THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO Tjo) TT^/f^/f^jTnT) Tp\April 28, 1978 ISSN ©362-47©6 -4m Official Publication Volume XII, Number 4EYIEuf OF P^^lMP^il £TCalvert W. Aydrain, William EL Cannon, aim Harold T. Wolff47/ p-51 1916^193258 1932-195G59 195C-19oG65 1960s^5 19^js~"6 Ctoisiiiucrsry Plsisag Policies audi App^acliss77 CcnctisiDiLS79 3iSAogrs^hj© Copyright 1978 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDA REVIEW OF PLANNINGAT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOPrefaceThe following memorandum presents a review ofplanning at The University of Chicago coveringthe period since founding of the University. Theorigin of the memorandum is found in the activitiesof the trustees' Committee on Campus Planning. Itwas thought useful for that purpose to review theplanning activities of the University and thus toestablish the base on which in part further planningmight be developed. It is not intended to be aformal history, merely a working memorandum. Itis published in the hope that members of the University community might find it useful and interesting and might also supply corrections or clarification.William B. Cannon1.1891-1915The development of the campus begins not with itsfirst architect, Henry Ives Cobb, but with its firstpresident, William Rainey Harper and major benefactor, John D. Rockefeller. Even before accepting the post of president, Harper had begun to issuehis plan in the Official Bulletins, the first in December, 1890. * The implementation of these plansinvolved a division of labor, with Harper settingacademic goals, selecting faculty, and overseeingthe admission of students, while the trustees assembled material resources and facilities to support Harper's plan. John D. Rockefeller andwealthy Chicago citizens could be depended on forbacking. Indeed, as Rockefeller himself came tosee the possibilities, he urged the trustees: ' 'Do hot1. John D. Hicks, "The Development of Civilization in theMiddle West, 1860-1900,** in Sources of Culture in the MiddleWest, ed. Dixon R. Fopp, p. 92. on account of the scarcity of money fail to do theright thing in constructing the new buildings. Wemust, in some way, secure sufficient funds to makeit what it ought to be."2Since our subject is the development of thesefacilities, we will concentrate our attention on themarshalling of these support functions and onlysketch their relationship to the academic ends theyserved.Since Harper's emphasis— and commitment tothe new faculty he was assembling — was on research facilities, the trustees gave top priority tothe physical plant. This was impeded for a time bythe problem of settling the exact site of the campus.The original tract sought from Marshall Field laybetween 55th and 58th Streets, extending fromEllis Avenue to a point halfway betweenGreenwood and University Avenues. A modification had produced a three-block-long site extending from 56th Street down to 59th Street, betweenEllis and Greenwood Avenues. Marshall Fieldthen proposed a further exchange of blocks and anadditional purchase so that the site would extendfrom 57th Street to 59th Street between Ellis andUniversity Avenues. For a time the trustees wavered over the price, but eventually accepted,C. L. Hutchinson arguing that the previousChicago institutions had always hampered theirfuture development by planning to too small a scaleinitially and urging that an adequate site be provided for the growth that was sure to come. Shortlyafter, the City Council vacated the existing streetsand alleys to provide a contiguous site3 (see figure 1).The significance of this re-siting can hardly beunderrated because, almost simultaneously withthe construction of the first University buildings,2. Rockefeller to Thomas Wakefield Goodspeed, financialsecretary of the University, July 24, 1893.3. Thomas Wakefield Goodspeed, A History of the University of Chicago: The First Quarter-Century , pp. 170-172.47FIG.1 — Land Ownership by 1891.the World's Columbian Exposition was erectedvirtually on the doorstep of the University. Exhibits spread throughout Jackson Park while the"Midway" or carnival zone of the expositionstretched along the south boundary of the campusand connected to Washington Park. To provideaccommodations for the many workers and visitors at the fair, a great many hotels and apartmenthouses were constructed. Many of these, soondemolished, were on land later acquired by the University. A few survived to be demolished in theurban renewal of the fifties and sixties.The occurrence of the exposition in the frontyard of the University, with the throngs of visitors(many of whom rode the ferris wheel and saw theemerging campus spread out below) and the widespread publicity, served to link the University witha major nineteenth century symbol of progress.With the site question at last disposed of, thetrustees could now move on to a meaningful cam-48pus plan. The trustees' Committee on Buildingsand Grounds was chaired by Martin Ryerson, whowas also chairman of the Board of Trustees. Ryerson had done a sketch of the buildings,4 apparentlyto see the questions to be faced by a site plannerand to explore the areas in which the trustees couldexpect to have to supply the architect with specialinformation. The Buildings and Grounds Committee solicited six architectural firms for "plansshowing how the site should in general be coveredand the buildings be arranged and distributed,"and also for sketches of two particular buildings.Three firms responded; and of these, Henry IvesCobb was selected to be the University architect.5On June 25, 1891, Cobb submitted to the committee an elaborate sketch embodying his plan forthe disposition of the buildings on the twenty-fouracre site (see figure 2).It was not intended to represent the buildings as eachwould appear in solid brick or stone, so much as toindicate the general arrangement and distribution ofthe various structures. It divided the site into sixquadrangles, each surrounded with buildings, leavingin the center a seventh, the main quadrangle, givingunity to the whole design. While this general plan forthe grouping of the buildings was not formallyadopted, the construction of the buildings was begunand continued, so far as the original site of four blockswas concerned, in accordance with