I think I am proably the student who travels the most. I have to go down the Castle Hill from St Edmund college, through to the other end of town to Chemistry Laboratory, to most East corner of the West Cambridge site for the Schofield Centre (Geotechnical Centrifuge laboratory), and back to the engineering department for lab. Sometimes I have to go to all 4 sites in the same day.’ T.J., 1st year PHD Polar Studies


Complex network The previous model however only applies to the students from the college’s new accomodation who read the subject of its proximite department, such as a Newhen college student studying law. Since colleges admit students for all subjects, the entire network of learning distribution would be complex. A student living next to one faculty site might be studying in the other department in town (such as the Downing site), whilst a student living in city centre would travel from town to that department. Collegess have a tradition of admitting students of all subjects is to encourage an inter cross-disciplinary learning culture between the members, such that within the confines of the college ground inspirational conversations could be exchanged (G.M Trevelyn 1943). However, this section’s analysis has revealed the complicated map of learning beyond the college. This thesis therefore focuses on the undercurrent of the faculties and argues the fundamental inefficiency of the current learning infrastructure in the expense of ‘interdisciplinary’ collegiality, which has expanded and competely changed in nature over time.


Emergence of Majority/ Minority communities from college disperities Not only do colleges’ accomodation location differ from college to college creating a complex map of learning, disparities between the colleges do not only fall on a location/ proximity level, but in it encouraged the emergence of the hierarchies of supervision quality and quantity among the colleges.

Highest vs lowest book grant budget for undergraduates:

£ 43000 VS £ 0

Highest and lowest number of supervision hours for English:

108 VS 69 HOURS

Biggest variation in college spending on their societies and sports teams:

£ 90840

‘the experience of a student at the University of Cambridge will vary significantly depending on which college she or he happens to inhabit’ - Josh Simons Deuputy news editor for varsity

Mind the Supervision Gap1 College disparities Varsity, the independent student newspaper, investigates the differences between colleges and reveal major disparities in college provisions for its students, stating there are ‘significant differences between colleges in the number of contact hours, experience of supervisors, course resources and funding for extracurricular societies.’ Small group supervisions within the college community represent the defining feature of an undergraduate education at Cambridge, and while the University of Cambridge prospectus tells applicatns and students that ‘it is not the case that some (colleges) are better for particular courses’, the new figures suggest that the college that accepts a sudent can have a ‘serious impact’ on the quality and qantity of supervisions that student will receive. For example, 1st year economic students in Newham on average received 115 hours each over the year, but only 43 hours if they attended Sidney Sussex2. Supervision gap is being felt by students from across the university. 1 Title of an article on college disparities from Varsity (independent student newspaper) issue 767 8th Mar2013 2 Information is released under Freedom of Information Act.


News articles’ titles on recent educational princing and intake policies to picture overall situation ‘Oxford and Cambridge to join £9,000 club on fees’ Telegraph,9 February 2011

News articles’ titles on recent educational princing and intake policies to picture overall situation -

‘Universities given go-ahead to charge £9,000 tuition fees’ The Guardian, 12 July 2011 ‘10000 Students to protest over funding cuts and employment prospects’ BBC, 18 nov 2012 ‘Universities struggle to maintain student numbers’ Independent, 20 Aug 2012 ‘Universities allowed to increase places for brightest A-level students’ but ‘Oxford and Cambridge are unlikely to increase their intake as a result of the new dispensation’ The Independent 21 Mar 2012

Commodification of Higher Education: magnifies disparity issue ‘National policies have changed public perception of universitywe are ‘no longer students, but fee paying consumers of education.’ 1 During the past several decades higher education has increasingly been seen as a private good that largely benefit individuals, with the implication that students should pay a significant part of the price fo attendence. My thesis proposes a way in which to combat the commodification of higher education, in which stagnant economic conditions have both highlighted the resource disparities among colleges, while asking students to pay more. For students at colleges with fewer resources, they end up paying more for relatively inferior resources.

1 Sourced from The Cambridge Student issue in Jan 2013


In the context of contemporary discourse major/ minor confirms and lnk to inverse of cities,


Part

3

A New Phase

The Unparalleled Growth • Student number meets cap • University Matures and City Saturation • College independence • Wealth and accounts • College Exclusivity

Through an analysis of the financial aspects behind the phenomena, this section argues that the university is entering a new phase, with a new equilibrium resulting from university expansion. But due to the indifference in financial powers of the college and university, an unprecendented unparalleled growth emerged as the city saturates and university matures.


Part 3. A new phase of Unparalleled Growth: The Imbalanced relationship between the colleges and the University


College

£££££

Faculties/ University

££

Town

Behind the scene, the driver behind the fluctuating relationship between the College and the University is, ultimately, money.


The tension inherent in this increasingly complex and politicized relationship (among the colleges, and between the colleges and the university) has been intensified over the past 30 years with the massification of higher education and the consequential urgent expansion of the university. The overspill of this educational reform brought with it a redistribution of learning within the collegiate universities, as well as the undercurrent of social reconfiguration. The insertion of faculty infrastructures and large number of residential chambers shift the functional(educational/ residential) role of colleges and collegiality of a self-contained learning environment is contested. But behind this altitude, there is an unarticulated resource, that is the financial aspects of the authorities which give power to drive(or restrict) the growth of the university and colleges, forming the focus of this section.


SATURATED?


Why is now the time to care about the changes within the colleges?

A NEW PHASE University matures, and Cambridge City saturates Deduced from the previous sections and as seen from aerial view in the image above, Cambridge city approaches a state of saturation: Colleges have expanded in terms of building new buildings or buying townhouses to accommodate the increase of students; and colleges, especially in the centre, have densified in order to keep their students within their college main sites within the restricted townscape; departments, simultaneously, are erected in pockets of spaces within the city and college grounds after the educational reform.


Student cap?

College students’ processions to Sentate House (University central administration)

‘Oxford and Cambridge are unlikely to increase their intake as a result of the new dispensation’ New dispensation is referred to the new policy which Universities allowed to increase places for brightest A-level students’:AAB cap change to benefit top students this year Article ‘University Clearning’ The Independent 21 Mar 2012


New phase: student cap us met 21st century onwards = stable?

Higher education massification Rapid University expansion

Graph to show number of matriculations throughout the history Cambridge University

A NEW PHASE University matures, and Cambridge City saturates (continued) However, not only in the urban sense has the city is saturated, the educational approach and movement has also saturated and calmed down after the ‘high tide’ and ‘turmoil period’ described by Nick Bullock1 and Jane Knight2 respectively in their papers on the modern university movement. This sections argues that the university has entered a new phase, of which the university matures: Students have met its cap3, and even has the possibility to ‘shink permenantly’4; and hence the university is unlikely to expand and hence colleges no longer need to build to accommodate more students. Within the context of current academic research, the university (and its colleges) therefore yearns for a reassessment of a new equilibrium. Within the eyes of the urbanists and architects, questions such as the future of the post-expanded university arise as well as the potentials of improving and reorganising the social structures that have been altered.

1 ‘British Universities on a Rising Tide’ by Nick Bullock in Cambridge in Concrete 2012 2 ‘Higher education in Turmoil: the changing world of internationalisation’ 2009 3 Conversations with St Edmunds College’s admission tutor; article in Cambridge Student 4‘University experiment likely to shrink higher education permanently’ The Guardian, 4 feb 2013 Peter Scott


This new equilibrium can be best made visible through understanding the imbalanced relationship between the university and the colleges, and the driver for this inequality during the process of expansion (massification) is best explained at the money and power behind them (managerial).

STARK CONTRAST IN FINANCIAL SITUATIONS College

£££££

Faculties/ University

££

Host conferences and fine dining events business franchises Government cuts funding Staff pay freeze

££££££££££ ££££££££££ £ ...

The fundamental difference between the colleges and the university is that the Colleges are independently funded, whilst the university is governed by the state.

