UChicago unveils new residence hall and dining commons

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>Cue7,</p>

<p>Why don’t you start an alumni action group to communicate these considerations to the administration? You are absolutely right that recent buildings on campus shamelessly panders to whatever in vogue. The university from its start has always been true to itself. It resists the temptation of vulgar success, steps away from the prejudices of its time and makes judicious and measured decisions that are validated through time. Getting rid of uncommon applications, adding Becker Friedman Institute: we see the university strays these fundamental values. </p>

<p>The new buildings are ill-conceived. Like a cheap woman who thinks an “expensive” bag would fit any outfit: these branded buildings do not resonate with the architectural tradition of the university and the community. It’s just too easy, too quick, and too cheap.</p>

22

<p>Hello anonalum: Respect your opinion as an alum. I expect you treasure what makes UChicago unique, the central quads included, which is great. I’m not an alum; just the parent of a future alum. So I do care about the future of the school. The character of the buildings around the main quad are strikingly different. Yet somehow, for me, they work. I do think there are exceptions. Mansueto while fascinating is a bit odd and out of place, even though my son thinks it is cool. And MP dorm is kind of drab. And the new arts structure, while interesting by itself, seems a little out of place at UChicago. And so on.</p>

<p>I do not feel that way about the new dorm. I do not think it is ill conceived. After looking at the drawings carefully and listening to the architect, I do think that the building resonates with the architectural traditions of the University. Have you listened to the architect’s explanation of the design principles employed? If you have, are you not somewhat impressed with the way the new structures create a Northeast entrance to the University? On top of all this, my personal feeling is that the new structures (if built close to as conceived) will be beautiful structures by themselves. My biggest concern is that there will be compromises in the “as drawn” structures due to unexpected cost and schedule challenges. I hope there will not be too many.</p>

<p>I remember touring Princeton and Washington U. and seeing the houses / dorms. They were all kind of uniform and impressive, but at the end of the day they were boring in comparison to what UChicago is getting. I think the UChicago community: alums, current students, future students should be pretty excited and grateful for what they are getting.</p>

<p>Thanks for hearing me out.</p>

23

<p>I’m one of like 10 kids (now alums haha) who stayed in Pierce for the last 4 years.</p>

<p>I’m pretty happy with Gang’s design and the administration’s choice. What defined the spirit of Pierce was the cramped 100 sq foot shared dorm rooms surrounding massive 2 story common room in the center; essentially forcing even less social people to feel claustrophobic in their rooms and to socialize in the common rooms for the first few weeks. Thew new North Campus follows this philosophy as well with its beautiful, expansive and sleek lounges.</p>

<p>Plus Pierce was god damn atrocious looking, a victim of 1950s/1960’s anti riot architecture and had sever plumbing problems. As much as I love gothic castles, modern ergonomics is better for student comfort. And we do already have the outstanding International House there in the SouthEast.</p>

24

<p>It’s not at all bad and for sure an improvement to Pierce. But I worry it’s just a new Pierce that’s waiting to be torn down in 30 years. </p>

<p>Architectures, as something large and permanent, should reflect the highest aspirations of our time. The founding architectures were once modern: it’s now a new bold world, new designs should embrace and celebrate it. As an art form, architectures should reflect designers’ deliberations of these deep struggles. The lure of material achievement and its corrosions on mind and soul; the willful endeavors of individuals minds and the danger of being narrow-minded; the desired to connect and share and its tendency to give in to the mainstream ideology, hostile to idiosyncrasies… These are questions architects should tackle and their designs are their responses: we see this in all modern masters. </p>

<p>Gang, as a designer for commercial spaces, lacks understanding of the sensibilities and responsibilities of a great university. It’s hard to downplay the importance of a residence hall, where a university exerts its values and subtly persuades the students to be great. Do we see this? It’s hard to resist the temptation of framing the skyline of Chicago prominently but it’s at the same time an endorsement of the city’s values. It’s good to have more open spaces for collaborations but it’s at the same time an (irresponsible) indulgence to the facebook/twitter generation and a rejection of the value of an individual who is supposed to be valued as a singular being rather than an indistinguishable component of a whole. </p>

<p>We may call the new design arrogant. New visual languages are introduced gratuitously: herringbone patterns, zigzag lines, misaligned stacking blocks, diagonal cuts of exterior panels, diamond shapes, accents of red sofa, neon color modern sculptures, patchwork of glass and wooden blocks, polka dot sunscreen, dark wooden frames, elongated floor and ceiling tiles, etc. The transportation of flags of houses from existing dining halls, as a caricatured homage to the school’s tradition, is specially heavy-handed. Like Cue7 commented, these are by no means neutral language or quirks and idiosyncrasies of the school that become endearing to its members: rather they are careless, willful innovations of an outsider. </p>

