Last Thursday’s Student Government Forum revealed that the new Jinqiao dorms would not be quite the new home so many had hoped would save us from 268. Whatever concept for suites the school originally had in mind seems to have been lost somewhere in the shuffle between administration, facilities, and the Jinqiao complex’s developer. It was made clear at the Forum that the structural integrity of the building made impossible a lot of what the school wanted to happen, which leaves me wondering, why not choose or design a building that suits our needs? The new residence halls will not have singles for anyone who does not have an RA position or an extreme health concern. The bathrooms are communal. There is one shared kitchen per floor, with the exception of some floors that don’t have one at all. These accommodations are clearly very far from what many of us had in mind upon hearing the phrase “apartment style suites,” which was used repeatedly during various Admitted Student Weekends as well as in an email from David Pe dated December 12, 2014. Responding to an obviously irritated crowd on Thursday, panel members cited “building community” and “breaking down cultural barriers” as reasons behind the plan for intensified communal living. Design for modern education has moved increasingly toward this rhetoric of collaboration and cultural exchange. Especially at a school like NYUSH, design becomes an important component in realizing a mission statement centered around global citizenry. It makes sense to help ease students towards an international community with spaces that force us to interact. In the Spring 2015 issue of ArchitectureBoston, Laura Wernick observes that this trend towards obligatory shared space is a recent one. Think of the library at your country’s oldest university: it’s likely a heavy, quiet collection of tiny nooks and crannies carved out of bookshelves and winding walls that create easy, seclusive hideaways. Contrast that with an image of the NYU Shanghai library, whose design is pretty typical of more recent style: a quick walkthrough of the large, open study space makes for instant awareness of who is sitting where and what they’re doing. This is what the architectural implementation of this contemporary design concept looks like: variations on few walls, big group tables, and close proximity to other people. But for the student, as Wernick notes, living and learning in these spaces begins to beg the question, “where can I go to be alone?” Modern psychological and neurological research points to not only the necessity of solitude for mental health, but also to the profound benefit that temporary isolation contributes to the innovation and reflection that are so sought after at a place like NYU Shanghai. When the desire for alone time becomes potent enough, Thursday’s forum members suggest making agreements with roommates to decide who gets to be in the room at what time. Not only is this rather impractical (especially in the common case of two roommates who prefer to spend the majority of their time inside of the room), but it speaks to the incomplete theorizing that went into the design process - a process that failed to include any student input until now, after the buildings’ construction. The desire to create community was given such dominance that other practical and important questions seem to have been neglected. The attention to the social spaces that are necessary in creating the multicultural community for which privacy and solitude have been sacrificed is even more intriguing. Beyond the communal kitchens and bathrooms, there is little evidence of the panelists’ jargon in what will be the final floor plan of the residence halls. Amidst all the talk of community bonding, students were hopeful for social and academic spaces within the dorms that would emulate the infamous ECNU study rooms. Panelists responded that structural integrity did not allow for such accommodations, but that they intended to use empty dorm rooms as stand-ins. At least, until the buildings reach full occupancy. Unfortunately, multicultural community bonding is being used as vindication for less than desirable living conditions, rather than a fleshed out architectural concept used to determine the structural makeup of the residence halls. The presence of an “architect” was mentioned throughout the Forum to justify the inflexible floor plan. An architect, however, is not someone who creates ten identical red brick towers without regard for the way humans interact with a physical environment. An architect does not create mass housing without discussing specific design needs with a client. An architect does not check off the words “bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen” from a list and call it a day. The reference that should have been made was to the developer. Had we used an architect rather than rent out pieces of a mass housing complex, the multicultural community that has been given such post-construction value would have been catered to. If a statement is false, the inverse is not automatically true, knocking out walls and doors does not create community any more than destroying personal space and privacy does. What needs to be understood is that architectural theory cannot be slapped onto an already complete structure. The problem here stretches further than the project being driven by a wrong concept. This project was driven by no concept at all, but the shallow appearance of one is being used to cover up poor planning and stifle student despondency at not being consulted throughout the design process. This article was written by Isabella Baranyk. Send an email to [email protected] to get in touch. Photo Credit: Amy Zhao