Building of Requirement: Liberating Academic Interior Architecture

The authors focus on the strategies employed in the recent renovation of the William
Johnston Building at Florida State University, in which the historical exterior was preserved,
while the interiors were adapted to new functions as classrooms, study centers, and common
spaces with intentionally undefined purposes. The building s various use capacities, together
with the flexibility of its interior environments, makes it a building of requirement. The paper
reveals how the buildings historical interior layouts and architectural elements defined the
approach to realizing a postmodern and future-oriented building while fostering new
encounters and forming new user familiarities, thereby contributing to the evolution of the
structure as living history.

Introduction e goals are often twofold: firstly, to create a contemporary

learning environment, reflecting, and even shaping,
Buried within the forms and structures of old buildings are
pedagogical practices; and secondly, to allow for the
layers of historical information. Old buildings are akin to
liberation of the learning process by broadening contexts for
archaeological sites that reveal prior user needs and values.
social and educational interaction. Academic architecture
By putting this hidden architectural heritage to use and
has itself been likened to a form of pedagogy (Orr, 1993;
actively engaging these data within contemporary
Brown and Lippincott, 2003; Oblinger, 2006; Van Note
architectural practice, historic preservation keeps our
Chism, 2006; Dugdale, 2009; Taylor, 2009) that transmits an
constructive past relevant and alive (Martín-Hernández,
implicit curriculum and teaches as much as any course (Orr,
2007). As Victoria Meyers (1999) has observed, however,
1993). Educational facilities are, after all, spaces in which
these structures are also overlaid by visions of our future (p.
architecture and learning most readily intersect, and the
91). In a similar vein, Jorge Otero-Pailos (2005) in his essay
intersections between the potential for learning, as
Historic Provocation: Thinking Past Architecture and Preservation
understood by prevailing pedagogical paradigms, and the
(pp. ii-vi), posed a question that has since become
planning, designing, and building of these environments
foundational: What will have been?
must be at the forefront of the designers thoughts (Taylor,
Historic preservation examines how we relate to time
2009). Deliberately designed learning spaces should reflect
through the spaces of the built environment, and may be
these paradigms, and facilities built decades ago let alone
likened to an historic provocation (Oterio-Pailos, 2005, p. iv).
truly historical buildings from the more distant past seldom
Meaningful historic provocation cannot, however, be the
accommodate contemporary, learner-centered modes of
ordinary result of just any rebuilding effort. It must stem
education (Oblinger, 2006).
from unconventional thinking, repurposing from the
Much recent educational theory places the learner at the
perspective of counterfactual temporality by deliberative
active center of knowledge construction (Bransford and
designers (Oterio-Pailos, 2005, p. iv). Historic provocation
Cocking, 1999; Svinicki, 2004). The learner draws upon prior
urges the designer to address what is not, or not yet, but
experiences while actively processing real-time information,
could be under different circumstances, bringing them into
fitting new understandings into existing schema, and
new, yet historically rooted realms of possibility in which the
establishing new knowledge. Environments that offer
option is to act (to redesign, to repurpose, to modify), or not
opportunities for individual engagement, stimulate users
to act (to preserve unchanged) (OterioPailos, 2005, p. v).
senses, and encourage formal and informal exchanges of
Preservation and renovation strategies often include what
information, are most likely to foster learning (Van Note
Manuel Martín-Hernández (2007) has termed
Chism, 2006). Students today are highly social, and maintain
close connections with friends, peers, and faculty, both face-
to-face and online, throughout the day, and even during the
active learning process. Students greatly value this degree of
social interaction, and expect their college experiences to
facilitate and promote connectivity. It comes as no surprise,
therefore, that students generally favor active, participatory,
and experiential learning, patterned after their personal
routines and lifestyles (Oblinger, 2006).
Conventional educational facility design, which promotes
teacher-centered face-to-face pedagogy in a traditional
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