Source from Varsity article ‘Old, Rich, Landed and Loaded’ 11th july 2012


3400 acres housing Bought the O2 Arena

facilities at the Port of Felixstowe, Britain’s busiest container port

Eton College

Built the Cambridge Science Park

50% stake in a portfolio of Tesco supermarket stores, worth £440 million

sss showing xxx

College Independence

Expectedly, the wealth of Colleges has always drawn media attention. Cambridge Student newspaper revealed earlier this year ‘(Cambridge University) Fellows’ multi million pound dinning expenses.’1 Freedom of Information requests submitted by The Cambridge Student revealed that total expenditure on Fellows’ dining across the university exceeded £1.9 million in the last academic year. Fellows’ dining rights form part of their remuneration rights, but the figures released to TCS suggest that some colleges spend a disproportionate amount on their Fellows food and drink. The most exuberant spending came from Trinity College, which spent £565,092 in the year 2011-12. Its 170 fellows (and guests) ate 30,797 lunches and dinners, for which payments came out of the “College’s general funds.” Cambridge student, article by Jenny Buckley, 28th Feb 2013

Because the colleges are ‘self-governing, legally independent, corporate bodies’ (Palfreyman 2002), they are unrestricted from educational reform or governent policies. This fully justifies the analysis of the previous sections, that they are financially equipped and able to build a lot of new buildings and own much more land than the university. Trinity college, for example, is astoundingly rich and a worthy of detailed study. It is one of Britain’s biggest landowners and students claim it is possible to walk from Cambridge to Oxford solely on its land. Under two bursars, Tressilian Nicholas and Sir John Bradfield in recent years, the college bought and developed Felixstowe dock. Under Bradfield, in the depths of economic gloom in the 1970s, it set up the Cambridge Science Park. Furthermore, the wealth of the college keeps increasing, as ‘wealth increases with wealth’. For example, having bought down the O2 arena in London in 2009, the deal for would provide Trinity College an access to a long-term income stream. AEG, which will continue to operate The O2, will pay an annual rent linked to ticket sales – currently worth £1.5m – to Trinity1.

1 Information extrated from ‘Riches and Responsibility: Financial History of Trinity College’ by Robert Neild 2008. which is a detailed study of the accounts of the college up until the 20th centuries, and gave credits to the college’s long-term planning, and creation of a secure financial base for its prosperity.


COLLEGES’ FINANCE Contemporary college focus: commercialised?

A Business Platform

An interesting finding from studying the accounts is that, colleges generates vast proportions of their income from conference events. Colleges, in the new age of post-university-expansion, which they no longer require to build new accommodation, have sought new ways to generate income for their individual accounts. This leads to a recent emergence of a new collegiate principle (in additional to the six basic elements discussed in the part I): large conference spaces, and guest accommodation. Advertised as an academic platform for guests from outside the university to visit and participate in a globalized exchange of knowledge, the college, although unarticulated, lends itself to a successful business model: A commercialised organization that hosts conference events. The only difference is that it happens in an academically respected college, for which the guest can experience staying in, instead of staying in a hotel. Newer colleges, such as Robinson, have large purpose built conference rooms and auditoriums, which were unprecedented in previous colleges.(Fig.1).Traditional colleges, mostly located in the city centre, would transform their existing spaces to formal functions. (Fig 3,4)

Balance sheet from Annual Accounts report rom Trinity college 2012

It is not a new idea for the exchange of knowledge with people outside the university: After Cambridge was described as a studium generale in a letter by Pope Nicholas IV in 1290 and confirmed as such by Pope John XXII in 13181, it became common for researchers from other European medieval universities to come and visit Cambridge to give lecture courses, however they (these arrangements) were ‘not of commercial purposes as nowadays’ conferences’ 2

1 Hackett, M.B. (1970). The original statutes of Cambridge University p178 2 Trevyland ‘Historical Sketch of Trinity College’ 2006


Fully air-conditioned, with a raked floor and normal seating capacity of 240 (270 with reduced size stage), the Auditorium is designed as a multi-purpose theatre.

‘Set on the banks of the river Cam in stunning historic surroundings, King’s provides the ultimate venue for any event. From residential conferences, corporate dinners, private parties, receptions to awards ceremonies.’

- Extract from ‘Conference and Dinning at Kings’’ brochure.

Fitzwilliam and Gonville & Caius earned £409,000 and £146,872 from conferencing accommodation respectively.

- Figures extracted from Varsity article ‘Old, Rich, Landed and Loaded’ 11th july 2012

(Above) Events host in Kings college with Kings college chapel in the Backdrop (Below) Dining hall in College transformed to fine dining room in Jesus College


UNIVERSITY’s FINANCE Governed by the State The University, on the other hand, is significanlty poorer. It is governed by the state. The economic downturn has put pressure on government budgets, which controls the funding and welfare of the university. Spending for the university was cut, and pay freeze was introduced. Photos on the right shows the Teaching sites funded and owned by the University, which appear less glamorous, celebrated, and wellmaintained compared to the colleges.

Accounts of the university in Cambridge University annual financial report 2012


Downing Site

Plan of New Museum Site: high building density and no sense of arrival external circulation between buildings feel like back of house

New Museum Teaching Site

New Museum Site central space


College Exclusivity Wealth always comes with exclusivity. Rich colleges tend to restrict visitors and some parts of the colleges do not allow students from other colleges from entering the their private college grounds. In Owen Hatherley’s article in 12 April 2013 on Building Design magazin, he described that ‘half of the entire city is basically a giant gate community’1. Not only close to the public, library and cafeteria uses of most traditional colleges are restricted for only its own college members. This restricts the university students from engaging with and benefit from the entire site of the university. College exclusivity is especially high in the older colleges in central locations. Imagine with all Cambridge University students could work in all the libraries, eat in all the cafeterias, and walk through all the colleges to their destinations! “beautiful buildings but grumpy porters” - My mother’s remark on visiting and exploring around Cambridge

1 Owen Hatherley, Cambridge is still locking out the proles, BD (Building Design), 12 Apr. 2013


To summarise, Colleges are independent, most of them are very wealthy, which encouraged them to be highly exclusive. The university although receiving revenue from the colleges, remains comparably poor. Colleges dominates the city centre, whilst the university is forced to expand away from city centre. Questions therefore arises-

what can the Colleges do to help the University keep happenings centralised and recreate the sense of community?

-

How do one bring back the originally intended learning setting (ie self contained study block with the goal to improve life and convenience)?

-

What can be done to increase colleges’ capacity as an alternative to densification or outwards expansion?

- - -

How can one increase connectivity, transparency and sense of unity among the colleges? This is within the perspective to decrease college discrepencies, given that students pay the same tuition fee and should receive equal opportunities and access. Are there possibilities to insert a nice space into the city fabric without altering or disturbing the existing? If courtyard spaces are the way to go, how far and varied can an underground model apply to other colleges or even context outside Cambridge? How and to what extent can architectural schemes and designed spaces reconstruct the social configurations that have been altered from their original design and purpose? (ie potential for redistribution of learning, to restore the original idea of a selfcontained learning environment, and to suggest a new interpretation of the college community.

?


Part

4

Subterranean Learning Infrastructure

DESIGN PROVOCATION • • • • • •

Brief Programme Massing Design Options Light and Volume studies Material/ Structural Strategies Plans/ Sections

The final section of the thesis is my response to the phenomena, by desiging with the original idea of colleges and its physical parimeters (part I); the researched context (part II); and the consequential social reconfigurations (part III). This architectural experiment aims to suggests a radical, yet possible ‘what-if’.


Part 4. Design Provocation: Subterranean Learning Infrastructure


?

Driver

City saturated in an age of post university expansion; Massification in higher education prompted College disparities as well as imbalanced relationship with university

Scheme

To rethink social configuration and learning distribution of University students; To engage the colleges to help the university with the overall goal to improve and increase learning spaces; To propose a strategy to integrate departmental infrastructures into the college dormitories

Method

Maximising Colleges’ capacities in central locations by utilising courtyard spaces in Cambridge colleges

Aim

Explore the potential of redistributing learning back into collegiate environment; Reinterpret the Collegiate Community within contemporary context


College

self contained environment

Learning distributed to faculties Complex network of relations

Re-establish college community reinstate original collegiate concept of learning

Scheme The researched issues previously in Part 2 and Part 3 have formed the driver for the brief of the design proposal. The original and intended self-contained living and learning environment in colleges (as examined in detail in Part 1), has been eroded in the process of university expansion under the massification of higher education movement in the past 30 years (as analysed in Part 2). The scheme of the proposal is therefore to rethink the social configuration and explores the potential of redistribution of learning back into the colleges. It has 3 goals: first, to restore the original, intended concept of colleges a self-contained living and learning environment as a reinterpretation of college community, by integrating learning spaces into college grounds; second, the strategy will engage the colleges to help the university (as a sponsor to build a deparment in the college’s land); and together to achieve the third overall goal to increase and improve learning spaces for the students, that has high connectivity, inclusivity, transparency.


