New UChicago Dormitory Looks Horrendous

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>University</a> unveils new residence hall and dining commons | The University of Chicago</p>

<p>I'm not even going to bother with analysis... Perhaps some may like the weird, quirky look of these buildings but, for one of the signature dormitories on campus, to me, this is horrendous. What's worse is that the architecture is most likely polarizing - people will have strong opinions either way, which isn't necessarily what you want in a dormitory. </p>

<p>In my opinion, this looks horrendous, and it will be an eye sore on campus.</p>

<p>This is a time where I don't really like my alma mater. There's always this impulse to be different somehow. Just build a normal looking dorm - how hard is that?</p>

2

<p>I completely disagree. I just watched the live broadcast of the unveiling, and I think the design is brilliant – extremely well thought-out and destined to be a real selling point for future prospective students. I’d recommend watching it before making snap judgements. <a href=“http://news.uchicago.edu/webcast/architect-and-design-unveiling-new-residence-hall[/url]”>http://news.uchicago.edu/webcast/architect-and-design-unveiling-new-residence-hall&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

3

<p>I and most students on the online FB page love it and are quite jealous! Of the reactions I’ve seen or heard, only 1% have disliked it. And I don’t think they were trying to be different…or at least I don’t view the design as being radical or deviant. It’s modern but it’s certainly not revolutionary. The pictures in the photo gallery are stunning imo.</p>

4

<p>(1) That is sort of a normal-looking dorm. It’s a series of boxes with squiggly lines and indoor/outdoor passages. And a few three-story common spaces, like South Campus. And a dining hall. I like the outdoor spaces and the long indoor passageway a lot, and of course the penthouse reading room.</p>

<p>(2) It’s a pretty respectable architect (Jeanne Gang), and a university architectural team that has had an impressive series of winners. I might withhold negative judgment.</p>

<p>(3) What’s wrong with hiring the best architects in Chicago to design your buildings, which is what the University has been doing lately? Very in keeping with the traditions of the University and the city, and much much much better than the cheapo functional approach that produced Pierce (z"l) and Max P. (one could only hope).</p>

5

<p>1.) The exterior to me invites strong opinions because it looks so striking with the squiggly lines and the like - unlike, say, South dorm, which is much more uniform. My strong opinion is negative, others may be positive. I imagine a lot of south side residents will look at this behemoth and just roll their eyes.</p>

<p>2.) The architect is extremely respected, but has also designed buildings that inspire strong opinions and feature a generally futuristic, modern feel. (See here: [Studio</a> Gang Architects | Work: Featured](<a href=“http://studiogang.net/work/featured]Studio”>http://studiogang.net/work/featured)). UChicago needed to create a dormitory, and probably could’ve gotten something much more traditional with less polarizing design and at less cost. Having a series of brownstone-like buildings that conform to the generally charming and handsome residences in Hyde Park would’ve been fine. That would signify a general connection to the community and be a gradual gateway into the university. This new building is in stark contrast to most of the surrounding architecture of the neighborhood.</p>

<p>3.) I’d imagine vision matters before selecting the architect. I wonder how clear the vision or priorities for those on the building committee were. I’d hope that blending with the surrounding blocks would be of significant concern, but apparently that wasn’t at all. This to me looks like a behemoth, much like the other albatross the Gang architects are creating in the 53rd and Hyde Park area. </p>

<p>It sticks out like a sore thumb right when UChicago does not need an expensive new building to stick out.</p>

6

<p>It’s just you Cue7. Students on campus today are mostly happy and have positive things to say about the designs.</p>

7

<p>Trapezius:</p>

<p>My favorite social media post (not posted by me, I assure you) about the new dorm:</p>

<p>“It can’t possibly look worse than Pierce, but it looks like it’s trying.”</p>

8

<p>Also of note, the Chicago Tribune reports that the dorm will cost an estimated $148M to build: <a href=“Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune”>Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune; </p>

<p>For 800 students, this still appears to be on the cheap side, in comparison to UChicago’s peers.</p>

<p>Penn, for example, is spending $125M for a dorm that will house only 350 students:</p>