classroom, is still dominant in most academic architecture. study of one approach to repurposing and expanding a
The landscape is quickly changing, however, and the concept historic building, in which traditional educational spaces of
of what constitutes a classroom, or a historical section co-exist with more flexible,
learning environment is in flux. Arrangements of programmatically under-defined newly-designed areas, and
functionally under-defined learning spaces are replacing in which, in the amalgam, the designers attempted to create
mundane corridors of adjacent classrooms (Brown and a more liberated interior architecture, or, what we have
Lippincott, 2003). The expansive functionality of these new termed in Hogwartian fashion, a Building of Requirement.1
learning spaces consists, in part, of the incorporation of new
technologies, but it is also reflected in designs that are flexible The Historic William Johnston Building
in their programmatic and physical boundaries, thus
The William Johnston Building (WJB) (1939) was originally
accommodating new teaching modes and broadening
built as the main dining hall for the Florida State College for
opportunities for collaborative and synchronous learning
Women (FSCW). The New Dining Hall was designed by
activities ”rown and Lippincott, , p. .
Rudolph Weaver, architect for the Florida Board of Control
As delineations between academic disciplines blur, and
during the Depression-era Work Projects Administration. A
educational and social activities intertwine, traditional
brick-clad concrete and steel structure, it was designed and
categories of spaces that once supported distinct learning
decorated in the Jacobean revival, collegiate gothic style that
activities are less useful and may do more to restrict than
prevailed on American university campuses at the time (Bryn
enable learning (Bloland, 2005). We are witnessing a
Mawr College, 2001) (Figure 1).
transition towards less specialized, free-form spaces in which
students spend more time in diverse learning pursuits,
deriving a wider range of educational benefits (Dugdale,
2009). With the eschewal of the simple, lecterncentered
classroom, it is increasingly important that designers
deliberate upon the evolving form and function of
educational facilities. Greater mobility and accessibility
offers students an array of choices for their study
environments, and they tend to gravitate towards those
spaces that they most enjoy using (Dugdale, 2009). If the
designer does not devise the right sorts of learning spaces,
students may not come. In today s highly competitive world
of higher education, every bit counts. Facilities that are
student-friendly, aesthetically interesting, and
Figure 1. The William Johnston Building (1939). State Archives of
accommodating to different learning styles and pedagogies
Florida, http://floridamemory.com/items/show/28448.
undoubtedly influence students perceptions of the academic
units housed within those facilities, and innovative
The first floor was designed with an entry vestibule, a
architecture is a key marker of prestige among colleges and
lobby, and the main staircase embellished with a saltglazed
universities as a whole.
tile wainscot extending up into the second floor. It
One challenge for designers thus becomes locating the
incorporated cooking facilities and two informal large dining
proper balance between formal and informal learning spaces,
rooms with fourteen-foot ceilings, each seating
while enhancing opportunities for student-student and
approximately 400 students. The upper floor had two formal
student-instructor interactivity, and the use of social
dining halls for 300 students each. Students were required to
technological applications requisite to contemporary
take all of their meals there, and to observe strict formalities.
educational practice, all within a historical context that is
One upperclassman wrote about her dining routine in 1940:
mutable only to a point. The recent renovation and expansion
I sit at the head of the table and serve. No one can start
of the William Johnston Building (1939/2011) on the campus
eating till I do, and no one can have her dessert till I do,
of Florida State University serves as an informative case
and no one can be excused till I get up, and no one from

enter when they have real need of it. Sometimes it is there,

and sometimes it is not, but when it appears, it is always equipped
for the seeker's needs.” (Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of
the Phoenix, 2004).

