Newsletter No. 43

No. 43 June 1993 CUHK Newsletter When the Sui-Loong Pao Building was under construction, for example, who the eventual users would be was unknown. It had therefore been designed for general purposes, and its layout and internal fittings might not suit the needs of user units who subsequently occupied the building. A new user moves in, and resources have to be spent to refurbish the offices all over. Is the situation any better in 'purpose-built' buildings? Not necessarily, because for one reason or another, such buildings may not be used for their original purposes. The Leung Kau Kui Building, for example, was originally designed for use by the Department of Journalism and Communication. Its present tenant is the Faculty of Business Administration. The full range of studio facilities in the Pi-Ch'iu Building were also specially designed for the Department of Journalism and Communication, who has however never occupied the building. The root cause of such problems is campus-wide office space stringency. Accommodation that is available may not always be the most suitable for specific users. In yet other cases, desirable elements in the original design have to be replaced by inferior substitutes because of resource limitations. Failure to get the full amount expected of the UPGC or other sources has led to the cancellation of such useful provisions as central heating installations for the University Administration Building, and high-quality acoustic treatment for the Music Department's practice rooms in the Hui Yeung Shing Building. Controversy over External Design If internal design can be adversely affected by so many factors, how should one look at the controversy over the external appearance of new buildings in proper perspective? Controversy has stemmed from two major complaints: (1) that the new buildings are incompatible with the old in style and appearance, thus destroying the 'harmony' of the campus; (2) that the design of individual blocks is neither professional nor aesthestically pleasing. According to Mr. Vincent Chen, director of the Buildings Office, the crux of the argument about incompatibility lies in the use of fair-faced concrete for early buildings and the discontinuation of its use after 1980, the historical background of which is given separately on page 8. He agrees that the difference in form, colour and height between old and new buildings may indeed give an impression of incongruity at first glance, and will take time to get used to. What about his response to comments that certain new buildings are poorly designed? 'Design is subjective,' he says, 'and beauty exists in the eyes of the beholder.' He fully understands that attempts at designs different from the traditional are bound to attract criticisms, but wishes to point out that such designs may not be the brainchild of a single architect, for many parties may have contributed their ideas during the planning stage. From time to time, architects from the outside have also been invited to collaborate with university staff on new building projects. 'Our major premise,' Mr. Chen continues, 'is to ensure that all new structures are in tune with the needs of the campus community as a whole .'