<p>[Hill</a> Field Begone! Penn Planning Big New Dorm | NakedPhilly](<a href=“http://nakedphilly.com/university-city/hill-field-begone-penn-planning-big-new-dorm/]Hill”>http://nakedphilly.com/university-city/hill-field-begone-penn-planning-big-new-dorm/)</p>

<p>(That dorm, I should add, less drastically changes the surrounding landscape than UChicago’s massive buildings)</p>

<p>Yale, of course, has pledged about $500M for two new spectacular residential colleges that will house about 800 students:</p>

<p>[New</a> Residential Colleges | newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu](<a href=“http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/]New”>http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/)</p>

<p>(Yale’s new dorms, if for nothing else, conform with the dominant architecture on campus, and remain true to the heritage of past residence halls. While some may not like gothic architecture they don’t seem to be nearly as polarizing.)</p>

9

<p>The point about cost should include the fact that this is not just a dorm but also a dining hall, unlike Penn’s dorm (but like Yale’s).</p>

<p>As for blending with the surrounding blocks, if memory serves this will be across the street from a gigantic parking lot on one side, a not-especially-delicate Lutheran Seminary and a perfectly ugly firehouse across 55th St., and a bunch of nondescript brick buildings. It steps down in height along University, across from the brick buildings, and they are preserving a lot of the current open space on the Greenwood side. Everything that’s there is currently adjacent to Pierce, so it’s not like things are going to get a whole lot worse. The new buildings will be a lot bigger, especially along 55th (which is not exactly the Champs Elysees), but not all that much taller.</p>

10

<p>JHS,</p>

<p>Re cost - that seems even more strange to me. Penn’s dorm for $125M houses only 350 students, and doesn’t include a dining hall. UChicago’s dorm will house 800 students and include dining service, all for $148M. 6 years ago Whitman College at Princeton cost $136M (and I believe the College houses less than 800 students).</p>

<p>In the landscape of elite university dorms, housing 800 students with dining service for $148 is actually a little on the lower end of cost. The university is investing in college infrastructure, but perhaps not with the vigor found at some of its peers. (And, perhaps, paying a premium for splashy work with “name” architects when such work isn’t needed, at least with a dormitory.)</p>

<p>In terms of blending with the surrounding neighborhood, most of the surrounding 55th st, as you said, is rather barren. The dark brick houses south of 55th on University Ave, though, are lovely, and Henry Crown is a very venerable piece of gothic architecture. The new dorm disappointingly contrasts both types of architecture. </p>

<p>I’d happily have gone with more traditional gothic architecture (to match Henry Crown), or something more in the standard brick residential style of the charming houses on University Ave. The new dorm, sadly, takes neither approach. </p>

<p>Generally, the university approach to architecture since the 1960s has been a disappointing hodgepodge generally leaning toward whatever trend seems to be in vogue. Following the general coherence of the gothic quadrangles, buildings like the Regenstein, Cummings Earth Sciences, Max Palevsky, this new dorm, etc. hardly feature timeless designs, or aesthetics that will age well. </p>

<p>Personally, I think coherence and continuity in terms of architecture is important. When I think of Princeton or Duke or Yale, I have a definite view of the archetypal buildings on each campus. When I think of UChicago, given all of these decisions over the past several decades, sadly, I can’t say the same. Is Harper the archetypal UChicago building, or the Reg? </p>

<p>The architecture generally seems to reflect the current and somewhat schizophrenic nature of the College’s identity.</p>

11

<p>I think the new dorm is great, and I think that Cue7’s comments are, as usual, silly and contradictory.</p>

<p>For one, Cue7 is complaining that UChicago isn’t spending enough money on the dorm (yeah, $148m is really cheap) while also complaining that this is isn’t the time to be creating a building that stands out, since there’s so much debate around an on-campus trauma center. Yeah, that makes sense. Why don’t we spend $500m on a dormitory that doesn’t stand out at all?</p>

<p>Secondly, Cue7 is constantly using the word “polarizing”. I’m pretty sure he’s the only one (or one of only a few) who thinks this building is polarizing or controversial. Posting comments that you’ve seen from people who don’t like the building doesn’t prove that the structure is polarizing. Everyone has their own tastes, and there’s not any one thing that everyone agrees upon.</p>

