• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Student Union: The Architecture and Social Design of Postwar Campus Community Centers in California by Clare Montgomery Robinson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Andrew Shanken, Chair Professor Paul Groth Professor Laurie Wilkie Fall 2012 Copyright 2012 Clare Montgomery Robinson Abstract Student Union: The Architecture and Social Design of Postwar Campus Community Centers in California by Clare Montgomery Robinson Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture University of California, Berkeley Professor Andrew Shanken, Chair This dissertation examines the architecture and social intent of Student Union buildings. The narrative reaches back to the first quarter of the twentieth century when students and college leaders in the Midwest and Northeast formed the Association of College Unions, but focuses on the postwar period in California when Student Unions became modern, standard fixtures on North American campuses. Early ideas about social education in the 1920s and 1930s targeted the socialization of young men and women, class distinctions, and the business sphere that many students would enter as graduates. Subsequently, architects took cues from private social clubs and YMCA buildings. In the 1950s, however, ideas about social education turned toward the G.I. and the postwar demographic of college students. As a result, campus leaders took steps to build large postwar Union buildings that they thought addressed the needs of a broad middle-class culture. By providing arenas for consumption and postwar leisure activities, proponents reframed the social agenda and gave buildings new form. The underlying institutional armature of Student Unions and the rhetoric behind them remained largely unchanged between the 1920s and the 1960s. Student Unions were and continued to be called “living rooms” or “hearthstones” of the campus. But after World War II, the strategies and tactics deployed by Union proponents and architects, especially in California, adapted to the social context of the university campus, creating a complex combination of rhetoric and form. Vernon DeMars, Donald Hardison, and Lawrence Halprin, who designed the postwar Student Union at the University of California, Berkeley, and Welton Becket, who designed the postwar Student Union at UCLA, dutifully called their buildings “campus living rooms.” The interior spaces, however, were boldly modern, and the buildings mimicked corporate hotels, shopping malls, and civic centers. The shift domesticated non-residential campus buildings and helped introduce modernism and its social vision to large postwar public universities. Students no longer experienced separate lounges for men and women but found 1 themselves in coed commercial complexes with large cafeterias, bookstores, and bowling alleys. By examining parallel architectural developments such as the design and growth of suburbs and urban renewal, this dissertation upends the institutional history of Student Unions that has its roots in halls of debating societies of Oxford and Cambridge. 2 Contents Student Union: The Architecture and Social Design of Postwar Campus Community Centers in California Acknowledgments iii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Establishing the Campus Living Room 10 1.1 Social Education in the 1920s 1.2 Early Architectural Precedents 1.3 Student Union Buildings in the 1920s and 1930s 1.4 The “Campus Living Room” in California 1.5 The Student Union as a Home Away from Home Chapter 2 Food and the Postwar Student Union 55 2.1 The State of the Student Union During World War II 2.2 Bringing the Postwar G.I. to Campus 2.3 The Building Boom on Campuses in California 2.4 Building on Wartime Habits 2.5 The Nation’s Food During World War II 2.6 The Cafeteria Situation at Berkeley and UCLA 2.7 Food Stands at UCLA 2.8 Quantity Feeding and the Student Union Chapter 3 Postwar Student Unions as Crucibles for a Middle-Class Art of Living 86 3.1 Student Character and the Student Union 3.2 Re-establishing the Link between the Student Union Building and “Home” 3.3 Alumni, War Memorials, and Community Planning 3.4 Planning Purpose and Programs for Postwar Union Architecture 3.5 National Visionaries Bring Expertise to College and University Campuses 3.6 Campus Community Centers for All i Chapter 4 California’s Postwar Living Rooms: The Unions at UCLA and UCB 118 4.1 Modern Campus Architecture and Postwar Planning 4.2 Building Modern at UCLA 4.3 Building Modern at UC Berkeley 4.4 A Model for Postwar Consumption Conclusion 152 Bibliography 158 ii Acknowledgments I stumbled onto the topic of Student Unions as I was researching the Free Speech Memorial at the University of California, Berkeley, which lay at the base of the Martin Luther King Memorial Student Union. With the encouragement of many, my interest swiftly turned from memorial competitions to the social institution of the university, campus architecture, the perennial youth of students, and the ties alumni have