Trinity College, New Court, 1874

Since the increase in distances (between colleges’ accommodation sites and between colleges and faculties) and the increased size of colleges are the main factors that caused the colleges to lose their sense of collegiate community, the first requirement of the design proposal is to explore a way to increase, or more ambitiously to maximize a college’s capacity within its main site in central locations. In this way, the activities can once again be concentrated, centralised, and of proximity to the principle elements of collegiality (chapel, hall.. etc), reinstating the intended self-contained learning environment.

Problem: Strong Heritage Resistance Any proposal to increase the colleges’ capacity without expanding outward will face a major problem. The numerous historical college buildings located in the city centre have been fiercely protected.For example, buildings in and including Trinity College’s Great court, New Court and Neville Court are grade I listed, and their physical fabric is to be conserved, alterations within them is unlikely.

The news articles on the adjacent page give an idea of how Trinity College and the Cambridge conservation committee is highly against any changes to the college’s buildings. Despite the fact that the 200 year-old New Court is ‘in need of substantial work to meet modern fire safety and environmental standards’, renovation plans were objected by the conservation groups. They referred the changes as ‘harmful installations’ and stressed that ‘there needs to be exceptional reasons to put these sort things (solar panels) on them (college buildings) if they’re still visible.” Whilst 5th studio proposed to install of Histoglass windows to improve the energy efficiency, it was commented as ‘disturbing the historical significance of the building’ and ‘unnecessary’. The author of the article later stated that one actually could not tell the difference between the original single-paned windows and the “Histoglass” one.


The Great Court of Trinity College in the context of Cambridge City


7

R 11

S

10 6

Q

West range

3

5

A

South Range

P

B

C D

N 9

North range

8

M L K I

H

G

F

E

1 2

East Range

3 4

Site plan of the Great Court @1:500

N

KEY 1 Residential chambers 2 To Junior common room 3 Great Gate Main entrance 4 Chapel 5 Master’s Lodge 6 Hall 7 Kitchen 8 Fountain 9 Sundial 10 Passageway to Neville’s Court 11 Neville’s Gate

Courtyards: Vast unused spaces at central locations Given the strong heritage resistance and the fact that there are vast areas of green lawns courtyard spaces (avg. 26%) within the college grounds (mapped and analysed in the courtyard study in part 1), the design proposal therefore challenges the stereotype and argues for a potential to increase the college’s capacity through the main site’s largely unused courtyard spaces, which are currently out-of-bounds, except for the fellows. The colleges with larger courtyards have the most building potential. The chosen intervention site is the Great Court, Trinity College, as show in context within the Cambridge city on the left. It is the largest enclosed court in Europe. The court was completed by Thomas Nevile, master of the college, in the the 17th century, when he rearranged the existing buildings to form a single court.


View from the Trinity Clock Tower

‘The grass are not listed- right?’

- Peter Clegg, visiting design tutor


Intervention Site

The Great Court of Trinity College


1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6

West range (Master’s Lodge) Back of South range (Trinity Lane) East range chamers Chapel and Fountain of North range West range chambers South range chambers

Site Photos


E D

C

B

A

F D

G

G

H C I

K

E

F

L

M

H

B

N

I

A

K

D C

L

R

B

S

A Q

c

3 2 A

P O

B

b N 4

M

C D 5

6

L

1

K

I

H

F

G

E

a D

A

B

C

T R

C F

F E

N GREAT COURT A- S Staircase Chambers 1 2 3 4 5 6

P

A-D

G

H

Q

D E

G

D

B

A

S

P

C

H I

O B

A

J

A-E

K

N M

L

Chapel Master’s Lodge Hall Foundatin Clock Tower Sundial

GATES a Great Gate b Queens Gate c Nevile Gate

Site Plan @ 1:1000

Great court in relation to other Trinity College buildings and roads


View from outside the Hall


Initial model

Preliminary sketch model exploring effect of an indent in courtyard

Proposed solution: Going subterranean

Design Objective: Minimal Disturbance to the existing historical buildings Erecting a building on and in the middle of the courtyard, although given enough space for light and circulation, would damage the overall look and break up the panoramic sight of historical buildings. Instead, a ‘hidden’ insertion is proposed, by going subterranean. In this way, the historical significance and exsisting hierarchy of the buildings that surround it are preserved.


College Department

IMPACT

- Internal chamber circulation - Increase building capacity within the confines of College Main sites - Reinstate self contained learning environment - Reinterpret college communities in colleges - Sustainable and efficient subterranean infrastructure


10,000m3 Proposed Subteranean Infrastructure The Great Court, Trinity College, U.K.

.0m

11

__

_ __

_

__

__

__

_ __

_

__

__

_ __

_

m

7.5

_ __

_

__

__

m

8.0

m

4.0

.0m

m 0.0

_

__

__

_ __

-11

.5m

_

5m

_

__

m 0.2

-2.

__

__

_ __

-13

.5m

-10 0m -6.

N

A0_3


...But, is this feasible?

Preliminary sketch to suggest a variety of treatements to the 6 courtyards in the Great Court, creating a new landscape, with buildings directly below the gravel areas.


Feasibility Study 1 - Options for occupying the space Feasibility Study 2 - Programme areas, and their spatial

and functional requirements

Feasibility Study 3 - Circulation and logistics Feasibility Study 4 - Area Comparison and Phases of

ground excavation

Design Strategy 1 - A Hidden Insertion Design Strategy 2 - New Subterranean Courtyards Design Strategy 3 - Allocation of space according to need

for natural lighting

Design Strategy 4 - Transparency and thresholds:

Maximising views and sunlight

Structural Strategy - Reinstating the existing traditional

architectural features

Hand rails; Buttresses; Arches

In order to realise the scheme, a series of feasibility studies are carreid out to test the limits and potentials of building a subterranean infrastructure within this specific context. The thesis then explains the proposal through the design strategies, which are the themes that will emerge from the feasibility study and therefore are crucial to the success of the design. Finally the structural strategy offers a possible architectural language for the new insertion to co-exist and echo the existing buildings.


B 8

37

9 .5

19

8 102.3

Site Plan @1:2000 Simplified with dimensions

8 18 8

A

A

36 8 14

TOTAL AREA 102.3 x 83.04

8

=8496.015

~ 8500m2

83.05

B

Site Sections @1:1000

A-A 83.05m

B-B 102.3m


TOTAL GRAVEL AREA

TOTAL GREEN AREA

TOTAL PATHWAY AREA

(8x2 + 9.5) x 102.3 + (37 + 19) x 8 x 3 = 2608.85 + 1344 = 3952.65

(18 + 36 + 14) x 37 + (18 + 36 + 14) x 19 = 2516 + 1292 = 3808 m2

Total length: 734m Width: 0.9m Total pavement area: 734 x 0.9 = 660.6m2

~ 4000 m2

~ 3810 m2

~ 3810 m2

Given 35m2 per student = 4000/ 35

Given 35m2 per student = 3810/ 35

= 115 rooms

= 108 rooms

5

35m2

Feasibility Study 1 Site Dimensions and Areas

7

5

The first step is to explore options for occupying the space of the Great Court, in order to understand how deep the courtyards can be dug down, and how much space can the dugged down space create. The entire area of the Great Court is approximately 8500m2. One would expect large proportion of grass in the courtyard, but it is surprising to find the gravel area is almost the same as the green (lawn) area, at 3800m2 and 4000m2 respectively.

35m2

7

5

7

To get a sense of scale, an estimation of room capacity is calculated. Given each student requires 35m2 in an accomodation (including common, circulation, and domestic areas), how many rooms can we get if we build 1 level under the gravel area? How many rooms can we fit in the grass area? The answer is 108-115 rooms, that is at 1 level only, and the number is already greater than the number of students that the Great Court currently houses (90).


Feasibility Study 1 Depths, Heights, and Volumes The following massing models explores the possible configurations of occupying the Great Court using two main options. First, to build below the gravel area as shown on diagram below; and second, to build below the lawns. If there are 4 levels in the building, there will be 4000m2 x 4= 16000m2 of new space within central locations of the colleges.

Plan view of massing models

Option 1 Building underneath the gravel areas

Short and long sections

1 W: 8m Strips

2 Rings and internal street

3 Cascaded and central void

These three foam models at 1:500 explore the potential of 1)strips of buildings forming internal subterranean courtyards; 2)Strips of buildings forming a courtyard within a courtyard to create a U shaped ‘street’, and the buildings in the middle can enjoy light from both sides; 3) an inverted cascaded pyramid with a central void to allow all habitable spaces to enjoy natural lighting and ventilation, this option has the most potential to build the deepest.


