Is the Rolex Learning Center Too '1960s' for EPFL?

Let us make no mistake: the Rolex Learning Center at EPFL is a very interesting and even beautiful architectural design. It is celebrated by touristic websites and guides. But I want to say something firmly and resolutely: it did not belong to EPFL when it was built and still does not belong to it. Putting this kind of building at the EPFL was an error.

The Hanging Gardens of EPFL

There is a reason for this statement: if you look at the spirit of the urbanistic design of EFPL, which dates from the 1980s, it had a very advanced concept. It was unique then and still is -- to my knowledge -- still unmatched in Switzerland and elsewhere: all buildings were separate entities, but they formed a whole set. If you are a pedestrian (and students and faculties usually are), you walk on the first floor and cars remain at ground level. From there the whole set of buildings of EPFL appears seamless. You move from one building to another almost imperceptibly, through fairly lit corridors and gardens. It is all one thing.

The urbanistic concept EPFL is an extraordinary prototype of hanging gardens. It is a marvel. Oh, it is certainly not shiny and bling-bling; it is the opposite: it is unassuming. It it is so natural, that it takes time to notice its value. All the same, it is a success; and perhaps even more so, because it is in the traditional spirit of Swiss engineering: the product of team work, solid, clever and devoid of the desire to impress others.

Also look at the coating of the buildings: it was meant to be durable. The first phase, with its grey color, was tentative but quite acceptable. The second phase, with its ceramic tiling, was a better success. Almost thirty years after their construction, they look as good as new.

EPFL is an ensemble, a coherent urbanistic landscape, that delivers a message. Maybe it is not immediately obvious to visitors; but if you are a student, you start perceiving its value after a while. This place has a message.

The Rolex Center: A Catalogue of Design Errors

Let us look at how the Rolex Center breaks with the vision. First of all, it breaks with the spirit of the hanging gardens. It proudly stands there on its own, apart from the rest. You litterally have to exit the EPFL Campus to get there -- and so that you do not miss the point: there is a little road you have to cross as a pedestrian.

Come on: this is the 21st Century not the time of car cities like Brazilia in the 1960s!

Then the shape of the new building. What is the purpose, what is the function of this curvings shape? None! This building contains, essentially a library. But look and think for a minute: books and bookshelves have square shapes! Actually, it is obvious that all these sinuous shapes, and the fact that the floors are sloping everywhere, were an impediment instead of an advantage: they are tremendously inefficient. Matter, energy and space have been wasted for no good reason.

The management of EPFL built a new building whose function (hosting people and books) was subordinated to the form! From the viewpoint of engineers, this is an insane approach. Engineers are not doing art for the sake of art; they are in the business of servicing the needs of people to the best of their abilities. That is why, in engineering, function must determine the form. Indeed Mother Nature makes animal species continuously re-evolve new (or old) forms according to the needs for survival. In that respect, the Rolex Learning Center is artificial, inorganic.

And there was no minding of public transportation: the metro, another good engineering creation, is on the other side of the campus.

And finally: the covering. Of all materials, the architect used... raw concrete. A material that all construction engineers know is susceptible to premature aging. And not ten years after its inauguration, it shows! The picture I used, is actually flattering, because it hides the misery of worn-out concrete.

The Rolex Learning Center: A Vanity Project Straight from the 1960s

More than anything else, this building indicates a break with human values, and a regression to the past.

Remember, EPFL is an engineering school, not a fine arts laboratory: it is supposed to teach aspiring engineers to design things for human beings so that they are effective, efficient and sustainable.

It is supposed to teach them the virtues of working as a team; to insert one's creation in a context; to mind the environment; to mind the people; to mind the ressources. And to think in terms of a future, of how we could change the world.

The Rolex Learning Center, is not futuristic: it is a jump in the past. It is prototype of the 1960s, a time when private cars were thought to replace public transportation, when ambitious and sprawling shapes were all the rage. It was a time when architects proclaimed that modernity (or at least their own conception of it) should obliterate tradition; the fusion of concrete and glass were a symbol of power, and architects competed to make free-standing buildings that broke with their surroundings. It was a time when whole neighborhoods -- and the cultures that went with them -- were being wiped out, to make room for a brave new world.

In that respect, the Rolex Learning Center is actually quite mundane. There something even boring, in the story of a famous architect studio that sought to create a cultural shock with odd shapes that had no particular justification, except the architects' desire of being original. And with dignitaries who were bursting with pride at the sight of their new toy whose grandeur served no particular purpose, except flattering their ego and making a good show on touristic guides. There are so many examples of this from the 1960s, all over the world.

What was wrong, with the project of the Rolex Learning Center, was the egoism. This was a vanity project, which was thought as a "one-off", outside of the space, spirit and urbanistic design of the place in which it was built. It was designed to break with the surroundings. The architects put there a building , like in the 1960s, without even seriously thinking about elementary things such as walkways and transportation.

And in my humble opinion, the worst of all its sins, is that it paid no attention whatsoever to the and truly futuristic concept of hanging gardens at EPFL -- one that should model the next cities of the twenty-first century. In other words, a shallow creation, which ignored to the cultural and philosophical heritage of its surroundings.

This building, is alas, the symbol of an era of hubris at EPFL (the first decade of the 2'000s) when self-importance and greed were becoming more important than science and technology. When the school was revelling in bling-bling marketing, buddy-buddy with large corporations that leveraged taxpayer money for their own agenda, and was filling the media with resounding but empty slogans that technology would create a brave new world. All this was the a return to the imperialist urban planning of the 1960s. It was certainly a good era for prime donne, who had cocktails with celebrities and shareholders of big business; but dark ages for many people. And today we inherit the worries of a planet whose ecosystem and climate have been derailed by human arrogance and blindness. Unfortunately, that building had been meant as a symbol of pride and power.

EPFL has a new leadership, and even a new logo. What we should hope, is that it will reconnect with the true human values that were those of the 1990s -- which were more advanced: humanism, respect, hard work, team spirit, contempt for empty slogans, and a healthy modesty and care in front of Nature. And trying to honestly build a better future with engineering.

And the Rolex Learning Center? What happened is not its fault. It was an aesthetic creation, with its own merit. But it was put in the wrong place, at a wrong time, by the wrong people, and for the wrong function. In another place and time, it might have stood there as a creation of pure art.