it.6Early newspaper sketches show that the style originally discussed was Romanesque.7 "Not satisfiedwith this, the Committee on Buildings andGrounds agreed with Mr. Cobb on a form of lateEnglish Gothic."8 The reasons for selecting theGothic style were stated in a contemporary architectural journal to be as follows:The reason for this arrangement was to, as far aspossible, exclude all outside conditions from the student when he had once entered the Universitygrounds and so, likewise, was the style of architectureselected made as far as possible to remind one of theold English Universities of Cambridge and Oxford; infact, to remove the mind of the student from the busymercantile conditions of Chicago and surround himby a peculiar air of quiet dignity which is so noticeablein old university buildings. When the quadrangles arecompleted this will be very marked and, as this style4. Goodspeed, History, p. 219. The material in the followingparagraphs is based on Goodspeed' s Chapter VIII, "The Earlier Buildings," pp. 218-241.5. Goodspeed, History, pp. 218-220.6. Goodspeed, History, p. 221.7. Frank Hurburt O'Hara, The University of Chicago, AnOfficial Guide, p. 17.8. Ibid. of English Gothic architecture easily takes on an air ofage by the help of a few vines and weather stains , theeffect will certainly be most restful and suggestive ofuniversity conditions.9Cobb' s execution of the units of his overall design bears out the notion of walling out externalinfluences; all of those that adjoin the periphery ofthe central quadrangles present sheer, almost unadorned vertical faces (and scarcely any entrances)to the street, quite different from even his ownbuildings inside the quadrangles. The design wasnot appreciated in all quarters and Frank LloydWright commented, "Our Chicago University, 'aseat of learning,' is just as far removed from truth.If environment is significant and indicative, whatdoes this highly reactionary, extensive and expensive scene-painting by means of hybrid CollegiateGothic signify?"10Eventually the trustees called on other architects to carry out Cobb's plans.11In the Architectural Record in November, 1960,Eero Saarinen noted that:It is significant that on a small court on the Universityof Chicago campus, built between 1894 and 1930,three different architects — Henry I. Cobb, Shepley,Rutan & Coolidge, and Charles Klauder— built thefour different sides of the court.All are in the Gothic style, and the court gives ustoday a beautiful, harmonious visual picture (falsestage scenery of a bygone era, it is true) . Imagine whatwould have happened if three or four equally eminentarchitects of our day were asked to do the four sides ofa square (as a matter of fact we are sweating it out onLincoln Center and it is a. problem).One begins to realize the great value an over-alldiscipline like the Gothic had in making the problemof unity simpler.The strong-minded, architecturally-enlightenedmembers of the Board of Trustees insisted that theplan be carried out substantially as conceived.12It is probable that Cobb's plan survived as thebasic campus plan because it was essentially aconcept of arranging buildings around quadranglesand unifying them through general adherence to avery adaptable architectural style and a consistency of building materials. The specific shape,size and use of the buildings could be varied as9. Charles E. Jenkins, "The University of Chicago," Architectural Record 4, p. 240.10. Frank Lloyd Wright, ' 'The Art and Craft of the Machine,"in Eighty Years at Hull House, ed. Allen F. Davis and MaryLynn McCree, p. 86.11. [Albert M. Tannler], One in Spirit, p. 24.12. Eero Saarinen, "Campus Planning, the Unique World ofthe University ," Architectural Record 128, p. 127.4950needed. It is interesting to note that even DwightPerkins designed one of the early quadrangle buildings, Hitchcock Hall (now on the National Register of Historic Places), and managed to introduceelements of "prairie school" design into the architecture while blending with the adj oining neo-Gothic of Cobb's buildings.13 .....'¦The most significant departure from Cobb'sfour-block plan occurred shortly after his term asUniversity architect ended. Cobb had intended tolocate the library as a single huge building dominating the west end of the central quadrangle— aboutwhere the Administration Building stands today.But in 1902, after Cobb's departure, a LibraryCommission, chaired by Ernest DeWitt Burton(later president of the University), not only recommended a major shift in location of the mainlibrary building— but introduced the key architectural and academic principle of accessibility amongbuildings and proximity to each other and the libraries.The report of this Commission, adopted by the Boardof Trustees in August, 1902, recommended that themain library building be made the central member of agroup of nine buildings, which should include buildings for the Divinity School, the Law School, theHistorical and Social Science Group, the PhilosophyGroup, the Classical Group, the Modern LanguageGroup, and the Oriental Group; that each of thesebuildings contain a departmental library; and that thebuildings be so constructed that the reading room ofeach departmental library should be on approximately the same level with that of the central buildingand in easy communication with it by a bridge orotherwise. The Commission also recommended thatthe central library building be erected in the center ofthe Midway frontage of the main quadrangle, flankedon the west by the buildings for Modern Languagesand Classics and on the east by those of the Historicaland Social Science Group.14Thus, although the focus on an axial vista wasretained, the library was shifted away from a morecentral and visually dominant placement, andinterconnections dispersed the library throughoutseveral buildings rather than making it one largestructure as had been intended by Cobb. HarperLibrary was subsequently built south of the LawSchool and connected to it by a bridge , and a bridgewas built also between Harper and Haskell Hall.By the end of the 1920s this scheme had in factbeen carried out, and the tradition of departmental13. Albert M. Tannler, "The Creation of Charles HitchcockHall, 1900-1902," The University of Chicago Library SocietyBulletin, Fall 1975, pp. 22-30.