John Summerson, writing in 1983, said it is “… a redoubtable, daunting monument; enigmatic, a crystal fort with a shiny brick rampart, something of a factory, something of a conservatory… The building as a whole strikes me with something very like awe.” A comment on Wikipedia adds, “… although the building is admired by students of architecture it is less regarded by those who have to work in it. A 1968 review noted that environmental controls might be difficult to operate by humanities-oriented occupants.” Expensive modifications were necessary to render it usable, and in 1984 the University seriously considered demolishing the building. The remodelling of Stirling’s attempt to create an environmentally sustainable structure was announced in 2004; the project was headed by John McAslan, who said “the main problem with the building is that it leaks, it’s too bright, too hot in summer and too cold in winter”
Latterly, the University commissioned David Bedwell & Partners to undertake a comprehensive thermal analysis of the building, to produce accurate heat gain / heat loss calculations and to design a “once for all resolution to the overheating and underheating issues”. After much consultation and deliberation, it was agreed that the most viable solution to the problem would be the introduction of 4-pipe fan convectors replacing the aged / redundant (heating only) natural convectors. Bespoke fan convectors capable of providing simultaneous heating / cooling facilities were designed, with new electrical dado trunking sympathetically located at floor level. Albeit fully operational mock-up units were manufactured and installed in a “typical room” the scheme was unfortunately rejected by the Conservation Officer based on the Grade 2* listed status of the building. “Apparently it is better that a poorly functioning building should continue to be deficient, to the detriment of staff and graduates, rather than provide minor alterations to the aesthetics of the building” – Stephen Root.