.
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

another table can speak to someone at my table without The restored building consists of two distinct sections
asking me first. It is so exciting I can hardly stand it! separated by a transitional area: the old dining hall, or west
(Sellers, 1995, p. 219) wing, which occupies about one-third of the overall
footprint, and which retained its historic appearance in the
The atmosphere of the formal dining hall was enhanced by prominent and inspiring spaces (Facilities Department, 2007,
an eight-foot oak wainscot running the perimeter of the p. 11); and the new, high modernist-styled, voluminous east
room, and by monumental arched windows. Massive wing. The first floor of the old structure maintains the
decoratively carved wooden trusses inlaid with handpainted original vestibule, where almost all of the historic interior
cork tiles depicting sparrows, butterflies, herons, and waves components were preserved and renovated, including the
supported the thirty-foot vaulted ceilings. A mezzanine salt-glazed tile wainscot, plaster cornices and ceiling trim,
contained a generously sized president s private dining and original stairs leading to the second floor. Flanking the
room, with leaded cathedral windows overlooking the two vestibule to the east and west and lining the periphery of the
formal dining halls. west wing are an array of faculty offices and support spaces.
In 1947, the Florida Legislature rededicated the Florida At the core are a number of smaller classrooms, and a
State College for Women as the co-educational Florida State moderately-sized student lounge area (Figures 2 and 3).
University, and blandly designated the facility as Building
No. 17. It functioned as a dining hall until 1964, when it
became a kind of surge space for a number of academic
programs and administrative offices. The building was
popularly known as the New Dining Hall well into the 1980s,
at which point it was renamed the William Johnston Building
in honor of a retired university administrator (Facilities
Department, 2007).

The Renovation
The renovation and expansion of the Johnston Building
began in late 2007 and was completed in 2011. The
Department of Interior Design within FSU s College of Visual
Figure 2. WJB First Floor Plan. Drawing courtesy of Gould Evans
Arts, Theatre and Dance was at the center of the recent
Architects.
redesign and expansion. There were several design goals.
First, the building had to be preserved as an important
element of the campus s architectural heritage. The architects
were instructed to renovate and restore selected portions of
the original building to highlight unique architectural
features and period details of prominent and inspiring
spaces, including the central staircase and two formal dining
rooms (Facilities Department, 2007). A second goal was to
provide an addition to the existing building to increase the
space dedicated to academic purposes. This addition had to
be architecturally compatible, and appear proportional and
stylistically consistent with the historic building from the
exterior. The architects were also charged with creating a
unique interior identity for the new annex appropriate to the
departments housed within. Special consideration had to be
given to interior spaces long-term flexibility and adaptability Figure 3. WJB Second Floor Plan showing two former formal dining
rooms converted onto lecture halls. Drawing courtesy of Gould
to serve a variety of needs and functions, both at present and
into the future (Facilities Department, 2007). In short, the
designers were asked to meet current needs while
anticipating, to instance Otero-Pailos, what will have been
(2005, pp. ii-vi).

.
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

The historic part of the building and the new east wing
modernist addition are connected by a complex threshold
configuration containing the original grand staircase and a
wide passageway and landing (Figures 4 and 5). This
transitional area opens abruptly onto a five-story-high airy
atrium inside of which rises a glass and stainless steel
interior structure incorporating classrooms, gathering and
lounge spaces, an art gallery, an art library, display spaces,
computer labs, and numerous multipurpose study areas
that ring the atrium on various levels. These spaces are
visually open to the atrium, and are accessed by wide
passageways dotted with smaller seating and gathering
areas (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Central atrium in the new addition with corner sitting areas.

Analysis
The designers approach went well beyond

Evans Architects. Figure 4. WJB section illustrating the original dining Figure 5. Historic grand staircase leading to the new building
hall (on the left), threshold area, and the new addition (on the right) addition.
defined by the 5- programmatic requirements for the William Johnston
story open atrium. Drawing courtesy of Gould Evans Architects.
Building renovation. A balance was struck between old
and new, and a number of aesthetically and functionally
complex spaces were created. Per the University s
direction, the collegiate gothic façade was preserved,
restored, and extended throughout the exterior of the new
addition. The interiors of the historic core, although
preserved in their period styles, were modified
significantly, and adapted to new functions as classrooms,
faculty and student offices, counseling suites, open-
planned study centers, and common gathering areas. The
designers invested many interior public spaces with a
condition of diminished specificity (Meyers, 1999, p. 92),
the highest and best uses of which would be determined
on a daily or hourly basis by the needs of their student
users.

