future residents. General plans are too abstract to consistently, yet project a forceful image of destiny. Alexander wrote that a Master Plan makes people see how "they are merely cogs in someone else's machine", someone perhaps long gone from the scene, so "how can they feel any sense of identification with the community, or any sense of purpose there?" The use of Master Plans maintains a rift between a campus and its users. So the University dropped them. Now, departments and other groups submit their priorities for construction, which are then weighed by a campus planning committee with diverse membership. Then, when a project finally gets money, it also gets a special team of faculty, students and such as ..--·---··_ workers, The team is not just arhY1C:Or\1"'11T' VUJLA ....... b'"'• v•UA.UUJV'A '-41-UAJ<;. with res.p~;U\H plrotc~SSliOnal architects. The result is a in uu..•u..uu::. because the will be the future users They are motivated to get it and to finish r;,.,,,..or·•" The buildings are also better because Alexander Oregon escape from the Era of the ..... u.uu.o... 5 • For many decades, architects and University officials designed and built with little consideration for the future. A lack of accountability to users, along with a postWorld War II gush of money, spawned oppressive megastructures. They seemed to be monuments to the Institution, considered perfect and finished - despite certainty of error and changing user needs. Above: A heated debate in 1970, over this major addition to the Student Union, made the need for student participation in design more obvious to administrators. Below: A $45 million building project. Despite the size ofthe pork barrel, these science buildings were well designed by its current inhabitants. The bigger and flashier a building project, the easier it was to find funding for it. There were few incentives to design or budget with consideration for future maintenance or modification, so ultimately the buildings will decay and be tom down. New construction makes administrators seem visionary and brings fresh profit to designers and contractors. The economic pressures to mass produce interchangeable buildings warps designs into worthlessness. The Oregon Experiment tries to correct these problems by making each project search for the needs of the users. A house designed for individuals is more valuable than a house designed for mass production. A collaboration of users, even if imperfect, produces a better building for them. Alexander helped revive the much reviled process of design by committee, with an essential difference: the committee must themselves use what they design. The old throw-away economy caused many campus plans to fracture: land was grabbed by competing departments without the approval of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz