RPI and the Modern Archiecture Dilemma, Part Two

Public Art Seminar, Spring 2007
Ryan Andress, Chemical Engineering '07

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Modern Architecture Dilemma

Part Two: The Biotechnology Center at RPI, its Relationship with the Students, and the Modern Architecture Dilemma

The biotechnology center is an excellent example of modern architecture. This modern architecture, while better than most because of the attempt to match the façade to that of the original campus, showing that the architect at least has some taste, lacks function and is by no means authentic. The architecture presents a barrier between the occupant and clearly viewable areas, making it that much more frustrating when you cannot reach a destination within the building. The photos in Appendix A, demonstrate the difficulties of navigating the biotech center without security clearance. This, architecture that neither belongs, nor fits in the chosen site, is the Modern Architecture Dilemma.
Modern architecture tries to be creative by making the building inaccessible and stand out, usually by begin hideously ugly by any true quality art standard. The architect may not have this in mind when designing their piece, but the end product, particularly when it will be used on a daily basis, such as the biotech center, becomes hindering to the purpose it was designed for. The biotech center was built to be aesthetically pleasing, to the mass living in the “Spectacle” described by Debord, but nobody told the architect that three quarters of the doors would be locked to the majority of the RPI community. The nature of the architecture prevents full use of the building. With this is mind I wanted to discover if there was anything to be gained from the openness created by the biotech center’s style of architecture.
When using the biotechnology center, I am usually in a hurry to get to the fourth floor and then become immersed in my work. This time, however, I went to the building with the soul purpose of observation. I went up to the fourth floor, as I always do, but this time to setup a group of chairs for viewing. I posted a sign, Figure 4, to let people know it was a “public viewing area” and that they were welcome to join me.
I sat there for thirty minutes observing the people passing by, Figure 5, and looking at the view of the observatory. I realized that the openness of the biotech center allowed one to see nearly everything around them, including people inside and outside the building. I then proceeded to a different area, leaving the sign up, to see if anyone else would enjoy the view.

Figure 4. A sign I posted in the biotechnology center on the fourth floor

Figure 5. Me sitting on the fourth floor of the biotechnology center, next to the sign shown in Figure 4

Within 5 minutes of me leaving, one person did proceed to sit in the “public viewing area.” They sat there for 2 minutes, looking around to see what I was looking at for the past half hour, and then got up and left. They later approached me and asked what I had been looking at. During the next 28 minutes, of me observing the observation area, a security guard approached me and questioned me about the sign, which he ripped down, and my purpose of being there. As if this was not enough, on my way out of the biotech center I was approached by a graduate student who told me “the security camera was watching you the whole time,” as if I was committing a crime by exhibiting the intended “artistic” architecture.
The next day one of the graduate students was upset with me, for going to the biotech center and not doing any work for an entire hour. They thought of me as less of a student because of my activities. From the reactions of professors, graduate students, and staff, it is obvious to me that the biotechnology is there for the sole purpose of research. It was not erected for leisure and yet the architect had leisure in mind when designing the building. This is the Modern Architecture Dilemma, the biotechnology is an attractive place for leisure activities, with the atrium and nice façade, but those activities are prohibited within the structure. The atrium then becomes a distraction and barrier to the necessary work of the students who use the biotechnology center. The architecture is no longer functional and therefore fails to be good architecture, as it does not satisfy the purpose criterion.