<p>Gang did what they did, better than most of her peers. This might be too much to ask for a cheap price. But buying from catalogs dilutes the identity of this university. It’s really a good time for some soul-searching of the school, to reflect on its values and what to do in a changing time.</p>

25

<p>Anonalum: Interesting analysis, and I agree with you on many of the general points. But as to Ms. Gang specifically I do think she understands universities because she has served as visiting professor at both Princeton and Harvard (alma mater). Moreover, in her presentation about the new dorm, she often articulately and persuasively addresses the need for student interactions and comfort and specifically how they relate to the UChicago student. </p>

<p>You also state that the new design is arrogant and that visual languages are introduced gratuitously. I just think that if you listen Gang’s presentation on the design you can’t come to that conclusion about this particular group of buildings. I do think that your points are generally true in relation to failed modern architecture.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I enjoy reading them.</p>

26

<p>Reading this article from The Chronicle helped me think about the new dorm complex and its context within a great American university.</p>

<p>[Should</a> Your New Buildings Look Old? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“Should Your New Buildings Look Old?”>Should Your New Buildings Look Old?)</p>

27

<p>I believe there can be an effort, as Cue 7 suggests, to integrate a dorm design into the community and to the Gothic theme of the University. Visiting Tulane University, I saw a dorm complex that I thought would fit unobtrusively into the U of C environment, so it can be done. I am happy they are building a new dorm. This has been a very high priority with Dean Boyer for some time. I just hope it won’t ultimately detract from the environment.</p>

28

<p>The impulse to hire big-name architects to design the new spaces is an issue. Everything from a utility plant to a dorm gets a bit name architect. </p>

<p>As a counterexample, Wash U Law and ND Law have built (relatively recently), perfectly charming new buildings - buildings that would (with minor modification) fit perfectly fine at UChicago. See:</p>

<p><a href=“http://architect.nd.edu/assets/25847/original/pic_lawschool24.jpg[/url]”>http://architect.nd.edu/assets/25847/original/pic_lawschool24.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and for Wash U - </p>

<p><a href=“http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8343/8242768847_d1506b414d_z.jpg[/url]”>http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8343/8242768847_d1506b414d_z.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I don’t believe either building featured a really big-name architect.</p>

<p>So, it can be done - perhaps not with the luster that occurred 100 years ago, but perfectly functional gothic style buildings are still attainable.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, EVERY single new building for UChicago has gone in a modern direction. This is disappointing, and I fail to see the need to pay a big-name architect a premium for every single new building.</p>

<p>Would buildings like the Wash U or ND law buildings really be that out of place at UChicago? Is it not worth it to at least build SOME buildings in this general style?</p>

29

<p>Cue7: probably a lot of people would prefer something along the lines of the Wash U and ND buildings, but these schools are not space constrained the way UChicago is.</p>

<p>Consider the populations of the schools and the acreage of the campuses:</p>

<p>Notre Dame roughly 12,000 grads and undergrads (no Med School) 1250 acres
Wash U roughly 14,000 grads and undergrads 333 acres
Yale U roughly 12,000 grads and undergrads 837 acres (included this because of the Gothic architecture)
UChicago 12,300 grads and undergrads 215 acres</p>

<p>Also, consider that the the new dorm has to house 800 students and a cafeteria on 1 block and share it with the Crown fieldhouse. The dorm it replaces and augments (Pierce) is 10 stories and houses only 215 students. </p>

<p>The architecture in the Wash U and ND pictures is simply not practical for the function to be performed by the buildings. I think this is true of many of the buildings recently built at UChicago, particularly the science / health buildings. The Gang building pays homage to the fundamentals of Gothic architectural while achieving the necessary height and balance for the location.</p>

<p>Continuing my commentary as a self appointed architecture expert, the one exception I can think of to my position is the law school which in my 5 minutes of analysis I say could have been built more in line with the core campus.</p>

30

<p>I don’t know if I buy that, Kaukauna. Wash U’s Danforth campus (where the law school is located), is only about 150 acres, I believe. </p>

<p>For the North Campus specifically, housing 800 students in a more constrained area is difficult, I don’t deny that. (Query why, though, UChicago wants students clumped together in such large spaces as North and South campuses). </p>

<p>In any case, having some modern buildings is fine. I think the more staid South Campus actually looks quite good, and will age better than the more strikingly modern North Campus. Having ALL new modern buildings, though, is regrettable. </p>

<p>What about the Mansueto library? What about Max Palevsky? What about the new UC Lab school building? All these buildings went modern as well. I don’t think they all needed to trend in that direction. </p>

