<p>Poplicola:</p>
<p>I had seen the livestream, but not Zimmer’s comments from last year’s alumni weekend. Zimmer’s comments, especially the ones about Mansueto, are empty. Zimmer talks about bucking the trend and building more library space on campus, and that’s great. He also mentions constancy (importance of library space) with evolution (e.g. re-thinking what a library should be).</p>
<p>Frankly, I question that central premise. Would building a gothic library outfitted with the mechanical arm found in Mansueto be that different a balance between constancy and evolution as building a space age library with the same mechanical arm? I’d argue that the gothic library with such updated interior mechanisms is actually more true to the university’s heritage that the purely modernist structure. </p>
<p>Put another way, none of Zimmer’s points validated the need to embrace modernist architecture. He justifies the needs for certain types of structures (e.g. a library with a robotic arm, a new molecular engineering space), but such needs do NOT mandate the creation of modernist exteriors. I think a much more fascinating idea would be to take the more modern needs of some spaces (e.g. collaborative arts spaces, robotics inside libraries) and link them more strongly with the university’s initial architectural heritage. </p>
<p>Also, please note, it’s not just one building that’s gotten me so worked up. Rather, to me, this seems like the last straw in a long line of poor architectural decisions. The university’s general stance, over the past several decades, has been to embrace acclaimed architects that appear to be in vogue. From Saarinen to Gang today, whatever new modern theme exists, UChicago will find room for it on campus. </p>
<p>Outside of a precious few exceptions (a new Oriental Institute wing, expansion of the new economics institute), more classical styles of exterior architecture have been categorically ignored. Every new major space - from the Reg to Cummings to the new business school to dormitories - embrace some form of modern architecture. </p>
<p>For an occasional building, this wouldn’t be so bad. Heck, even to mix it up a bit - for each new modern structure, one new gothic structure - that wouldn’t be too bad either. Almost categorically, however, every new major building project incorporates architecture that is a far cry from the gothic heart of the university. Such decisions really add up over time, and, when enough of these new buildings pile up, really create ambiguity about the architectural theme of the university as a whole.</p>
<p>Finally, regarding Gang’s talk on the livestream, I was frustrated with it, and found parts of it to be insulting. She first talked about the new dorm being “urban” and part of Chicago. She also, toward the end, talked about how Hyde Park is “becoming” a great place to live, and university folks aren’t rushing to live downtown. I don’t know if she’s overly inclined toward downtown Chicago, but Hyde Park has distinctive (albeit less “big city downtown urban”) architecture and a distinct feel. Her new massive, unsightly high rise apt building on 53rd st cuts against this grain, and she’s openly talked about trying to make Hyde Park more “urban”. UChicago should think of itself as first part of Hyde Park. Immediately linking to downtown Chicago (as this new dorm apparently tries to do) is a mistake. </p>
<p>From what I can tell with past projects, the university has 3 goals with new building projects:</p>
<p>1.) make the interior space functional (as has been the case with Logan, Mansueto, etc., and has been a worthwhile goal)</p>
<p>2.) Retain highly acclaimed, modern architects (Gang, etc.) - architects that can make a splash and make news</p>
<p>3.) Keep costs moderate (e.g. the spending on this dorm - $150M - is not lavish. Mansueto was not a lavish expenditure, and South dorms needed to cut costs</p>
<p>I think priority #1 is valid, but #2 and #3 seem at odds with each other, and I am puzzled by UChicago’s constant retention of “big name” architects. The university has a more moderate budget, which implies that it shouldn’t always retain those who may charge a premium. Generally, the administration seems to want to make waves and news with its architecture - whether it’s a library or a dorm. I think such a goal should be much, much farther down the list of priorities (well behind staying true - to whatever extent possible - to the heart of the university). Even UChicago lab school has gone in this direction.</p>
<p>It’s just sad.</p>