¦14, O'Hara, Guide, pp. 103-104. offices and classrooms clustered convenientlyabout the library had taken firm hold. The effectof this on the siting of the new graduate library inthe 1950s and 1960s will be discussed, but sodeeply rooted is this tradition of accessibility tolibrary materials that where collections of bookswere not available in the same building as the faculty (as, for example, in the Research Institutes),or where the libraries were subsequently movedto Regenstein (as from the Oriental Institute), departmental collections have sprung up. And soestablished is the trend towards accessibility ofcolleagues in the same field that a bridge was builtbetween Rosenwald Hall and Business East (formerly the Law School) in 1974, when the formerwas turned over to the Graduate School of Business.The University development was not to beconfined within the four original blocks boundedby 57th and 59th Streets and University and EllisAvenues. John D. Rockefeller set the University's business agents to acquiring real estate, andby 1906 he had purchased all the frontage and inmany cases the full blocks on both sides of theMidway Plaisance from Cottage Grove Avenueto Dorchester Avenue, expanding the Universitysite from some twenty-four acres to over onehundred acres and spending $3,229,775 in the pro-cess (see figure 3). This shifted the axis ofcampus development. Even as the development ofthe original four quadrangles continued, the University proceeded to expand on its new axis.Thus, still in President Harper's time the presence of John Dewey led progressive educators inthe city to relocate to the Midway, and a pre-collegiate educational complex, designed byJames Gamble Rogers, was constructed on thesite of the Scammon estate on the north margin ofthe Midway.II. 1916-1932Another master plan such as the Cobb plan doesnot appear until the 1950s. In the interveningperiod the campus developed by accretions whichwere often, but not always, consistent with thatearly plan, though differing in important details.Most prominent among the additions was Rockefeller Chapel. The funds for this monumentaledifice, a sum of at least $1.5 million, were specifically reserved in the founder's last gift of 1911.Cobb's original plan had called for it to be locatedin the center of the east end of the main quadrangle, about where the tennis courts betweenPick Hall and Eckhart Hall are now. However,51FIG. 3— Land Ownership by 1906.the effects of the Rockefeller land acquisitions onthe Midway were beginning to be felt.The acquisition of the entire north and south sides ofthe Midway Plaisance from pottage Grove to Dorchester Avenues made the Midway the principal axisof the University and so led to the decision to placethe Chapel, not in the central Quadrangles, as originally proposed, but on the Midway between Wood-lawn and University Avenues, that it might dominateall the University buildings.1515. O'Hara, Guide, p. 18. The athletic complex north of the main quadrangles, whose construction spans both the earlierand later periods, was not part of a general plan ordecision. The block that came to contain StaggField (and now contains Regenstein Library) hadbeen borrowed from Marshall Field for early athletic contests, but after its purchase (when "Marshall Field" was renamed "Stagg Field"),Bartlett Gymnasium (1904), the West Stands(1913), North Stands (1926), and finally the FieldHouse (1931) were erected around what had52.begun as a locker room made out of a constructionshanty.16The location of the medical school also did notderive from a site plan. It is, however, a furtherexample of the same interdisciplinary approach ofthe University which had led the 1902 LibraryCommission to a site design in which buildingsfacilitated linkages among University programs.A few tentative site plans for the medical centerhad been drafted before 1923, placing the medicalcenter on the south side of the Midway.17 Thepresent location, however, is the direct outcomeof a concept of the role of the medical school inthe University itself, not at all influenced by suchconsiderations as pedestrian and vehicular trafficpatterns, etc. "The conception underlying theplans is that of the inclusion of the so-called Medical Sciences as University subjects, to be recognized as such from the point of view of theirbroad scientific aspects."18 The location of themedical complex adjacent to the central quadrangles was therefore to insure the inclusion oftheir occupants in the University's program of research and teaching.19Within the medical complex itself, the first aimwas to house each of the two major clinical departments, medicine and surgery, in its own"building" (that is, wing), with space for laboratories and teaching purposes at the north end, andfacilities for patients at the south end. The buildings for administration and pathology, which hadto provide services to the departments ofmedicine and surgery, were located so as to extend from one building to the other, at the southand north ends respectively.20Under the scheme developed by Coolidge andHodgdon (see figure 4), expansion was to takethe form of additional wings at right angles to theoriginal building, with units for pediatrics, contagious diseases, and psychiatry ultimately to lieadjacent to the medical wing, and similar structures for obstetrics and gynecology, opthalmol-ogy, and otolaryngology to adjoin the surgery corridor. This scheme was carried out almost completely during the period 1927-1953 (additions in16. Amos Alonzo Stagg and Wesley Winans Stout,Touchdown!, p. 170.17. A photograph of a model of the proposed arrangement isin the University of Chicago Magazine 15, p. 164.18. "The Medical Program," University of Chicago Magazine 17, p. 9.19. Ilza Veith and Franklin C. McLean, Medicine at the University of Chicago/ 1927-1952, pp. 6-7.20. Coolidge and Hodgdon and Ralph B. Seem, "Chicago toHave Notable Medical Education and Hospital Buildings," TheUniversity of Chicago Magazine 19, pp. 55-56. the late fifties and early sixties continued the samepattern, except for the Chronic Disease Hospital — now Peck Pavilion) .This plan, like that developed for the University libraries, placed maximum stress on easy access among the various departments and betweenclinical and research space by housing