<p>I actually like the look of South Campus dorm. I like the inside renderings of the Yale dorm, the outside, not so much.</p>
<p>New South is standard issue, institutional McArchitecture. Mediocre through and through, with an already dated 90s/00s style that is not going to hold up well, but is also not going to be offensive for years to come. It could be a hospital, small-city office building, hotel, whatever. There is nothing about it that says anything about the University of Chicago or about anything at all. It would look just as at home on the campus of UNC Greenville, UC Davis, the University of Colorado. It’s the architectural equivalent of utter pablum.</p>
<p>2many: I don’t know what YOU were reading in my posts, but my previous posts in this thread (and some others) are in agreement with most of what you are saying, and the differences are mainly nuances.</p>
<p>Re Washington Park: That was a small point in a much longer answer John Boyer gave about five years ago to a question about space constraints for the University of Chicago. His basic point was that the University was in a position to control lots of acreage west of Washington Park and south of campus in Woodlawn. He admitted that University development had been a contentious political issue in the past, but he thought it wouldn’t be now, especially given how radically de-populated the neighborhoods to the west and south of the campus are. I would note that this discussion occurred at a point when it looked like Chicago was a real contender to host the 2016 Olympics, and that the plan for that would have essentially eliminated Washington Park as we know it, so the idea of expanding the campus into what is now Washington Park was less farfetched then than it would be now.</p>
<p>Regarding the Yale dorm I will repeat part of an earlier post: $200 M of the $500 M is for towers! Wow what a price tag. As I wrote before, it must be nice not to have to worry about money!</p>
<p>Regarding the space limitations at UChicago, and how difficult it would be to build out into Washington Park and / or the Hyde Park neighborhoods, I think this is explained in JHS in post #31. JHS refers to a statement made by Dean Boyer that UChicago is the least space constrained urban campus in the U.S. I wonder about the statement that a part of Washington Park could be obtained and the park moved over? How do you do that? Also, I wonder about the context of the statement. Was he truly referring to building, or to something else like the possibility of having the city close in around you. I don’t know. </p>
<p>As I’ve stated in previous posts, I think the new building is exciting in comparison to some of the other recently built or soon to be built residential buildings, including the new buildings at Yale, Wash U., and Princeton. I’m also very respectful of the opinions of alumni (because I am not one) and students like PADRok above who have concerns about the new design. I hope it ends up working as well as the architect claims it will.</p>
<p>Ha ha, I now know the context of the Dean Boyer statement in JHS’s post. I should have waited a few minutes!</p>
<p>Im not so sure about the possibilities of expanding space. UChicago is stuck at 55th to the north and woodlawn on the east. No way they would be able to go past those streets without the community grabbing their pitchforks. I dont think they will go out West either. I remember reading a statement that UChicago wasnt going to build out into washington park neighborhood. I can see a UChicago building here and there, but nothing for students. Safety factor and too far from main campus. Going south is the most likely possibility, but they had also promised the woodlawn community that they werent going to build past 61st i believe.</p>
<p>@JHS: My response was to both you and cue – obviously on different points. To you, I was responding to the assertion that the U of C could simply expand into Washington Park or tear down swathes of buildings in Hyde Park. Obviously Boyer’s observation was made in a different context and is probably not at all applicable to today’s reality. (I would contend it probably wasn’t all that applicable to reality when he made it, but that is another story). My defense of Gang’s work – as opposed to a Stern style retro-neo-deco-gothic complex is in full agreement with the points you made. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most beautiful building on the Yale campus is Bunshaft’s Beinecke Library, which is unapologetically modernist and of its moment. Too bad they are not following that tradition. </p>
<p>In fact, one of the things I like about Gang’s design is that I see a faint echo of Bunshaft in it.</p>
<p>
Speaking as a current student, I agree with every word of this. </p>
<p>And when I first read trapezius’s “yay more retail options,” I thought he or she was being sarcastic. You can be sure some people in Hyde Park will be happy to see the U of C bringing in more retail options. You can be sure a lot more people will not. </p>
<p>
Also agree with every word of this. Every single word.</p>
<p>Re: Washington Park</p>
<p>The 2016 Olympics would have been a more special case, but I think the utter disregard for the park and adjacent neighborhood the city showed has only opened the door, if anything. A university expansion into Washington Park is no more farfetched than it was five years ago. It’s actually far more likely. The university opened an arts hub in Washington Park just last year ([Arts</a> Incubator | UChicago Arts](<a href=“http://arts.uchicago.edu/artsandpubliclife/ai]Arts”>Arts Incubator | UChicago Arts | The University of Chicago)), and 301 E. Garfield is not the only property they own in the neighborhood. I think this is what Boyer meant when he said Washington Park and Woodlawn offered essentially limitless opportunities for expansion–not that the university will just demolish and build over the parts of those neighborhoods next to campus, but that they can buy up any number of properties they want. I believe there’s been some sort of tacit agreement from the university not to go south of 61st street, but I don’t think it’s a commitment they intend to hold.</p>
<p>“I wonder how south side residents will feel when they drive down 55th st and see this albatross”</p>
<p>Same as they have with I.M. Pei’s middle of 55th Street condo for the past four decades.</p>
<p>“What is wrong with a more traditional dormitory? This houses students. Why the need to pay a premium for an expensive modernist architect?”</p>
<p>Take a look at Penn! </p>
<p>If the U. of C. should demolish anything in Woodlawn for student housing, it should be the acquired Mott Building and the apartment building next door at Woodlawn Avenue. Both are situated on a prime location on 60th Street for building a large housing complex.</p>
<p>rhg3rd:</p>
<p>I think UPenn has many similar architectural issues to UChicago, although recent town-gown relations at Penn are much less strained than in Hyde Park/Southside of Chicago. Consequently, even more than Penn, UChicago had more reason to go with a less splashy dorm. </p>
<p>(I also think I.M. Pei’s 55th st condo is an unfortunate affront to many southside residents.)</p>
<p>In general of late, especially after being around other top universities (either for professional or personal reasons) and attending a range of recent alumni events, I’m cooling on UChicago. I’m less bullish about its future than some students, and I also think some of the poorer sides of the UChicago experience (such as a somewhat aloof administration - notwithstanding some exceptions), remain. </p>
<p>This dorm - and the probable lack of sensitivity regarding its impact on the neighborhood - reflect some of my greater issues with the school.</p>