<p>Personally, I’m very pleased to see the new dorm, and I think it’s another step in the right direction for UChicago. Many from the old guard will criticize the new building for being too modern or too attention-grabbing. Many of these people are the same ones who never wanted to see Zimmer as president and who never wanted UChicago to advance to its current position as a peer to HYPSM, but instead to forever remain in obscurity as a haven for hermit intellectuals.</p>

12

<p>Phuriku,</p>

<p>Thanks for the personal attack (e.g. my comments are - “as usual” silly and contradictory). That lack of manners aside, to address your two points sequentially:</p>

<p>1.) Cost - if UChicago budgeted $150M for a 800 student dorm, this to me says that the school should NOT pay a premium for a highly acclaimed architect. $150M for 800 beds and a dining hall is not a great deal of money (especially given that Yale spent $500M for about the same number of beds, Penn spent $125M for 350 beds and no dining hall, etc.). Why pay extra to make a splash when money, it appears, seems to be somewhat constricted? The highly acclaimed architect will create something visually striking (it’ll catch the eye, for better or worse), but why pay for that when the budget isn’t that large? If you don’t have the money, why pay for the splash? </p>

<p>Remember, South dorm was actually supposed to be bigger/more grandiose, but money ran dry. With North dorm, given that the budget is relatively modest for the need, why go for splash? UChicago, in this case, should simply live within its means. There’s no need to try to get into a design magazine for the construction of a dormitory. </p>

<p>2.) Re polarizing - my opinion is that, upon seeing the building, people will have some sort of reaction - just as with Mansueto or Cummings or the Reg. I don’t think Cummings or the Reg or the law school have stood the test of time well (although they were all cutting edge when they were built). On the other hand, the schools gothic architecture seems to have more enduring traits.</p>

<p>(Interestingly, Yale I believe dabbled only once with modern architecture for a new residential college - for Ezra Stiles. This building was looked at quite disfavorably, and general sentiment seems to be that it did NOT stand the test of time well.)</p>

<p>There are three renovations UChicago underwent that, I think, will be perfectly enduring on campus:</p>

<p>1.) In the early 2000s, an additional wing added to the Oriental Institute, which simply conformed with the gothic architecture of the building</p>

<p>2.) the expansion for the Econ dept and the Becker-Friedman Institute: [Adaptive</a> Reuse of 5757 South University Avenue | Facilities Services at The University of Chicago](<a href=“Saieh Hall for Economics | The University of Chicago Facilities Services”>Saieh Hall for Economics | The University of Chicago Facilities Services)</p>

<p>3.) Reuse of the math/stat building: [Adaptive</a> Reuse of Math-Stat Building for the Stevanovich Center for Financial Mathematics | Facilities Services at The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://facilities.uchicago.edu/construction/archive/stevanovich-center/]Adaptive”>Adaptive Reuse of Math-Stat Building for the Stevanovich Center for Financial Mathematics | The University of Chicago Facilities Services)</p>

<p>Aside from that, virtually every single project - especially of new construction, features some kind of brazenly modern architecture. Even the UChicago lab school has a heavy glass/concrete that departs strongly from the traditional lab school architecture: [Laboratory</a> Schools Expansion and Renovation Program | Facilities Services at The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://facilities.uchicago.edu/construction/current/lab-school/]Laboratory”>http://facilities.uchicago.edu/construction/current/lab-school/)</p>

<p>My frustration with this is the surprisingly uniform march toward twin goals with virtually any structure constructed: 1.) splashy architect and 2.) modern design. Virtually every building (from parking lots and utility plants to dorms and libraries) follow this pattern. Why?</p>

<p>Finally Phuriku, re the new dorm and UChicago’s advance to be a peer of Harvard Yale et al. I don’t really see where that comes into play here. The dorm is certainly an improvement over Pierce, but, it’s another lost opportunity, similar to the Reg, Cummings, etc. etc. We’ve gone from neo-brutalist to uniformly wonky/modern for ALL new architectural decisions. </p>

<p>Again, mixing it up would be fine - i have no problem with some modern and some traditional. This, however, has been a sadly uniform march.</p>