The resilience of university buildings: disciplinary development and reputational symbolism

Universities have invested considerable resources in their built environment. In many world cities, university architecture sits alongside civic buildings as urban landmarks, in part because student numbers or specialist functions have dictated every increasing size. Building commissions have attracted many notable architects and their exquisite design, innovative features and place in master plans that heralded new physical form for these institutions, have distinguished the results. In common with civic governments and religious bodies, universities have been attuned to the symbolism of their buildings and have invested considerable energies to ensure that their structures reflect their university’s importance, reputation and place in society.

However, universities change as the knowledge they acquire and disseminate develops and so their requirements for the built form changes too. Their options have been to demolish and rebuild, or reconfigure structures to suit contemporary needs.

This paper uses the campus of the University of Manchester to explore the resilience of university buildings in the context of developing knowledge.

The paper outlines the development of the University’s campus, including the adapted uses of it major buildings and the instances in which demolition and reconstruction have been the response to changing demands. It moves on to explore two cases of resilience through the University’s medical school buildings. The first was completed in 1874 and later superseded by a structure completed in 1973. Both buildings were designed for contemporary medical education, research and practise, and their form and use altered with developments in the discipline.

The paper traces the changing physical form of the buildings in light of evolving requirements. It argues that the spaces and configuration of education and research buildings illuminate changes in knowledge and demonstrates how physical structures provide important evidence for disciplinary development. It also argues that the resilience of university buildings is as much connected to their symbolism and reputational status, as resilience built into their original design.