Daylight penetration in relation to window height (x) and room depth (~2x)

By building underneath the green areas, as shown in the sections below, allows the building to be much wider (the largest lawn of the 6 in the Great Court is 36m x 37m, see previous section on site dimensions). However, the rooms would be too deep for natural lighting, therefore the space can either be a lecture hall or other functions that does not require much light, or roof lighting/ light wells would need to be introduced. Also, the original passage will be altered, because if it remains there it will block much of the light. Given the areas of the gravel and green areas are almost the same, option 1 is proved to be a better solution, with the ideal 9m width of buildings(same as the existing chambers on the ground), with much more space and light.

Option 2 Building underneath the green areas

Short and long sections

1 Large volumes

3 Blocks at different levels

2 Individual blocks 6m x 6m x 6m

4 6 new buildings blocks W25 D 30

Whilst the left page’s models explore ways to occupy the subeterranean space in strip forms, this page’s models look at the potential of blocks. 1) and 3) comprise volumes of different heights. The roof of one block can act as the terrace of the adjacent, taller block, and the spaces underneath could be connected to form a large atrium space. 2) is a radical option, to show the variety of configurations one can do with the same volume of foam. They could be connected to each staircase on the ground and become individual study blocks, this leads to model 4), which is the optimal design among the blocks configuration options. With only 2 levels, 6 blocks are erected with sufficient space (12-20m) between them, and the upper level is slightly smaller than the lower level to allow light in, as well as creating 2.5m terraces for the building.


Carving Volumes The difference between a subterranean building and a typical building is that ground is to be extracted from the land that one plans to build upon. These foam models are carved, instead of building with strips or blocks, to appreciate, exploit and explore the subterranean nature of the intervention. Instead of digging down the entire site, it would be interesting to start designing by carving into the ground as an architectural language and then fitting pre-cast blocks into the designed landscape.

Model 1 @1:200 Building underneath the gravel areas

Building at the original lawn/ green area

Large ramp

Walkway retained to keep


Model 2 @1:200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Model Explorations: Massing Experiments

Sectional model, cardboard

A series of computer and physical models were then produced to further understand and test the possibilities of subterranean structures and forms, with the general aim to achieve a design that offers a variation on forms, depths, and volumes; a form that gathers desirable amounts of sunlight, uses space efficiently, yet maintaining comfortable distances.

Sketch section from model to explore desirable subterranean possibilities


Potential departmental building, structural language to echo Chapel buttresses (to be discussed later in structural strategy section)

Sunken courtyard

Walkway retained and supported by new structural frames

The Great Court Fountain

Ramp to entrance of infrastructure, New landscape

Retaining wall

Indent in courtyard, unobstrusive yet lots of sunlight, tugged under at 1 level below ground, semi-private, and perfect as study space

8.5m deep buildings blocks, ideal for 1.2m corridor + 6m room

Potential for staircases to feed into or connect to the new subterranean infrastructure

Composition Model

A considered combination of the previous massing options

@1:200


South Range residential chambers

Existing walkway

Great Gate Entrance

Chapel


Internal qualities

Open layout to avoid sense of claustrophobia By photographing from within the model, the internal spatial qualities are shown. The model is constructed by a series of frames, directly below the walkway. Not only as a primary support for the original path (which has become a sky walkway), the frames also the subsequent structures to be hung onto them, where the levels and rooms are built upon. One of the main concerns of inhabiting dugged down space is that it has the danger of being claustrophobic. This framework and model therefore has suggested a more ‘airy’ and light design to counterbalance the weight of the ground it will sit on.

By going subterranean, the design is unobtrusive to the surrounding historical buildings.


1

Precedents for underground buildings in the context of historical sites 1 The Pyramide du Lourve provides new visitor entrance to the Louvre Museum complex, connecting elegantly to expanded galleries below the courtyards. 2 The Joanneum Museum extention by Eep Architekten adds a conference hall, reading areas and an archive to the existing building. Glass surrounds the conical openings and each one tunnels down through one or two storeys to bring diffused natural light into the underground rooms.

2


3

4

5

Precedents for large underground infrastructure 3 The Sainsbury Building in Norwich used the natural topography to create an underground gallery with a crescent window over the lake so the original building appears as if on a plinth Precedents for structual glass roof 5 British Museum 6 Entrance to Canary Wharf tube station

6


Lower ground level Mphil studio, teacher rooms etc.

Upper ground level Yr1-3 studio, crit spaces, reception etc.

Second floor: offices and reserach First Floor: offices, admin, prof. room, lecture rooms etc.

Third floor: Phd., storage


Key Workshop/ print rm. Staff/ prof. rooms Crit space Library Toilet/ Services Studio spaces Offices/ admin Storage Lecture rooms Reception Communal pantry Phd/ research History of Art dept.

Scroope Terrace, Architectural Dept. Exterior/ entrance

Feasibility Study 2 Spatial and functional requirements Programme: Architectural Department The success of a subeterranean building would depend largely on how the design can house the programme without compromising its spatial and functional requirements. The Architecture Department is chosen as the programme for the scheme to be inserted the grounds of the Great Court in Trinity college. Being a current student in the Architectural department gives me first hand experiences and indepth knowledge for what the particular departmental what kind of function, spatial qualities, and dimesions are required. The left page shows the existing plans of Scroop Terrance, which houses the current Architecture deparment. The colour-coded spaces map out each function’s area and location, to get an idea of how much and what kind of spaces are needed


Admin/ Offices x 17: 213 m2 (avg. dimension: 2.5x3.2) Crit space x 3: 157m2 (avg. dimension 5.8x10) Kitchen/ Common area: 51m2 (dim: 10 x 4.5) Lecture rooms x 3: 236m2 (avg. dim 10x9)

Library 403m2

Reception 23m2

Current Programme Spaces @ 1:500

Key Workshop/ print rm. Staff/ prof. rooms Crit space Library Toilet/ Services Studio spaces Offices/ admin Storage Lecture rooms Reception Communal pantry Phd/ research History of Art dept.

Phd/ Research: 98m2 Storage: 84m2 (avg. dim: 2x2) STUDIO SPACES 530m2 in total; Year 1-3 studio dim: 21x15 (The new programme would allow larger and more studio spaces, it is currently very compact.)

Professors/ Staff rooms x 9: 130m2 (avg. dim: 4x8) Toilets/ services: 74m2 Workshop/ printing areas: 153m2 (current workshop bldg: 11x8m)

TOTAL AREA

(excluding internal courtyard/ backyard/ bike parking spaces)

2101m2


200%

150%

Proposed Programme Spaces @ 1:500 The above is a programme massing diagram to show all the areas required for the Architectural department. The proposed programme has larger areas of studio space, as well as a significantly bigger library, as a place to foster a cross-disciplinary research community, and to engage students from other faculties and colleges to come to use the subterranean learning infrastructure1.

1 The logistics of separate entrance and circulation for the library will be discussed in the circulation section.


Feasibility Study 3 Circulation strategies and Logistics Circulation Configurations options

i) Corridor-Room-Courtyard

ii) Room-Corridor-Courtyard

Staircase cores/ WC Circulation Rooms Courtyard

Two possible layout configurations are explored, as shown in the diagrams above. Both options are incoporated into the design, according to the rooms’ functional requirements. For example, in B1, the administrative and tutor’s offices employ option i), so that the rooms have the most natural sunlight. Studio spaces in this level, B2, uses option ii), Room-Corridor-Courtyard, to allow shorter distances between sapces, and that all users can walk through the edge of the building to enjoy the window space; Studio space and meeting rooms are more personal and hence less visible from outside. or

B1

rrid

Co

om

Ro

ard

rty

u Co

B2

om

Ro

r ido

rr

Co

rd

ya

urt

Co


lockers co

rridor

Computer lab (less private/ personal; open plan) Subterranean courtyard 1

studying/ studio space

B1

Room-Corridor-Courtyard

B2

Corridor-Room-Courtyard


Feasibility Study 3 (continuted) Circulation strategies and Logistics Entrances There are two entrances into the infrastructure, one located at the Neville’s Gate passage way (a) leading to a reception, for students and staff. The second entrance (b) into the building is the ramp from the middle lawn of the Great Court, sloping down to gain a view of the fountain at a new lower perspective, and arriving at the main hall.

(a)

Staircase cores College buildings face alot of restrictions, physically, or intrinsic to their traditions. The main reason for the college chambers to be at a maximum of 3 to 4 level is due to the traditional staircase layout, and lifts were not popular even among new accomodation buildings.1 There are three staicase cores in the building, highlighted in red dotted boxes on the page on the right; the staricases and entrances are shown in in red in the section below . 1 As observed and analysed in the modified staircases in contemporary colleges in the staircase study earlier in Part 1.