.
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

At first glance it appears that the architects adopted a subdivided first by the main staircase and further by the
conventional grid approach to the layout. Following Weaver interior partitions between the faculty offices, the
s original 1939 design, the structure is symmetrically administrative offices, and other functional spaces the new
arranged around the historic staircase in the old dining hall. addition awes with its visual openness and spaciousness. As
In the new east wing, the layout adheres to the rationalist it happens, there are numerous small units contained in the
approach, with centralized atrium, public, semi-public new building and several large spaces within the old. The
spaces, and private offices placed along the perimeter of the perceived divergence of spatial geometries small and
building. Closer examination of the layout, however, reveals enclosed versus vast and open is amplified by the contrasting
that the spatial configuration is no simple adaptation of the visual qualities of the construction materials and surface
modernist repertoire. The architects recontextualized the old treatments brick, plaster, warm woods, and earthy salt-
west wing and, in so doing, prompted a conversation glazed tile of the old section against the reflective glass, cool
between the historic and new sections of the building. The white terrazzo, and shiny metals of the new section (Figures
grid system is the underlining common spatial arrangement 7 and 8). The designers play with impenetrability and
in both parts of the building, but it is akin to a sonata where transparency throughout the building by gradually
the main theme the rigid, symmetrical grid of the historic transitioning from impermeable brick exterior and attached
building develops in looser variations as it applied to the new partitions to core spaces that are almost entirely glazed. The
east wing spaces. central atrium is a comparative void wherein a relative
The latter picks up on the formality of the former, but absence of opacity implies absolute transparency.
introduces irregularities and asymmetrical elements while
maintaining the overall rectilinearity of the spatial
arrangement. Beyond the echoing spatial layout, however,
the interior architecture and design of the two buildings
develop in distinctly different directions. Each of the two
sections anticipates diverse user requirements, making the
whole an expressly postmodern creation, a building of
requirement composed of incongruous yet dialogical parts.
Postmodern architecture has been defined by its
heterogeneous, discontinuous, and fragmented formal
systems, characterized by an internal diagonal dialogue
between the building and its historical, social, and formal
contexts (Lynn, 1993/2010, p. 36). Such diagonal dialogues
can develop in two directions. They may be dynamic, tense,
and acute, comprised of conflicting geometries, materials,
styles, histories, and programs which are then represented in Figure 7. Looking east to west from the new addition to the third level
architecture as internal contradictions, or they may be of the original structure.
dialogues of unity and reconstruction (Lynn, 1993/2010, p.
36). The interior architecture of the Johnston Building
combines both tendencies. The diverging geometries and
aesthetics styles form conflicting diagonals, but these
diagonals, although noticeable, are non-confrontational, and
participate in a mediated dialog between interior elements
and aesthetics of old and new. The oppositions are present in
the building s formal systems: leaping off from diverging
geometries, they contrast in materials, styles, and aesthetics,
but converge again in functions.

Diverging Geometries and Juxtaposing Materials

Diverging geometries find their realization in contrasts of
volumes formed by the vertical and horizontal segmentation
of interior spaces. Although the historic part appears highly