<p>I’m not sure why more verticality would preclude design of charming, handsome, but less striking buildings. It’s not the worst thing in the world to go in that direction. In fact, I’d rather have North campus look more like South campus than what it will actually be. Also, mixing in some gothic (e.g. the lab school building, maybe having the ~650 Max Palevsky look like a larger version of Burton Judson, etc.</p>

31

<p>In many, many ways, Chicago seems to be imitating Yale (just as once upon a time Yale imitated Chicago), and its approach to architecture is one of them. From the late 1930s until whenever it gets its act together to start building the new residential colleges, Yale has not constructed another Gothic-style or Georgian-style building. It has three Saarinens, a passel of Johnsons, a Gehry, two Kahns, a Pelli, a Bundschaft, and I forget who designed the School of Architecture but I’m sure lots of people would like to meet him in a dark alley and give him what for.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think the Notre Dame and Wash U buildings are in bad taste, although a sort of nice, comfortable bad taste. Like Sloppy Joes or something: familiar, easy to digest, comforting, calorific if not especially nourishing. They are wallowing in double nostalgia – nostalgia for another era’s very different nostalgia for another era. I am not sure I love all of Chicago’s new buildings – which means of course that some of them I really don’t love at all – but I don’t feel the contempt for them that I would feel if they did something as craven as the Notre Dame law school.</p>

<p>I think the feeling at Chicago is that THIS is the Golden Age, the 2010s, and what they are building now should reflect now, not subservience to the designs of a century ago, which remain fully in place and completely lovely.</p>

<p>Regarding space constraints: I don’t know where that 215 acres comes from, but Chicago seems a heck of a lot bigger than that. Using it day to day it does not feel smaller than Yale; if anything, the distances seem bigger. The Midway certainly isn’t part of the campus for these purposes, but it functions as campus. The Lab School has to be excluded, too. I bet it doesn’t even count the Theological Seminary (although now it will have to, when it becomes the Friedman Becker Theological Seminary, oops, Institute).</p>

<p>Anyway, a couple of years ago I heard Dean Boyer take a question, the premise of which was that Chicago was space-constrained, and his response was, essentially, we are not space-constrained at all. We control entire blocks of Woodlawn and the area east of Washington Park, which is almost completely depopulated. We could build there, or build in Washington Park and move the park over. We are the least space-constrained urban university in America.</p>

32

<p>The University has some new buildings that do share the older architectural tradition. The Becker-Friedman Institute is an example [Becker-Friedman</a> institute construction begins at CTS site](<a href=“http://hpherald.com/2013/01/09/becker-friedman-institute-construction-begins-at-cts-site/]Becker-Friedman”>http://hpherald.com/2013/01/09/becker-friedman-institute-construction-begins-at-cts-site/)</p>

<p>Of course it was starting from the basis of the old Theological Seminary, but I believe it looks better than an ultramodern building would. And I concur with JHS, I do not believe the University is at all space constrained. What they do not own, the City of Chicago would help them acquire.</p>

33

<p>As a current student I would like to give my opinion. I think the design is wonderful, but out of place, not just on campus but its location on campus. Pierce was ugly but it fit well at its location on 55th, it wasn’t much of an eyesore or offensive. This new design seems way too large and obtrusive. South campus is huge, but its architecture fits decently near to the lights of the midway, the look of the law school and Logan center, though is a strange contrast to gothic Burton-Judson courts. The new dorm(s) will certainly stand out far too much, be awkward in shape, and really do nothing for the layout of the school which is already really awkward. Once you get out of the quads almost everything feels out of place to me, particularly max P dorms and these will likely feel the same.</p>

34

<p>JHS:</p>

<p>Do you feel contempt for the new addition to the Becker-Friedman Institute or the wing of the Oriental Institute that was constructed in the early 2000s? These two additions sport “nouveau” gothic/old architecture. Also, my issue with continually embracing “modern” architecture is that eventually, the university loses a sense of cohesiveness architecturally. I think, as PAGRok said, this is already occurring. Mansueto, Max P, North Campus, etc. etc. make the overall university look schizophrenic. </p>

<p>Mixing some of the “fake” old (badly nourishing or not) with some of the modern would at least mitigate this. Also, I really don’t have any distaste toward the NDLS and Wash U Law buildings - I actually think they’re great, and it’s not bad for a university to mix and match a bit. </p>

<p>(idad - you pointed to the B-F Institute, but note, I wasn’t talking about new wings to pre-existing buildings, I was talking about new buildings. In this regard, UChicago chooses modern + bigname architect, every time.)</p>

35

<p>Looks like middle building is too close to the smallest (that on U Avenue). Further, the angled part of the middle building will afford great opportunities for voyeurs between it and the South side of the large 55th Street building. This looks like a nice project for Columbia, but Chicago doesn’t need to crowd things together so much.</p>

<p>Why does the announcement even mention Eero Saarinen when his work was demolished? A suggestion of another bad idea?</p>

36

<p>Cue,</p>

<p>Instead of repeatedly voicing your disapproval on this forum, have you thought of taking more concrete steps (ex. writing to Dean Boyer)? He has always been responsive to student and alumni concerns.</p>

37

<p>Poplicola:</p>

<p>I’ve taken this and numerous other concerns to the administration over the period of a decade. </p>

<p>In general, I think the university administration (especially now) has a very pointed sense of direction, and there isn’t much deviating from this. In some ways (e.g. admissions/student strength) this has worked well, and in others, perhaps not as well. In my conversations/correspondences with those in the administration, I don’t get the sense they are really budging.</p>

<p>Re the architecture specifically - I actually was pointed to the link that JHS provided: [UChicago</a> architecture embodies new ideas | The University of Chicago](<a href=“Page Not Found | University of Chicago”>Page Not Found | University of Chicago)</p>

<p>The link describes the key principles that drive UChicago architectural decisions. I disagree strongly with the second principle (the need to create “historically significant” spaces - i.e. splashy projects). The administration, of course, does not. </p>

<p>So, all in all, I’d say the admin is minimally attentive, and also not necessarily amenable to being swayed.</p>

38

<p>This building looks awesome.</p>

39

<p>@CUE7: At 148 million, it is less than a third as expensive as Yale’s two new neo-gothic residential colleges which also are expected to house about 800 students. So, in terms of throwing money away, this is relatively inexpensive for what peer institutions are spending on new residences.</p>

40

<p>@ JHS and Cue7: I don’t know what you are reading about Yale’s recent campus architecture, but they are in the process of building two completely new residential colleges in an utterly deco-gothic medium that echoes some of the best work done there by James Gamble Rodgers. I think if retro-deco-tudor-gothic is what you want it doesn’t get any better than this ([New</a> Residential Colleges | newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu](<a href=“http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/]New”>http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/) – complete with portentious, pretentious video with a rousing choral rendition of Yale’s anthem). </p>

<p>BUT (and this is a huge but) why should a university build this kind of historicist fantasy at the beginning of the 21st century? What happened to modernism in Yale’s campus expansion (and Yale has some really great modernist architecture)? The price tag is immense – almost $500 million dollars. By comparison, Princeton built Whitman College (which is clunky and inelegant compared with Stern’s work at Yale) for a “modest” $136 million. And Chicago is planning to spend not much more on the Campus North dorms. </p>

<p>I suspect a number of things are driving the different styles of expansion at both places: First, Yale is choosing to emphasize its history – to promote undergraduate loyalty and school spirit by giving as many Yale students the “olde” Yale experience (being in beautiful gothic residential quads, with a sense of history already built in) as possible. I suspect it will work well for the place. I loved my time at Yale, and I have no qualms about saying that I think it has the best collegiate gothic campus this side of Oxford. </p>

<p>Chicago is doing something different. It seems to be capitalizing on the fact that the city is one of the few places in the United States where contemporary architecture is thriving. And Jeanne Gang is someone whose work can be truly great. Add to that the fact that the spirit of the U of C lies first and foremost in its intellectual, not its social aspirations. The U of C is not a finishing school, a bastion of elitist secret societies, a spring-board into the world of gentleman’s clubs and genteel, restricted WASP golf clubs. The U of C is looking to be the most rigorous, interesting, innovative, serious college in the United States, where anything and everything can be discussed and debated. </p>

<p>I’m not sure where you get the idea that Chicago could build into Washington Park, or tear down residential blocks without creating a big political controversy. And controversy slows down building and make it much more expensive. Based on the recent Hospital expansion, I would say the use of space in Hyde Park is a political hot button, and the creation of a gothic fantasy, like Yale’s – to look really good – would require more space than is available north of the Field House. </p>

<p>It would also require a lot more money. Chicago’s endowment is far smaller than Yale’s, and spending half a billion dollars <em>for a dorm</em> is not a sound financial move. In fact, as an alumnus, I would vocally oppose it. I’d rather see money go into hiring more tenure-track professors, making sure class sizes are small, and building up the library and other academic facilities, rather than blowing 300 million on wood paneling and fake history. </p>

<p>If Jeanne Gang’s plan is built, it seems like it will be an attractive, innovative, and socially forward-looking set of buildings. I am concerned that the face onto 55th street is too high, and out of scale – another Monoxide Tower – and that there will not be enough light between the buildings. But the basic idea and look of the complex seems good. New South – not so much. But that is another issue. Suffice it to say that the worst mistakes of New South do not seem to be being repeated in the Campus North plan.</p>