(b)


Library

B2

Library reception

Library entrance

B3

Library: Separate circulation The Library, highlighted in yellow, has a separate circulation core to the rest of the building for security. The spiral staircase (red circle) is the internal staircore connecting the 2 levels of library with main entrance at B3.


“A Great Court set. ...only a set of sixteenth-century rooms overlooking the grandest court in all of Oxford or Cambridge will do. It can be a bit of a trek to the bathroom, however.” - Trinity Accomondation booklet 2009

Staircase N

Staircase M

Mapping of Staircase H’s inhabitants’ living routine (how they have to travel down one level to go to the toilet and out of their chamber to shower

Whewell’s Court underground shower facilities


boiler room

Private staircase connected to student rooms

bath showers bench and hooks for changing

B2

Feasibility Study 3 (continuted) Circulation strategies and Logistics Showers for the Great Court inhabitants

(l)

Part of the B1 level is private and inaccessible from the department. The scheme also proposes additional underground shower facilities for the Greatc Court inhabitants, because some of them currently have to go out of their block to another staircase to shower. When I was conducting a room survey in Great Court, my friend’s roommate arrived in the room in a bathing robe from outside. This is how I realise they do not have showers in all the staircases (see mapping diagram on top left). The photos on the left is the underground shower facilities under Whewell’s Court, Trinity college. It is a long corridor of toilets, showers, boilers, and bathrooms, which connects the staircases. The problem with the Whewell Court’s underground domestic corridor is that it is very narrow and lacks light and ventilation. The choice of material and colour makes the place uninviting. My project suggests light wells (l).


TOTAL FLOOR AREA

(excluding internal courtyard/ backyard/ bike parking spaces)

2207m2 Great Court, Trinity College

TOTAL AREA

TOTAL PEBBLE AREA

TOTAL GRASS AREA

8500 m2

4000 m2

3800 m2

102.3 x 83.04

= 3952.65 m2

= 3808m2

1:1000 size of a person to give a sense of scale

Feasibility Study 4 Area Comparison The finding of this area calculation exercise is that the total floor area(of all levels) of the archtiecture department(2207m2) is only 3.8 times smaller than the area of the great court(8450m2)! Merely the total lawn area(unused courtyard spaces) of great court is 1.7 times bigger than that of the functional floor area of the Architecture department. If we build 1 level under half of the pebble area (As illustrated in diagram), it can already contain the whole of the current department. The scheme therefore is only engaing with part of the courtyard, highlighted in red.


Feasibility Study 4 (continuted) Area and phases of Ground Excavation This drawing shows the boundary where the proposal lies within context of the Great Court and its surrounding buildings. Even though the proposal contains the whole (and extended version) of the current architecture department, there is still vast green lawns remaining in the courtyard. The intervention is located furthest away from the tourist route, from the opposite corner at of the court at Great Gate, to ensure minimal disturbance of visitors to the students, as well as maintaining the most traditional views for the visitors.

Phase 1 - Subterranean courtyard 1 - 2 staircase cores at opposite corners

Phase 2 - Subterranean courtyard 2 - Additional staircase core

Phase 3 - Subterranean courtyard 3 - new ramp

Fountain

The roof of the underground structure will be hidden under the gravel that currently surrounds the courtyard spaces. The gravel that is dug up during the ground excavation will then be replaced to its origianl position once the building is complet, with the exception of ‘walkway light wells’ that run through the centre of the gravel pathways (these ‘walkway light wells’ are shown in blue), to provide sufficient natural light into the underground building.


A A

B

B

Plan 1:!000 Ground leve @1.5m

Great Court Fountain Boundary of ground excavation Circulation Core (staircases) Entraces Walkway light wells

The proposed intervention is similar to the estimated spaces calculated from programme massing study earlier in Part 4. The proposed design only digs down half of the middle courtyard but instead forms an L shape around the fountain.

A-A

B-B

Simplified site sections


The design objectives that have emerged from the feasibility studies are as follow: An unobtrusive insertion with minimal disturbance to the existing historical buildings; Room functions are to be allocated according to their priority for light; The layout is designed to maximise view depths, in order to avoid the feeling of caustrophobia, and to allow maximise diffusion of daylight. These themes will form the strategies to explain the proposal.

Design Strategy 1 - New Subterranean Courtyards Design Strategy 2 - Allocation of space according to need

for natural lighting

Design Strategy 3 - Transparency and thresholds:

Maximising views and sunlight

Structural Strategy - Reinstating the existing traditional

architectural features

Hand rails; Buttresses; Arches


1


Design Strategy 1:

Sunken Courtyards The original courtyard (lawn) spaces of the College remain as courtyard spaces after the intervention, except they have become subterrean. Yet, they are surrounded by new buildings, which are new Departmental spaces. The top left courtyard, Underground Courtyard 1, is more private, and concentrated of departmental spaces; whilst the lower right courtyard, Underground Courtyard 3 is more landscaped, open, and inviting, for students of the college as well as the university to utilise the cafe and experience the subterranean learning space. Underground Courtyard 2 consists of studios and workshops (private); yet the courtyard is overlooked by the ramp in Courtyard 3, serving as a threshold between open space and more personal study spaces1

Precendent: Baroque paratments by OFIS Arhiteki

1 Detail of each of the spaces will be explained in separate plans

subterranean courtyard 1

subterranean courtyard 2

subterranean courtyard 3


Design Strategy 2:

Natural lighting College buildings face alot of restrictions, physically, or intrinsic to their traditions. The main reason for the college chambers to be at a maximum of 3 to 4 level is due to the traditional staircase layout, and lifts were not popular even among new accomodation buildings.1 This is good for the scheme, because of limited heights of surrounding building, which allows easy calculation for sun angels.

16m

11m

A-A 83.05m

Depths, Openings, and Natural Lighting

B-B 102.3m

As the building goes deeper, the windows increase in sizes to allow for the ideal natural light penetration. The room height also increases as the level decreases for the same reasons. G- 0m; B1 -2.5m; B2 -6m; B3 -10m. In the Year-one studio (B1) and computer lab (B2) in the middle block, a reflective light shelf is introduced(15), by using prismatic glazing to direct some of the light up onto the ceiling where it will diffuse deeper into the space2. For the Mphil studio and workshop block, the window sizes increases in height in relation to depth of level. The workshop is located in the lowest level; for it is only of sessional/temporal uses for students (unlike a personal working space) and will only be open in the day time and therefore less demanding for natural lighting.

1 As observed and analysed in the modified staircases in contemporary colleges in the staircase study earlier in Part 1. 2 Diagram of a light shelf

---------------light well

PHD

- 3m--------------- light shelf

Mphil

-6.5m Workshops

- 11m


Design Strategy 4 Transparency/ Light v.s. Privacy A potential criticism of an underground building is always on the grounds of natural lighting. I would like to address any concerns about rooms that require high-quality, consistent day lighting, such as offices, and study spaces. It is important to note that, in my design, these spaces are strategically located underneath natural light scources to receive direct sunlight, or have transparent glass walls (like in the the precendent shown on the previous page) to capture sunlight shining into the corridor while also creating the illusion of an open, non-claustrophoc space. These spaces inclue study/ studio rooms, which do not require full privacy like offices.

Private shower facilities WC

Lecture rooms

Spaces with one sided lighting Spaces with windows on both sides Spaces that are not of constant use and, or do not require high quality natural light

WC

studio space storage

Offices

Meeing room Staff rooms

WC

Tutorial rooms

Transparent glass facades to capture sunlight to create illusion of open, non-claustrophobic space. Rather than sitting by the glass fascade like in B1, this give privacy to users of the rooms. Studio spaces

Open leisure/ reading area

Trees and Shrubs break up viewlines into the rooms but allowing sunlight to diffuse in Lecture theatre


The spaces that require most privacy but also natural lighting (e.g. room A)will be located adjacent to a terraced rooftop, which strategically places trees and shrubs to obscure sightlines into the rooms from the outside, but allowing full direct sunlight to still illuminate the space. Light lines View lines

Sun shining to lowest level of subterranean infrastructure

Sunlight defracted bylightshet to illuinmate deeper spaces walkway light well

Trees to obscure viewslines

room A

Gallery space

long view lines to avoid sense of claustrophbia; connection between couryards, ventilation


Structural Strategy: To Reinstate, Echo, and Abstract traditional architectural features This is an opportunity to compliment the architectural designs above ground by using underground archway design that echoes the archways above ground in Neville’s Court. In addition, railings are required for safely for the subterranean courtyards, which aptly reinstate the architectural features and recreate the atmosphere illustrated in David Loggan’s illustration of the Great Court in 1690. To match the proportions of the buildings above ground, the buttresses structures are abstracted and continued to the new sub ground level, which serves as a visual connection between the old and the new structures.