.
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

Figure 8. Juxtaposition of volumes between the central atrium void regulate and restrict behavior. The grand staircase was
and circulation paths in the new addition.
enclosed and dark. It led into a vestibule with two
symmetrical entryways to virtually identical dining rooms.
As the materials change and spaces become more visually The open layout of the dining rooms provided a field
accessible, volumes increase to form diagonal oppositions. wherein every deviation from decorum could be observed.
The old dining hall contains many faculty and administrative The renovation kept the existing footprint of the dining
offices, and for the most part appears to be enclosed and rooms and access points without modifications. The dining
comprised of compartmentalized spaces. The large glass rooms, however, now function as lecture halls (Figure 9). By
spaces of the new addition pivot around the open atrium, definition, a lecture hall is a space where behaviors are also
making the space visually more accessible and arguably restricted by timetables and governed by a pedagogical
more democratic. Metaphorically, glass spaces are thin model wherein attention is focused on the lecturer, an
spaces, and impermeably partitioned spaces are thick spaces authority figure, who actively transmits information to
(Lynn, 1993/2010). This juxtaposition of thick and thin spaces relatively passive learners. By making former dining halls
where thick is interspersed with thin and thin with thick into lecture halls, the architects paid homage to the building
provides an additional layer of complexity to the diagonal s cultural past as an ordered place. The new addition
dialogue between the building s interiors, prompting contains similar types of formal and programmatically
exploration of spaces as thin as air and with invisible defined classrooms, which also require adherence to
boundaries on the one hand, and the density of space with traditional pedagogical methods of instruction and learning.
many walls, on the other (Lynn, 1993/2010, p. 36). The
architects choice of glass for the interior was partially
programmatic, in keeping with the University s goal of
creating a model twenty-first-century dynamic, open and
socially-oriented learning environment. Glass partitions
make visual boundaries between spaces more membrane-
like. As a result, the physicality of spaces within the new
addition appears under-defined, fluid, and full of
potentialities, all characteristic aspects of a building of
requirement.
This contrast is plainly by design, and is essential to the
goal of maintaining a sense of settled history on the one side
and the unencumbered potentiality on the other. Thus, the
building of requirement i.e., that part of the renovation and
expansion that awaits undiscovered uses that can be all Figure 9. Second floor lecture hall. Originally one of the two formal
dining rooms, both spaces now function as large lecture halls. Photo
things to all users; that part which is a reflection of courtesy of Gould Evans Architects.
burgeoning pedagogical consensus on the need for
multipurpose learning environments) is perceived to be the The grand staircase and the threshold area play an
addition, notwithstanding the mostly equivalent spatial essential role in controlling the transition between the old
geometries and delusive visual effects of veneers. As such, and the new sections of the buildings and in defining it as an
the post-modern dialogue of unity and reconstruction is educational environment. As mentioned earlier, the entire
subtly achieved, while users carry on with the impression transitional zone has low ceilings, little light, and, most
that the building is riddled with internal contradictions. importantly, its configuration appears to be turned away
from the new addition of the building. “lthough the stairway
Converging Functions is supposed to be an important link connecting the historic
Significant levels of geometric three-dimensional and contemporary parts of the building, it does so
complexity and juxtaposition of materials influence users reluctantly, as though trying to conceal the new addition
perceptions of spatial functionality. At their best, the interiors from space users, to arrest their movement, and to contain
of the William Johnston Building enter into something of a them within the boundaries of the old dining hall. Thus, the
temporal dialogue: the building s dining hall past, with old section of the building appears to be in control of its
timetables governing student routines, and hierarchies of domain: it still holds strong to traditional programming and
class and rank, confronts its present as a loosely-defined delineation of spaces, including the two large lecture
center of learning. In the past, the interiors functioned to auditoriums, and thus demands and determines that the

.
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

teaching that takes place there adheres to the traditional boundaries in contemporary higher education. The library,
pedagogical model of teacher-centered lecturing and passive exhibit gallery, student lounge and a few classrooms allow
learning-listening. passersby to see students being studious, socializing, goofing
Once in the new addition, however, the pedagogical off, resting, or sleeping, and thus reveal the many possible
paradigm changes. Although the annex contains a significant functional adaptations or appropriations of these spaces. The
share of traditionally designed classrooms for formal lecture- many lounge areas that dot circulation paths of the new
type classes, some spaces break out from this orderly addition are similarly left open for interpretation and use.
designation into places where informal, individualized and They most often serve as informal individual study spaces
personalized, open-ended learning occurs. The balance of the for students, many of whom utilize them even when they do
educational spaces in the new addition may be divided into not have scheduled classes in the building. Some faculty and
two groups: first, semiregulated and functionally under- student users report occupying these spaces for a few
defined spaces, including counseling suites, and user- minutes to have a break from their work, to step away from
designated lounge spaces, and second, open-planed and their offices and change scenery for a few minutes, to enjoy
functionally un-defined hallway sitting areas. In addition, the spaciousness of the atrium, and to enjoy looking at
generous allocation of circulation routes throughout the people instead of at books or their computers. Paradoxically,
building allows one to study almost anywhere in the open and exposed to passersby, these areas appear to offer
building (Figure 10). some student users more privacy and even quiet than the
library, partitioned graduate lounge, or other semi-private
spaces nearby (Figure 11), in which it is much more common
to encounter groups of people engaged in boisterous
discussions or working jointly on projects.