them all ininterconnected buildings. At the same time, itcontinued, on a modified scale, the quadrangleconcept and the use of the neo-Gothic style andIndiana limestone cladding. This plan also provided for incremental growth, placing more emphasis on groupings of academic departments thanon hospital activities.Including hospitals within the medical schoolcomplex seems to have been less a conscious decision than an assumption. No medical school inChicago previously had built its own hospital, butmost of them were connected to an existing hospital, and Northwestern University soon wouldconstruct one in its downtown medical center.Since the time of Harper, it had been proposedthat the University should take over the RushMedical College for its medical unit, and such anarrangement indeed was made in 1924. However,the concept of the hospital as a research facility(as opposed to simply a training ground for practitioners) coupled with the unsatisfactory condition of all of the existing medical schools as revealed in Abraham Flexner's 1910 critique21seems to have been decisive. In 1916 PresidentJudson invited Flexner to visit Chicago for thepurpose of advising on the new school, andFlexner pressed for a medical school with its ownclinical facilities.22The impact of the building of the hospitals canhardly be overestimated. Aside from requiring theconstruction of what is now a three-block-longphysical plant, the number of University employees skyrocketed, and the population of theUniversity (including patients, visitors, employees, and students) for whom food, parking,and other conveniences had to be provided,mushroomed to more than double the number thatwould otherwise have been there.The obstetrics and gynecology facility — theChicago Lying-in Hospital and Dispensary —became a totally separate facility situated acrossDrexel Avenue from the rest of the medical center, and for many years maintained a self-sufficient existence, with its own kitchen, laun-21. Abraham Flexner, Medical Education in the UnitedStates and Canada.22. Veith and McLean, Medicine, pp. 5-7.5354dry, record room, and surgical suite. Such sepa-rateness exhibits another characteristic feature ofthe development of the campus. The special provisions for Lying-in were dictated chiefly by theindependent character of the institution'sfounder — Professor Joseph Bolivar DeLee— andof its main supporters, the Mothers' Aid, underthe notable leadership of the wealthy Janet AyerFairbank.23By 1920 the impetus provided by Harper's andlater innovations had (1) forced the older mid-western colleges to upgrade their programssharply, which reduced enrollment by reducingthe comparative advantage of the College in recruitment, and (2) increased the demand forgraduate training at the University with the resultthat the graduate programs had large numbersclamoring for admittance. These developmentsprecipitated a debate on both the intellectual andphysical position of the College in the University.So far as planning is concerned, the significanceof this debate lies in a proposal it brought forth torelocate the College on the south side of the Midway, complete with its own buildings. An opposing viewpoint argued that the College, like themedical school, must be within and not simply atthe University.24 The question of separate College facilities was carried to the point where themost distinguished contemporary practitioner ofcollegiate Gothic, Charles Z. Klauder ofPhiladelphia, was commissioned to do a study fora College complex south of the Midway. This planfor a separate College became a major componentof the development campaign of the 1920s.25Funds for the central unit, a classroom, library,and office complex with an enormous anddominating tower were never obtained; but flanking this structure were to have been men's andwomen's dormitories, of which the men's unit wasactually built as Burton- Judson Courts, while thewomen's complex was carried as far as workingdrawings (see figure 5).The early south campus project is notable notonly for its place in the discussions of the positionof the College, but for architectural reasons. It isan early example of the idea of a total living environment; Opposite the Burton- Judson playingfields on the northeast corner of the intersection at23. Morris Fishbein with Sol Theron DeLee, Joseph BolivarDeLee, Crusading Obstetrician, pp. 163-166, and passim.24. Chauncey S. Boucher and A. J. Braumbaugh, TheChicago College Plan, p. 1. "25. Tannler, One in Spirit, pp. 91-92; the proposed centraltower unit is illustrated on page 90. 61st Street and Ellis Avenue, are two Tudor- stylebuildings— a gas station on the northwest cornerand a row of shops on the southwest corner. Theyare not there by accident. They were remodeledor erected specifically to complement the Gothicarchitecture of the residence hall complex, andmodeled in concept specifically on the rows ofshops in the town of Chester in the Welsh borderland country.26The expansion of facilities from 1916 to 1932proceeded without the guidance of an overallplan. The Cobb plan for the main quadranglescontinued to be followed, but this plan becameonly one among a number of similar "area"plans— like those for the medical center, or theCollege — and these area plans were not articulated with each other. Moreover, there were, aswe shall see, areas where substantial amounts ofbuilding proceeded under no particular plan at all.Even the features which seem to suggest an overall design are the result of accidental factors. Thegeneral continuity of the architecture, even withinthe neo-Gothic framework, is largely becausemost of the buildings of the period had the samearchitects, Coolidge and Hodgdon, whose firmhad grown out of the Chicago office of Shepley,Rutan and Coolidge, the University's architectsfrom 1900 to 1913 (see figure 6).The history of the University's steam systemillustrates the consequences of proceeding withmajor developments in the absence of an overallplan and the effects this has on the development ofsupport services — deferring improvements untiltheir necessity becomes a crisis with no timeremaining for careful planning,The first steam heating system came into beingin 1901, replacing separate plants in the basementsof the various buildings. (Since no donor waslikely to come forward with support for such astructure, Mr. Rockefeller sent his own engineerto build it, paying for it not out of the Universityfunds but out of his own pocket.)27 It had to beenlarged before the original machinery was installed and, moreover, the eastern engineer hadhad little experience with Illinois coal as a fuel, sothat the apparatus operated inefficiently and constantly required repairs. Finally, in 1919, the condition of the boilers became such that the city ofChicago notified the University that unless extensive repairs and replacements were made, theoperating pressure would have to be materiallyreduced.26. "The University to Build Shops," University Record[New Series] 17, pp. 116-117.27. Goodspeed, History, pp. 341-343.5556J I ) L_HALL HARPER KE-'ORIAL LIBRARY SCIENCE F0$TE. 59th STREETFIG. 