Earlier this year, the UL surveyed members’ thoughts on the future of the University Library. If you filled it out, you’ll have noticed the abundance of ‘collaborative’ or adjacent buzzwords (think ‘hub’, ‘social’, ‘hybrid’ descriptors). It’s not just libraries; the SU building is also revising its purpose, with most of the options featuring ’ ’ workspaces.
New college buildings are also couched in this kind of language. Take any recent college development (such as Clare’s river wing or John’s cafe) and the emphasis, consistently, is on the ‘interaction’ offered by these slightly-social, slightly-studious spaces. It’s cynical to be this way, sure, but nevertheless I remain sceptical.
Most of these renovations are genuine improvements and the finished results can be quite beautiful. So what’s the fuss? “It’s practically an unwritten rule that every new project ought to be split into a variety of different workspaces” All of this would be fine, were it not for the fact that it seems like this is the only acceptable future for these buildings in the eyes of those in charge. Baked into these visions for the future is an assumption that the libraries and lecture halls of the past are simply old hat.
The UL survey stated it wants to introduce ‘a variety of different study spaces’, but in practice, filling out the survey seemed to pigeonhole you into two camps. Either you were a reactionary, whose ideal study environment would have bee.