Figure 11. A student working alone, but engaged in social networking,

in one of the atrium sitting areas.

The diverse activities that take place in these highly visible,

Figure 10. New addition corridor: students waiting for class.
open, and easily accessible spaces constitute today s
educational modes. The process of sitting and reading a
Most of these spaces are located closer to the core of the
book or listening to a lecture has been supplanted with
building, as defined by the central atrium, and are articulated
something more complex and social and interwoven into the
by glass interior partitions, counter-high dividers, posts or
fabric of students and faculty members lifestyles. Learning is
railings, and furnishings. Glass is the predominant material
no longer limited to hierarchical exchanges of information à
in the atrium area. It was chosen for its transparent qualities
la the classrooms of old. It is now intertwined with leisure,
that allow for the visual underdefinition of social and
polyvalent, and boundary-less. The functionally under-
informal learning spaces and lounge areas, suggest flexibility
defined spaces of the William Johnston Building support
in functional interpretation of these spaces, and symbolize
these heterogeneous modes of learning. Students are not
the permeability of disciplinary, social, and hierarchical
compelled to learn in a certain way while using these spaces.

.
 BUILDING OF REQUIREMENT

To the contrary, students turn them into spaces of

requirement an individual quiet study area, a place for small
group work or discussion, a change of scene or a place of rest.
Programmatically liberated and socially oriented, these
spaces lift formal behavioral and pedagogical restrictions
and foster social communication and shared learning, or
unregimented individual studying, and thus support
learner-centered pedagogy, leading to a greater sense of
student ownership of the learning process and its outcomes.

Conclusion
The design of the renovated William Johnston Building
integrates traditional instructor-centered educational
practices with newer student-centered ways of learning
individualized, social, and experiential. With the twin goals
of preservation and innovation, the designers intervened to
expand the facility and transform it in meaningful ways into
a building of requirement. The lecture halls and traditionally
designed classrooms of the building s historic section require
conformity to instructor-centered methods of teaching and
learning, while the many informal programmatically under-
and un-defined sitting, lounge, and study spaces become just
what users need. This strategy plays to learners advantages
by containing within one corpus a range of typologically and
functionally diverse interior spaces. From the convention of
the dining rooms turned lecture halls to the flexibility of the
numerous public and semipublic spaces, oppositions are
joined to create a heterogeneous architectural context primed
for both structured learning and unrestrained information
exchange.
The newly renovated William Johnston Building
represents an approach to historic preservation in which the
architecture of now is more than an intervention. It overtakes
the historical part, wraps it in modernity, but does so
respectfully and without diminishing the significance and
meaning of the old building. The modern addition stylizes
the material poetry of the old building, from which the larger
narrative of the new building emerges. The design strategies
of diminished specificity create a heterogeneous yet
continuous system, in which formal elements, meanings, and
histories enter a dialogue between past programs of
occupation and a contemporary language of form Meyers,
999, p. 9 . “nd, perhaps most importantly, the renovation of
the Johnston Building emphasizes the contemporary
educational and pedagogical practices of flexibility and
accommodation of learners unanticipated requirements, and
embraces the conflicts and contradictions inherent to
anticipating what will have been: the myriad modes of
learning that await discovery.