6 — The Original Quadrangles. (Scale: 1" = 200')Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge (1903-191.5)Coolidge & Hodgdon (1926-1929)Henry Ives Cobb (1892-1897)57Since the expense of hauling coal had been considerable, it was decided to locate the new facilityalong the Illinois Central Railroad tracks. A cluster of some ten small lots along Harper Avenuemidway between 57th Street and 59th Street waspurchased and sketches for a compact facilitywere prepared28 for construction on thishopelessly inadequate site.Fortunately, before construction could begin,an adequate site consisting of the former sidingconnection for the Illinois Central Railroad spurto the old Washington Park Race Track becameavailable, allowing the present Blackstone Avenue Steam Plant facility to be built.29One significant overall planning activity didoccur during this period. A General EducationBoard grant made in 1923 funded a survey begunin 1929 (called the University Survey), under thedirection of Professor Floyd W.. Reeves. The results of more than forty studies were published intwelve volumes in 1932 and 1933. The studies include investigations of University growth, organization and administration, faculty instructionalproblems, admission and retention of students,alumni, libraries, extension division, plantfacilities, student problems, class size and costs,and the Oriental Institute.30Although begun prior to the market crash, theuse made of the study was to assist in regroupingUniversity programs and resources so as to beable to continue through the thirties. Perhaps themost obvious direct result of this study to thephysical development of the campus was the construction of an administration building, the firstnew construction after the war. Many of the othermatters covered by the study dealt with activitiesthat were substantially altered by changes in thestudent body and campus life in the fifteen yearsintervening before construction activity resumed.Most obvious perhaps are the sections on mandatory chapel attendance and student housing; andon the debate on the advantages of fraternity living vs. dormitories vs. living at home/and effortsto gauge the effects of one or the other on studyhabits.28. An illustration of this plant appears in The University ofChicago Magazine 17, opposite page 133.29. "A New Power Plant," University Record [New Series]14, pp. 102-104.30. Floyd W. Reeves, 1}he University of Chicago Survey. III. 1932-1950During the last eight years before the depression, the total square footage of campus buildingswas more than doubled, from 1,791,000 to3,732,000 gross square feet. Constructed duringtins -period were such major facilities as BillingsHospital, International House, RockefellerChapel, Chicago Lying-in Hospital, Abbott andBreasted Halls.This great building boom came to a sharp haltwith the onset of the Great Depression. Amongthe planned, projects affected— and not to beundertaken for many years — was the art gallery,for which sketches had been made and partialfunding was then in hand. A new art building andgallery was finally completed in 1974. Between thecompletion of the International House in 1932,and the beginning of construction of the Administration Building in 1947, a fifteen-year period occurred with only one new construction — the Public Administration Service Building at 1313 East60th Street (1938).However, extensive temporary facilities werebuilt during World War II at government expense,handling short-term needs which the University'sbudget would otherwise have been severelystrained to accommodate. Temporary structures(barracks-housing used by G.I.'s) supplied thebulk of postwar married student housing. Whilegovernmental construction in this case was beneficial, it also had its disadvantages. It gave rise tostructures which the University was later obligedto remove. The Toxicity Laboratory is now thesole remainder.After the war, a start on deferred constructionwas made immediately. The AdministrationBuilding (1947) brought a much-discussed end tothe neo-Gothic tradition.31 For the first time thetrustees had to face the issue of balancing tradi-31. Jeannett Lowrey, "The New Administration Building,"University of Chicago Magazine 39, pp. 15-16; "What, noGothic? [a collection of indignant alumni letters]," University ofChicago Magazine 39, pp. 1-2; William V. Morgen stern, "OneMan's Opinion: Speaking of Gothic," University of ChicagoMagazine 39, pp. 7-8. A few letters from alumni appearing inthat issue in vol. 39 (March 1947), p. 2, will illustrate the debate:". . . Couldn't they have put some cornices or something on itto make it look a little Gothic?" (N.C.H. '12, SM '15, Cleveland); ". . . the beautiful Gothic architecture is being abandonedfor a nondescript hodge-podge." (H.G.H., '23, San Francisco,California); "Who wants a factory building on the campus, especially a part of the Quadrangle?" (N.T., ' 22, Calgary,Alberta); "Among all the recent pro-gargoyle outbursts, I confess I should like to hear some still, small voice raised in behalfof the simple and dignified structure that the Administrationbuilding seems to be turning out to be." (J.H.H., ' 10, Chicago).58tional design with pressure for contemporary design and the problems of the economics of construction. In a letter from a member of the Boardof Trustees published in the University ofChicago Magazine in response to the criticisms ofdeparture from the Gothic design, the writerpoints out that the functional requirements of