Railings Fountain

1 Reinstating the architectural feature: rails around the courtyards

1 David Loggan, Cantabrigia Illustrata, Cambridge 1690, Plate XXIX

2 Archways above and below ground

nd

rou

G

el

lev

r

bte

Su

an

e ran

el

lev

Neville’s Court, additive Court to The Great Court, Trinity College.

3 Continual of existing structural elements (buttresses) to subterranean level


10,000m3 Proposed Subteranean Infrastructure The Great Court, Trinity College, U.K.

3

1

.0m

11

__

__

_ __

_

__

.5m

_7

__

_ __

__

__

_ __

_

__

2

.0m

_8

__

_ __

.0m

m

4.0

m

0.0

__

__

__

__

-11

.5m

5m

m

-2.

-13

.5m

-10

.2 _0

__

__

__

__

__

0m -6.

N

A0_3


It would be very interesting to focus the next scope of research on the representation of the historical elements in an abstracted and simplified form. How can one recreate or compliment to the classical features through using contemporary construction methods and modern materials.


FINAL DRAWINGS 1:500 Ground Plan 1:200 Plan - B 1 -B2 -B3 1:200 Section 01 1:500 Section 02


9

5

a

7

4

6

d

b

3

10 c

8

11

2

1


The plan on the right shows the site at 1.5m above ground, cutting through all the staircases in the chambers, and showing the top elevation of the courtyard and proposed underground spaces.

1 David Loggan, Cantabrigia Illustrata, Cambridge 1690, Plate XXIX

d

c

b

Staircase in Neville’s Gate entrance leading to underground structures Ramp down from pebble area down to underground hall space Area with large auditorium and hall underneath, original lawn replace with grass roof Railings around the dugged down courtyards for safety and reinstate the architectural chatacteristic of the court yard in 1600s1

a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Chapel Master’s Lodge Hall Kitchen South range residential chambers East range residential chambers Staircase I converted to passsage way to Angel court and Junior common room 8 The Great Gate (main entrance) 9 Neville’s Gate (secondary entrance) 10 The Great Court’s Fountain 11 Sundial

New Landscape a-d

Existing Buildings and Gates 1-11

1:1000

N

Plan @ +1.5m

1 David Loggan, Cantabrigia Illustrata, Cambridge 1690, Plate XXIX

Fountain

Railings

G B1 B2 B3


i

b

a

ii

c

1

24

25

2

22

3

23

21

4 (ADMIN)

27

20 26

WC 19

5

15

12

16

14

13

-4.0m 6

17

7 (Staff)

(Phd) 18

9

WC

8

WC

-2.5m

28

10

11


Standard A0 board (w 891mm) for sense of scale

Standard studio desk 2.7m x 1.2m

level above building footprint

Potential future expansion

The Year-one studio is L shaped and has a capacity for 60 students. At the middle of the L there is a square desk for model making or supervisions (13). There is also a pantry (19), WC next to it.

Open Plan

The subterranean level 1 consists of the main entrances into the infrastructure, one located at the Neville’s Gate passage way (1) leading to a reception (2), for students and staff. The second entrance into the building is the ramp from the middle lawn of the Great Court (9), sloping down to gain a view of the fountain at a new lower perspective, and arriving at the main hall (10). It has a small cafeteria and large empty space for exhibitions, it can also be used as an open crit space, to discuss and display students’ works (11). A more privatecrit space, ideal for small group/ internal supervisions is located at (25), outside the Yearone studio spaces (12) and beside the staircore. It is therefore a space where all students pass through to their studios, or to other levels. It overlooks inwards to the underground courtyard 1.

Entrances, Reception, Hall, Crit spaces

The challenge of designing for the underground is lighting. The corner spaces have no natural lighting. Design strategy and function of the spaces are therefore defined and carefully placed by the amount of light the function requires. The result of this is the three staircase cores (highlighed in red on previous page) are located at the corners, as well as toilets (wc), lecture rooms(21), storage, and archive of library (in B2). The top level, B1, is where the strips of staff rooms and admin offices are located (4), (7).

Natural light priority

B1 -

1 Entrance from Neville’s Gate 2 Reception, with windows facing the entrance corridor as well as overlooking the internal courtyard 3 Reception area 4 Administrative offices 5 dividable meeting room that can be entered from the offices’ corridor (south) or the year-one studio 6 Ramp descending to lower level (B2) with the lower ramp closest to the courtyard allowing all 3 walkways to gain views to the internal courtyard, at the same time allowing maximum sunlight in. 7 Staff/ Supervisors’ rooms 8 Great Court Fountain 9 Ramp up to ground level 10 Sliding door into main hall

1-28

Key

23

Open ‘Crit-space’/ exhibition space top view of people are drawn to illustrate the scale 12 Year-one Studio 13 Model desk/ Communal space 14 Standard studio desk 2.7m x 1.2m 15 Model making space, additional working space 16 Storage 17 PHD studio, less open layout than Year-one studio as each PHD candidate require more personal research space whilst Year-One studio’s open plan encourages more interaction 18 Coffee table near window 19 Pantry 20 Storage 21 Lecture room 1 (no natural light)

11

io tud eS n o arYe

1:200

N

Plan @ -2.5m

22 Lecture room 2 (no natural light) 23 Coffee table with view overlooking internal courtyard at break out space for the crit space and lecture rooms. 24 Storage for Crit space (drawing stands etc) 25 Crit/ Exhibition Space 26 Shelving units for models 27 Underground Courtyar 1 28 As you walk from the Hall further into the building, the passageway directs you to view the panoramor of the courtyard, like an introduction/ overview of the building, before turning left to the ramp

G B1 B2 B3


16

b

17

19

15

d

22

21

a

20

14

18

13

3

1

2

11

12

25 c

4

24

23

10

5

9

6

8

7


B2 -

Courtyard

Rooms

Circulation

Staircase cores/ WC

S

13

11 12

5 6 7 8 9 10

2 3 4

1

1-25

Storeroom

Computer lab, easily accessible from all students as it is located at the middle floor and among two staircases Plotters CAD room/ computer office Common/ leisure area with tables and stools; a secluded, breezy, sheltered space between the open courtyards Ramp Storage Large auditorium/ lecture hall for 150 Speaker’s desk and projector screen Backstage Backstage corridor leading to internal offices and private spaces of the building Offices Office for computer/ prinitng proximite to computer lab. Year-two Studio

Key Courtyard-Corridor-room layout configuration (as opposed to Courtyardroom-corridor)1 Year-Three Studio Corridor with lockers lined up against the back wall Storage Tutorial rooms (3m -deep) Spiral staircase of Library Book shelves with desk at end of each row Widened corridor/ circulation space near stair core o allow light into the corner spaces as well as increasing the sense of arrival of each level Terrace with planted trees accessible from sliding down at Year-Two studio’s range Mphill Studio soaces Continual of buttress from building above ground datum as a design structural language reduced head space underneath ramp 1 see layout configuration options

25

23 24

22

21

17 18 19 20

15 16

14

c

b

a

a-c

G B1 B2 B3

1:200

N

Plan @ -5.5m

The Terrace and trees serve to reduce the transparency of the internal courtyard and to provide an ideal level of light and privacy of the building’s users.

Studio spaces for third year students (15) are allocated room units instead of the open plan like in the Year-one studio so one could work in a more personal space.

Window from arrival area restricted to overlooking through the line of trees of the terrace Small windows at Year-three studio spaces placed to allow glimpses from locker corridor through studio room to terrace; window is narrow to avoid distraction for the people in the room Open leisure area between two courtyards to allow ventilation and views of most sides of the subterranean infrastructure.

