Newsletter No. 43

CUHK Newsletter No.43 June 1993 Campus Buildings Who Mastermind Them? When you feel strongly about the design of a certain building on the campus, to whom would you direct your commendation or criticism? Have you ever wondered who is responsible for the exterior or interior design? They All Play a Part The Buildings Office The first party that immediately comes into one's mind is the Buildings Office, naturally so because their architects plan and coordinate all capital projects on the campus. One would expect that, to some extent, every building is a reflection of their creativity and professional expertise, or their lack of such qualities. Now the question is, to what extent? The AAC and the AAPC A capital project normally takes four to five years to plan and build, but a new academic programme or department requires much less time, say two to three years, to establish. To make sure that the provision of physical facilities will not lag behind academic development, the Buildings Office has to forecast the need for new buildings each year, and in so doing relies on the suggestions and advice of policymaking bodies such as the Administrative Affairs Committee (AAC) and the Administrative and Planning Committee (AAPC). Their recommendations and comments constitute the initial guidelines for building design and allocation of use. The Potential Users Potential users also have a say in the planning stage. The footbridge under construction that links the Engineering Building with the Lady Shaw Building, for example, is an outcome of consulta- tions w i th theFaculty of Engineering, the principal user of the new building. The Campus Planning and Building Committee Bu i l d i ng plans that have incorporated the suggestions of the AAC / AAPC and the users must be endorsed by a Campus Planning and Building Committee, a body formed under the University Council and consisting of professionals, University academics, administrators, college representatives and Council members, who w i ll assess each proposal with respect to need, budget, siting, and design. Their recommendations may range f r om minor adjustments in building plans (as in the case of the Tin Ka Ping Building), to major redesigning (as in the case of the Engineering Building), or an outright veto (one example being the proposed installation of a lift-shaft in the Benjamin Franklin Centre). The University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) F i n a l l y, sketch plans that successfully get through different stages of screening are submitted to the UPGC for authorization to tender and the allocation of funds. If the amount approved falls short of the proposed budget and the University cannot find any private donation to top it up, amendments in building plans are again called for to trim down expenses. Resources made available by the UPGC will therefore determine how much of the original design, exterior or interior, can be retained. Collective Responsibility? Each of the above five groups has its own role to play in the planning and design of campus buildings. While the Buildings Office is undoubtedly the principal planner and coordinator, it nevertheless has no complete say over any single building project. Why Interior Design and Fittings Cannot Always Prove Satisfactory Not every project is l i ke the Engineering Building, for which users could be identified at an early stage, making it much easier to synthesize special requirements and good interior design. In many cases, the lack of user specification in the main design stage has led to substantial changes in internal partitioning or costly refurbishment after a building has been completed. 6