theAdministration Building, the site limitations andthe necessity for economy, left the Universitytrustees the choice of:"1) a Gothic building, and this could only havesuggestions of the Gothic and still fulfill itsfunctional purposes;2) a building of, what we might call, the Classical design, which we concluded would satisfyno one; and3) a frankly modern building."He then states, "We finally felt that the selectionof the same stone of which the other buildings oncampus are constructed would give it a textureand feeling that would blend in better as wefrankly stepped away from Gothic and built thebuilding as now designed."32The issue did not end with that decision, and in1958 at a meeting of the Board of Trustees, J. LeeJones, the University Architect, explained the following broad design policy for three major areasof the campus:a. the main campus, to be maintained as nearto neo-Gothic as possible;b. south campus, where the buildings wouldbe done in contemporary style with neo-Gothic recall in line and material; andc. the areas surrounding the campus on thewest and north, where buildings would be designed in brick and stone, with lines to harmonize with the neo-Gothic.33The design problem continues, and the debate isrecurrent.Almost all of the buildings of the late 1940s andearly 1950s were in areas where government funding was available. Such funding was increasingly akey influence over campus planning, academic orphysical. Hospital construction was stimulatedand made possible largely from federal Hill-Burton appropriations, though funds accumulating during the war years and gifts were also a32. Herbert P. Zimmerman, "The AdministrationBuilding— An Official Interpretation," University of ChicagoMagazine 39, p. 10.33. Minutes of the Board of Trustees, May 8, 1958, p. 3. major factor. The construction of physical sciences research facilities for Fermi's group (theResearch Institutes) was aided by the Atomic Energy Commission, although the bulk of the fundsrequired was supplied by the University itself.IV. 1950-1960During the 1950s, the University was confrontedby a serious neighborhood problem growing partially out of the normal decline of an older part ofthe city, but exacerbated also by the decline inmaintenance that started with the depression andby the overtaxing of the facilities of older buildings to serve more units than were intended by theoriginal builders. The latter problem was actuallyaccelerated by federal government encouragement during World War II, when it was considered patriotic (and worthy of wartime buildingmaterial allocations) to convert a structure tohouse additional war workers.Up to the 1950s the University' s neighborhoodactivity had been restricted to property purchasesof lots on the fringes of the campus which could bepredicted to be needed eventually for campus expansion, and to investments in properties and instores in Woodlawn as far as 63rd Street. (Theseinvestments were liquidated in succeeding years.The University now owns no property south of61st Street except for two parcels — the building atthe southeast corner of 61st and Ellis Avenue anda vacant lot at 6105-21 University Avenue.) Residential buildings acquired were usually madeavailable to staff and faculty on a general rentalbasis. Occasionally one would be made availableto married students (such as the missionaryapartments formerly on the site of the FieldHouse) or to single students (such as GreenwoodHall south of the Midway, or Kenwood Hall northof it; these buildings have been replaced by theLaw School and Sunny Gymnasium, respectively). But by and large the University confined its housing activities to referrals of studentsand faculty to recommended landlords, and thispolicy was pursued even after the number ofgraduate students expanded at the end of the1920s.The downward turn of the neighborhood probably began with the downward turn of the housingmarket in the 1930s. During the depression, a decrease in housing costs must have seemed a tremendous boon to a faculty existing ondepression-pinched salaries.But the real downturn occurred during the war59years when the conversions, the makeshifts toprovide housing for the influx of war workers, thegeneral unavailability of repair materials, and thewidespread violation of zoning ordinances combined to give sections of the community, particularly the commercial areas, a distinctly seedylook.However, at the end of the war the majority ofthe faculty still resided in the community. TheUniversity was aptly described as a Universitywhich was not a collection of "scholarly commuters," but a "community of scholars," and theissue was to maintain that community.The University embarked on a program ofplanning and development that L would embraceboth the campus and the surrounding community.It made a strong effort to encourage nonuniversityinvestment and effort. At the same time University funds were made available to faculty to purchase housing in the neighborhood, at a time whenfinancial institutions did not provide mortgages inblighted areas.The most important step was probably the collaboration of the University and the community,leading to the establishment of the South EastChicago Commission as an organization whereinthe community and the University would worktogether to create a model for American urbanneighborhoods faced with acute problems of housing deterioration. Primary financial support forthe Commission was provided by the University.Chancellor Kimpton was president of the Commission and Julian Levi, a lawyer, a Universityalumnus and neighborhood resident, was its director.The efforts of the University and the Commission included a full-scale survey of the communityto establish eligibility for U.S. redevelopmentfunds, identification of renewal sites Hyde Park"A" and "B" as a desirable area for governmentinvestment, securing entrepreneurs willing to bidon housing projects for redevelopment, andguaranteeing to purchase a specified number ofunits. Eventually experience gained in promotingthese projects led to the proposal of changes tofederal redevelopment law which were subsequently adopted.34The University's efforts in land and buildingacquisition served for the most part to complement community efforts at removal of blighted34. Julian H. Levi, "Expanding the