Views

or rrid Co rd ya urt Co

om Ro


5

6

7

4

2

1 10

3

11

12

9

c

13

14

a

15

8

16

18

17

b


n

ou

Gr

Raised outdoor platform A0 drawing boards; works or posters can be exhibitied along the platform 3 Library book shelves and reading desks with large windows for maximum natural light 4 Library entrance with reception desk and security scanners 5 Spiral staircase to upper library level 6 Secluded study/ reading space with overlooking all the way through the arches to the furthest court 7 Librarian’s room; with window into library and to outside 8 Additional individual offices/ tutorial or meeting rooms 9 Continued to the raised platform (1) is an intimate lecture room that can be used for small talks. But the walls are slidable and room can potentially open up to form a central stage where people can gather around courtyard, for talks/ performances

1 2

1 Arches in Trinity College, Neville’s Court (picture on the left)

10 Subterranean Courtyard 11 Arches, following architectural language in historical builings such as Neville’s court passage way to Wren library1 12 Outdoor, sheltered workshop space, ideal for spray paint, etc. 13 Staircase (with doors pushing in outward-direction for fire-escape reason) 14 Workshop block 15 Wood workshop area 16 Metal workshop area 17 Workshop room with larger machines e.g. routing machine 18 Technician’s office

es

tum

1-18

Key

ch

a dd

This level is the new ground level of the Great Court of Trinity College. One can walk through the arches to the other, connecting the courtyards. This level also has the workshop area, inclusive of a wood workshop(15), metal workshop (16) and technician’s office (18). It is located furthest from the library and from the Underground Courtyard 1 and 2; to minimise the noise disturbance from machines. There is also an open sheltered workshop area(12) which is ideal for spray painting or large scale model making. Tugged back from the courtyard it is hidden from the view from the above.

New Ground level, Arches, and Courtyard Spaces

B3 -

Ar

Buttresses continual from the proportions of above buildings12 Retaining wall, but potential for future expansion c Structural arches allowing people, light and air to exchange between courtyards d large windows at lowest level for maximum lighting, lighting however will never be direct due to it is much below ground, hence ideal for book storing spaces as direct sunlight would damage the books

1:200

N

Plan @ -8.5m

2 Detail analysis of structural strategies to follow

b

a

a-d

Structural elements

G B1 B2 B3


walkway light-well

Privacy in studio

Ground levl view remains flat after construction

Crit Space

walkway light-well

Section_01


b c a d

17

e

2 1

2 4

15

5 3

8

6 9

12

10

13 14

11

Building Building section section

18

16

7

Subterranean Subterranean Courtyard 1 Courtyard 1

Building Building

(Elevation of (Elevation of building behind) building behind)

Existing a-h a b c d e f g h i

Trinity Lane, Nevilles Gate Residentail chamber (dotted lines: staircases behind the wall) Gonville and Caius College Old Court of Gonville and Caius Entrance to Trinity College Hall Hall Great Court Fountain Master’s Lodge Chapel

19

Subterranean Courtyard 2

Subterranean Courtyard 2

(Elevation of (Elevation of building behind) building behind


d)

f

h

i

B-B

g 22 20

1:500 21 23

Proposal 1-23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Entrance from Neville’s Gate’s passageway to the Subterranean Learning Infrastructure Light wells Locker corridor Reception Year-Three studio Terrace B1 Studio/ learning space B2 internal corridor to tutorial rooms (glass facade) Raised platform Library Subterranean Courtyard to outdoor workshop area Passage way with arches to the next courtyard Staircase core Computer room B1 Studio/ learning space Large glass plane for staircase to highlight traditional vertical layout Windows increase in size in lower levels for maximum day light

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

B1 Studio/ learning space Large glass plane for staircase to highlight traditional vertical layout Windows increase in size in lower levels for maximum day light Workshop area PHD studio space Mphil studio space Original courtyard level and the lawns Footprint of proposal’s conference and hall space which are not cut through in this section

Section_02 1:200


CONCLUSION The pilot thesis begins with setting out to broadly define major issues faced by Cambridge colleges within the context of contemporary living and educational standards. It reports three drivers in this respect: the distribution of learning to faculties; the change in living standards and preferences to give higher value to privacy; and the pressure to increase student admission rates. In order to fully understand how the colleges adapt to and withstand these comprehensive changes, the first part of the thesis, a physical account on the colleges, analyses the framework of the traditional colleges to explore and confirm the conception of original colleges as a self-contained, intimate learning environment for a single community. This concept of colleges as a self-contained unit has remained as a template for the design for contemporary colleges, but has been modified to match the new requirements from the contemporary living standards (i.e. privacy) and university expansion (i.e. higher student admission rates). I then suggested that these changes have forced the original colleges, who’s design was intended to facilitate a ‘microcosmic city’ (Goldie 2008), to redeploy their spaces to match a new concept of college expectations. The staircase study further revealed a unique circulation pattern in traditional chambers that consists of vertical stacks of staircases without corridors, so that a trip down or up the stairs requires one to walk across an entire living and study space (i.e. the selfcontained and self-sufficient environment); this design reflects the original imagination of intimate relationships between a fellow and his students. A photographic survey provided a visual catalogue to illustrate, first, the conditions and atmospheres of the staircases as a traditional collegiate element; and second, how contemporary colleges have adopted, modified, and modernised the original collegiate layout. The courtyard study revealed a vast amount of unused space in the city centre. It presented to the reader a series of courtyard formations, typologies, and mapping of its circulation and access. Among the 14 colleges in central locations chosen for the study, there is a total of 86663m2 of out-of-bounds and unused green lawns, that occupy an average of 26% of total college grounds. The impact of the Massification of higher education on the colleges unfolds during the analysis of the university’s expansion and its introduction of new departmental faculties. Learning is found to be distributed from colleges to the departments, which (along with the growth of the university) is mapped to illustrate the emergence of 3 themes: Multiplicity of single college communities; Radial expansion with town; and college densification. The functional role of college is contested under Massification, which imposed upon the colleges a ‘housing-boom’. The emphasis of colleges shifted from a self-contained study chamber to a large hall of residence. This rescaling process of the domestic and principle collegiate elements (in order to match the primacy of its role as a place of accommodation) resulted in a highly residential city centre. However, the expansion of the university was directed in large part away from the city centre; given that many faculties were built away from the town, an inversed of a city emerged in which the centre is highly residential and the periphery is primarily a place of work. The impact of such an ‘inversed city’ has been to hollow out the first part of the colleges’ traditional role as a ‘self-contained’ community: specifically, the redeployment of college spaces to accommodate


student housing has limited colleges’ ability to provide a sufficient learning environment within the college, and learning spaces have moved outwards to faculties in the city periphery. The second part of colleges’ traditional role as a ‘self-contained’ community, their ability to provide a sufficient living environment within the college, has also been eroded by university expansion. Densified living quarters within the city were not sufficient to match the university’s growing admittance rate. Colleges subsequently began to house students outside of their main campus sites, and this redeployment of spaces is found to reconfigure the ‘living’ function for many college students. Case studies of students’ accommodation sites in relation to faculties reveal a new, complex network of relations. The current Cambridge college is therefore no longer a self-contained living and learning block, but instead has become little more than an administrative hub for those many students who live outside of the main college site. Disparity among colleges has also become particularly apparent under the commodification of higher education and the structure of collegiate funding. Unbalanced relationships among the colleges and between the colleges and the university have unfolded. Since the colleges are independently funded, there is an increasing gap in financial strengths (and powers) between colleges, and also between the colleges and the university. Given the confluence of these issues, the traditional conception of a college community has been tested. By suggesting that today is an age in which the city has become saturated and the university has fully matured (the student cap has been met and university expansion has slowed), I argue that the university and its colleges are functioning at a new equilibrium, which allows for a reassessment of the expression of collegiality. Therefore, my thesis proposes to attenuate the gap between colleges’ original role and the contemporary context that prohibits the fulfilment of these roles. The design provocation explores the potential of redistributing learning back into a college, by restoring the original self-contained learning environment that was lost during the process of university expansion. Due to the strong resistance to modifications of the historical buildings, the thesis challenges the stereotype of the ‘forbidden lawns’ in the colleges and utilises these unused courtyard spaces in order to maximise building capacities in central, collegiate locations. With the overall goal to increase, improve, and unify learning, living, and study spaces, my proposal seeks to place the Cambridge architectural department into the Great Court of Trinity college. It proposes a strategy for integrating learning spaces with college dormitories by exploring the following themes: Minimal disturbance to the listed buildings; high transparency; inclusivity; and connectivity, by going subterranean. A series of feasibility studies has addressed, explored, and tested the potential, technical limitations, and issues surrounding utilising college courtyard spaces and building subterranean, with a specific focus on lighting, and window heights and room depths. I have also addressed the implications of the proposed scheme as a response to the eroding functionality of the colleges’ original role as a ‘self-contained’ unit of living and learning. The final proposal offers a new learning space based on an architectural design that is simultaneously simple in its programme and complex in its significance.