made to the campus setting. The Student Union complex at Berkeley strung these concepts together and brought many more ideas and people to the fore. In the end, my dissertation about Student Union buildings in California and the social institutions behind them created a pool of intellectual and personal debts. The chapters that follow were written in dialogue with my dissertation committee. To my chair, Andy Shanken, I owe the greatest intellectual debt. His patience and willingness to read nearly anything I wrote and his critical comments, approach to research, and timely encouragement provoked substantive revisions that brought more confidence to my original arguments. My committee members, Paul Groth and Laurie Wilkie, were invaluable and available whenever I needed them. They pointed me in fruitful directions at crucial moments while I was researching and writing. I am indebted to them for their enthusiasm, support, and breadth of knowledge. Many other scholars shaped my dissertation as well in small but memorable ways. Early on, Professor Kerwin Kline, who witnessed my initial dive into the archives of the Bancroft Library, encouraged me to explore Student Union buildings as a dissertation topic; Professor David Henkin prompted me to consider social and economic class in the academic institutions; and Professor Greig Crysler, who advised me during my first three years at Berkeley, gave me excellent ideas for my dissertation prospectus. Along the way, I presented bits and pieces of my project to audiences at conferences and received good feedback. I am especially thankful for Carla Yanni’s interest and guidance and Bill Littmann’s unyielding enthusiasm for this project. While I was writing, Professors Margaret Crawford and Greg Castillo led me to re-examine pieces of my project and consider the approach to my analysis carefully. I am indebted to all of these scholars for their insights and observations. As with any historically based research, knowledgeable archivists and librarians made this project possible. I am most indebted to Waverly Lowell of the Environmental Design Archives at UC Berkeley. We often discussed research and materials in the archives and when we met in the halls of Wurster. Because of her interest in the project and willingness to share ideas and materials, I owe her a great deal of thanks. She and iii Miranda Hambro were accessible and remained enthusiastic about my research as I progressed. The university archivist at UCLA, Charlotte Brown, graciously accommodated me and my questions for a month one summer when UCLA’s James and Sylvia Thayer research grant supported my work. The same is true for the university archivist of University of Wisconsin at Madison, David Null, and Ann Bowers of Bowling Green University, who I met when the Joan E. Draper Fellowship at UC Berkeley supported my travel. Close to home, Susan Snyder, Kathryn Neal, and staff at the Bancroft Library were exceedingly helpful when I had a summer fellowship from the Bancroft, as were the librarians in the Environmental Design Library, Elizabeth Byrne and David Eifler, who helped locate materials and resources. During my studies at UC Berkeley, I was thankful to have been part of the campus Design Review Committee while researching and writing my dissertation. The experience provided a window onto contemporary campus planning and environmental design and on the current renovation and reconstruction of UC Berkeley’s Student Union complex. Through this committee I met Steve Finacom, who shared his wealth of knowledge about UC Berkeley history, and Helaine Prentice, who shared her enthusiasm for UC Berkeley buildings. Emily Marthinsen, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Physical and Environmental Planning, took a special interest in the topic. Her own research and involvement in the Society of College and University Planners encouraged me to see the larger implications of my project, and to keep going. I owe personal debts to a handful of friends who helped make this project possible as well. Marilyn Novell, who read everything, is a saint. Marilyn’s editorial comments ensured a level of clarity my early drafts lacked. Katherine Rinne, who fed me soup on Sundays, also shared engaging conversations about College Unions and gave me any primary sources she had. Katherine might be UCLA’s biggest Student Union fan. Over the years my classmates listened and offered advice. Thanks to Cecilia Chu, Susanne Cowan, Gabriel Arboleda, Tiago Castelo, Yael Allweil, Huey Ying Hsu, Ahmed El Antrabli, Kartikeya Date, and many others who discussed ideas and pressed me forward. I also owe thanks to Lois Koch and Sarah McCarthy, who kept track of my progress and made sure my paperwork was in on time. Friends outside the academy listened and asked good questions about my work, too. Thanks to Jamie Phillips, Greg Cutler, Erin Cubbison, and Fernando Herrera, the project got better. Finally, my acknowledgments bring me to my family, who sustained me over the years.

Load more

  176

Copy Link