University of Chicago,"Casebook on Campus Planning and Institutional Development:Ten Institutions and How They Did It, ed. John B. Rork andLeslie F. Robbins, pp. 125^-126. property through urban renewal.35 Not only didthis acquisition policy remove from the commercial market properties that were easy prey forspeculators in illegal conversions and provide demolition of several blocks of deteriorating buildings northwest of the campus, but these acquisi-tions^contributed to future planning and development efforts by providing a land bank for housingand athletic facilities, and apartment buildings formuch-needed married student housing.36Needless to say, these renewal efforts werevery costly. Of the $250 million in private fundsinvested in the Hyde Park- Kenwood area as partof the urban renewal project (along with $46 million in public funds), $29 million came from University funds. Of this sum, not quite $20 millionwas for land and building acquisition, demolitionand rehabilitation. The remainder was spent onsuch community-related activities as security personnel, the SECC expenses, planning studies,etc. The University continues to this day tobudget funds for these related activities.These investments not only maintained a community of scholars, but the University was enabled to expand its campus by more than fiftyacres. Further, University expenditures to acquire housing properties in Hyde Park- Kenwood,at a substantially lower cost per square foot (evenafter rehabilitation) than comparable new construction, was a key factor in providing adequatehousing for the increased student populations ofthe 1960s. Many options which would not otherwise have been possible, such as the relocation ofStagg Field to the site at Cottage Grove Avenueand 55th Street, were opened up. The rejuvenation of the neighborhood acted as a spur to campus redevelopment.Aside from the effect of the neighborhood onthe campus, there was in this period the separatecritical problem of facilities which had become inadequate, either through building deterioration, insome part due to reduced maintenance budgets ofthe thirties and forties; or through a rise of standards, particularly in scientific laboratoryfacilities; or from growth (e.g., the library). Inmany cases the solution was to construct newbuildings for particular departments that had out-35. This urban renewal project has been explored by anumber of writers, including: Muriel Beadle, The Hyde Park-Kenwood Urban Renewal Years; Julia Abrahamson, ^4 Neighborhood Finds Itself; Peter H. Rossi and Robert A. Dentler,The Politics of Urban Renewal: The Chicago Findings; Levi,"Expanding the University of Chicago," pp. 107-127.36. Calvert W. Audrain, "Campus in Community," Societyfor College and University Planning Quarterly 2, pp. 11-14.60grown their old space, and then see to the spaceneeds of other units by locating them in the vacated space. (This process not only continuedthrough the sixties and seventies, but the vacatedspace was extensively renovated to provide notonly more space, but attractive space to meet contemporary standards and needs.)The 1950-1960 era brought the aesthetic question to view. In the course of sixty years the University had had to supplement permanent plantwith ugly ducklings — always described as temporary buildings but in reality neither temporary nor,by the standard of the city of Chicago' s BuildingDepartment, buildings. Scattered over the campus, concealed as much as possible behindshrubs, they nevertheless looked (and look) likewhat they were — and some still are — eyesores. Adescription of a single campus block of the 1950smakes the point.The block in question, located north of the hospitals and west of the central quadrangles, isbounded by 57th Street, Ellis Avenue, 58th Streetand Drexel Avenue. Starting from its northeastcorner (at the intersection of 57th Street and EllisAvenue) and spiraling inward in a clockwise direction, the structures to be found in it by the1950s were:• 5700 Ellis Avenue, a brick hen house, probably once a store, used to house researchanimals;• Ricketts Laboratory (North), an official temporary building (still standing), erected formicrobiological research in 1914;• 5728-30 Ellis Avenue, an old apartmentbuilding once used for psychology research;• Ricketts Laboratory (South), a temporaryexpansion of the temporary laboratorymentioned previously;• The University Press building (a handsomestructure of classic design by Shepley, Rutan& Coolidge), built in 1903 to house variousadjuncts to University activities, it is now theBookstore building;• Ingleside Hall, at 932-942 East 58th Street(which had been an early home of the Quadrangle Club and was moved from its originallocation at University Avenue and 58thStreet to make room for the Oriental Institute) which was used for offices for variousdepartments;• 920-930 East 58th Street and 936 East 58thStreet, two metal barrack buildings datingfrom post-World War II;• 5705-7, 5713-15, 5719-21, 5725, 5737-43 and5753-5759 South Drexel Avenue, a series of two- and three-story flat buildings (one unitstill standing), acquired by the Universityover the years, the southernmost being usedfor offices and laboratories;• Whitman Laboratories, an attractive smallbiology and zoology research facility, designed in brick, given as a gift to the University by Professor Frank Lillie and his wife;• The American Meat Institute Building, anon-campus research facility of an industrialinstitute, which eventually became a biological sciences research facility;• The University's first power plant, used overthe years for cyclotron research, for PlantDepartment purposes and for general storage(as discussed above, this was inadequate forthe power plant before it was finished);• The Toxicity Laboratory, built of thecheapest materials available, for wartime research into blistering compounds, the fumesof which could be carried away by the tallsmokestack of the old disused power plant,or by the sewer under vacated Ingleside Avenue, which it was built directly over.A very visible central quadrangle block had become a collection of low-cost laboratories, apartment houses turned into makeshift offices, dogsheds arid poultry runs, all surrounding a toxicityresearch center in crudely constructed quarters.The irony of this situation