After word Just because things changed, is meeting the ‘old aims’ the best way forward? There are pros and cons of implementing the provocative design. However, the most important goal is that the proposal has produced a new concept of the insertion of departmental spaces within a college. With carefully designed spaces and calculated dimensions, the seemingly radical idea of the subterranean learning infrastructure is possible, and the limits of building within the historical college grounds is challenged. This serves to open up a new dimension of opprtunities, and offers a conceptual vision, a ‘what-if’, to the wider audience and the scholarly community for further critique and discussion.


Bibliography Altbach, Philip G., Rumbley, L.E., Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. Boston College Center for International Higher Education, published by UNESCO, 2009 Altbach, Philip G. , Higher Education in the Age of Massification, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 1 Blackman, J., The Natural Sciences and the Development of Animal Morphology in Late-Victorian Cambridge, Journal of the history of Biology, Vol. 40, No. 1, (Mar., 2007), pp. 71-108 Bullock, Nick, British Universities on a Rising Tide, essay in ‘Cambridge in Concrete’, RIBA, 2012 Clark, John Willis, A Concise Guide to the Town and university of Cambridge, ninth revised edition, Cambridge, Bowes and Bowes, 1929 Clark, Robert Willis and John Willis, The Architectural History of the University of Cambridge, Volume 2 & 4, Cambridge University Press, 1886 Cressy, D., The Social Composition of Caius College, Cambridge 1580-1640, Past and Present, 47, 1970 Crowther J.G, The Cavendish Laboratory 1874-1974, Science History Publications, 1974 campos, P., The architecture of higher education. University spatial models at the start of the twenty first century, Higher Education Policy, Volume 14, Number 2, June 2001 Campell, Louise, Drawing a New Map of Learning, p.97-103, Basil Spence Architects, 2011 Cobban, A. B., Decentralised Teaching in the Medieval English Universities, Journal of the History of education Society, vol. 5 no.3, 2006 Fair, A., Arts Faculty Building, Sidgwick Site, article in ‘Cambridge in Concrete’, RIBA, 2012 Flexner, A., Universities: American, English, German, New York, Oxford University Press, 1930 Gascoigne, J., Cambridge in the Age of Enlightenment, 1989, ch. 3,6,9 Goldie, Mark, Corbusier Comes to Cambridge: Post-War Architecture and the Competition to Build Churchill College, Cambridge, Churchill College, 2007; rev. ed. 2012 Hatherley, O., Cambridge is still locking out the proles, Building Design magazine, 12 Apr. 2013 Howard Deborah, Fabric of Rivalry, article in ‘Cambridge in Concrete’, RIBA, 2012 Jeacock , Janet, Cambridge Colleges (Breydon), Cambridge University Press, 1988 Kerr, Clark, The uses of the University, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1963 Leader, Damian Riehl, A History of the University of Cambridge, Vol.1: The university to 1546, Cambridge University Press, 1988 Moore, W.G., The Tutorial System and its Future, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1968 Muthesius, Stefan, The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College, New Haven and London, Yale, 2000 Neild, Robert, Riches and Responsibility: The Fianacial History of Trinity College, Cambridge, Cambridge: Granta editions, 2008 Newman, J.H., The Idea of a University, Yale University Press,1852, rev. ed. 1858 Palfreyman, D., Tapper, T., The Decline of the Collegiate Tradition, History of Education Quarterly, vol. 42, no.2, 2002, p.269-272 Palfreyman, D., Tapper, T., The Oxford Tutorial, Oxford, OxCHEPS, 2008 Penz, Francois, The Absence of Presence, article in ‘Cambridge in Concrete’, RIBA, 2012 Rawle, Tim, Cambridge Architecture, Andre Deutsch London, 1985 Ray, Nicholas, Anxious age: Architecutre in Cambridge 1970-2000, article in ‘Cambridge in Concrete’, RIBA, 2012


Ray, Nicholas, ‘Postmodernism in Architecture’, The Cambridge Review 110, 2305, 1989, p.53-66 Ray, Nicholas, Camrbidge New Architecture: a guide to the post-war building, published by Trinity Hall, Cambridge, 1964 Rowe, Collin, The Blenheim of the Welfare State, The Cambridge Review, 31 October 1959, p.89-93 Sarkis, H., Nasser O ., One Thousand Courtyards, essay in The Courtyard House: From Cultural Reference to Universal Relevance, London, Ashgate, 2010. Simons, J., ‘Mind the Supervision Gap.’, article in Vartsity, Cambridge students newspaper, issue 767, Mar. 2013 Soares, J.A., The decline of the privilege: The modernisation of Oxbridge Univeristy, Standford University Press, 1999 Stones, L., The Educational Revolution in England 1500-1640, Past and Present, 28, 1964 Taylor, Kevin, Central Cambridge: A guide to the University and Colleges, Cambridge University Press, 1994 Teichlera, Ulrich. Massification: A challenge for institutions of higher education, Tertiary Education and Management volume 4, Issue 1, 1998 Tight, Malcolm, Student accommodation in higher education in the United Kingdom: changing postwar attitudes, Oxford Review of Education 37.1, 2011 Trevelyan, G.M., Trinity college: A Historical Sketch, Cambridge, Trinity College, 1943 Udale-Smith, Alice, Does going to Trinity mean you’ll be better off financially at Cambridge?, issue 762 Varsity newspaper, 2012 Undergraduate Admissions Committee, University of Cambridge Students Prospectus, 2014 Entry, Cambridge University, 2013 muthesius, stephan, Postwar universities: Utopianist Campus and College 2000’ Morgan, V., A history of the University of Cambridge, ii, 2004, ch. 6 Mullins, W., The Designing and Building of Churchill College, Churchill College archives,CCRF 118/2/4 Nyhart, L.K., Natural History and the ‘New Biology’, Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge University Press, 1996 Webb, Michael, Massive Simplicity beside the Cam, Country Life, Nov 1965 White, James F., The Cambridge Movement: The ecclesiologists and the Gothic Revival, Cambridge University Press, 1962


Appendix 1

Sketches from the student room surveys in Trinity College carried out in October - December 2012.


-2.0 m Staircase M

+1.5 m

additional staircase down to basement with new showers and changing bench

+5.0 mm

Spaces/ structures

Views/ Light conditions

1 new study space for trinity students on rooftop sitting on garret 2 Chimney 3 Light structures to allow light to pass through to narrow trinity street yet give a sense of enclosure 4 Common area with bean bags at rooftop, secluded 5 New staircase added leading to roof 6 Door to private student room 7 Private student bedroom 8 Notice board in every staircase 9 Single flight of stairs for whole width of building block; ceiling landscape surveyed 10 Living room fireplace 11 Door to private accomondation 12 Storage under staircase 13 Staircase down to basement extension to shower room 14 Showers 15 Bench for changing and hooks Boiler

a Slot cut through roof to allow light into staircase b the end of the roof is glass/ polycarbonate to allow light through to narrow trinity lane c Light well strategically put to allow light into stair core, each staircase is slightly narrower than the one below to allow light to diffuse through d Slot cut out from roof to be come a reading bench over looking cambridge skyline and rooftop landscape e Study desks lined up for quality of light and tranquility at top of building overlooking great court f window slit on the ground to allow light into showers and ventilation

+7.5 m

additional staircase further up to roof, left door shifted 1m left to make space for staircase

+10.5 m

Crosses show light well in relation to level below ie. design to allow light into stairs’ core and bedroom, sketch layout of study space and common area levels worked out

Existing

New extensions highlighted in plans


Appendix 2

A design excercise to improved the living conditions of one of the surveryed staircases in The Great Court, Trinity College, by extending the staircases by one level up and one leven down, to create a study space on the roof top; and showers and toilets in the basement so that they don’t have to travel to another staircase to shower.

b

2

d 3

e

4

1

c 5

a

7 6

8

9

f Staircase entrance M

10

11

12 Trinity lane

Great Court

13

Proposed

15 14

Short Section 1:100


Appendix 3

Summary in diagrams

College

Radial Expansion/ densification

Multiplicity

Self contained learning environment

of single communities

with town

R R R

R

R

R

R R

R

R

R R R

R

Intimate chamber to Hall of residence

Centrifugal relationship Centre: University Periphery: Colleges

Impact on college accomodation due to university expansion

new C

C F F

F

Faculties

redistribute learning within colleges

tight! F C

Saturation

within college main sites in city centre result in building out of college

Inverse of Cities

Living in central locations and travelling away from city centre to work


College

£££££

Faculties/ University

££

Town

Physical investigations

Collegiate Elements 6 principle elements

Design Concept

Vertical Layout

Traditional stacks of staircases

Courtyards

The vast areas of unused lawns

Angela's Pilot Thesis  

Final version