is that whenever any ofthe space in this area became vacant, no matterhow deteriorated or inappropriate it was to thepurpose, a claimant immediately came forth.Even as the University was seeking assistancefrom the city government in enforcing buildingcode requirements in the community and tearingdown unsound buildings, the University had in itsbackyard a group of buildings of questionablecondition that the city insisted be improved.In the 1950s, Eero Saarinen and Associates wasinvited to develop a master plan for the University. In conjunction with his father, Ehel Saarinen, Eero Saarinen had achieved a notable designreputation, starting with their work on the General Motors Research Center. Eero Saarinen hadalso a distinguished record in campus planning,most notably in the design of facilities for YaleUniversity and in the campus for Brandeis University.Saarinen' s initial visit to the campus was madein September of 1954, during which various immediately forthcoming projects were outlined,and the University's representatives emphasizedthe need to interlock the campus plan with community planning efforts then in progress.61Saarinen met with University officials again onFebruary 17 and March 9, 1955, and a preliminarymaster plan, dated March 15, 1955, was presentedon May 6, 1955 to a joint meeting of the trustees'Area Committee and Committee on Campus Development. The major elements of the preliminaryplan (see figure 7) were:1) Central Library Site. Shown within thequadrangles, it was assumed there would be a library structure in the area between Swift andRosenwald Halls.2) Related Activity Clusters. Saarinen' s earliest plans envision the concept of the quadranglenot merely as a four-sided grouping of buildings,but rather as a self-contained j^lock of structureshousing people gathered in similar activities. Several of these activity clusters— the medical group,the research institute group, and the laboratoryschools— were already in existence. In othercases, he anchored a group on an existing structure; for instance, Saarinen proposed a management center on the south side of the Midway withthe Public Administration Service Building as thestarting point, to be expanded into a complex tohouse the Graduate School of Business. Newclusters were also defined: one for law, comprising the Laird Bell Law School Quadrangle and theAmerican Bar Center of today; one for studenthousing, at Cottage Grove Avenue and 55thStreet; and a cluster, without any particular purpose specified, to lie on both sides of the Illinois Central Railroad at 60th Street.3) Landscape vistas. An attractive aspect ofthe Saarinen prehminary plan is the long east^westopen space vistas. One of these is the MidwayPlaisance itself, though Saarinen would have broken this on the east with a building of unspecifiedfunction athwart the Midway just west of Dorchester Avenue. Another vista would have extended from the then open area where SearleLaboratory lies now, west to the rear of the Center for Research Libraries on Cottage Grove Avenue. The central quadrangle would have remained open, and an athletic field between Ellisand University Avenues, 55th Street and thenorth side of the Field House, would have beenopen as well.4) Traffic routing and parking. Crucial toSaarinen was the desire to relieve the Midway oftraffic by diverting the main vehicular route to anexpressway running through Washington Park toa traffic circle at Cottage Grove and the Midway,thence southeast to 6 lst^ Street and along 61st tojoin Columbus Drive coming south from theMuseum of Science and Industry. This elaborate proposal would have allowed the Midway to beclosed to roadways and would have essentiallyturned the Plaisance into a gigantic central quadrangle for the University. In the first Saarinenplans, parking is not emphasized, and the majorlots shown are along the inner periphery of themarried student housing area, on either side ofDrexel Avenue in the center of the medical group,and on the south edge of the law and managementgroups.Saarinen prepared a serie s of master plan drawings for the campus, including three or four variations on the 1955 plan, a 1956 plan, and two 1958plans, one of which was published in the Architectural Record.37 From letters and minutes of trustees' meetings it is apparent that he was still working on variations and adjustments to the plan atthe time of his death in 1961. No single plan wasformally adopted, although the preliminary planwas approved by the trustees' Committee onCampus Development as a guide for property acquisition and in connection with diverting trafficoff the Midway Plaisance.38 The greatest part ofthe architect's time in the service of the University after 1955 was spent in the design of specificbuildings, notably the Law School quadrangle andthe Woodward Court Residence Hall complex,and in guiding the design of specific projects byother architects, such as the Phemister and MottBuildings.It should be noted that, although Saarinen included medical center expansion in his 1955 plan,he did not make any architectural studies of thisarea. The following notation is from a consultation with the trustees' Committee on CampusPlanning in 1958, on the design of a particular addition to the hospitals:In answer to an inquiry as to how the plans for thenew facility fit into the over-all campus plan, Mr.Saarinen pointed out that early in his associationwith our architectural problems it became apparentto him that the hospital area should be treated as aseparate problem. Mr. Saarinen stated that he recommended, and the University agreed, to excludearchitectural studies for the hospital area from hisassignment as general architectural consultant.39After 1955, changes in University conditionsand thinking and the development of new projects37. Architectural Record 128 (November, 1960), p. 125, leftside center.38. Minutes of the joint meeting of the trustees' Committeeson Area and Campus Development, May 6, 1955.39. Minutes of the Committee on Campus Planning, September 11, 1958.62¦:2000001Its U ohomODDOoDOoocaca,' Kb oo_l Lmfa otoftfcscoiisK^ )^__ a >.v*,'«i'.1"Q I BnL¦TJoc^DoDiF^ii230C__ Ml iHa DPaDQC f 1 D!P^ Kfatra gi, 1 a ij! DQQjTniralj nr^^rxx^ -6illJa a^zffl'7 l^^s^^^jSt2^^Laffi^^Ji U [ftf^^^ ?dodDdodQ DdodDddOO |In. _I_P S RD oddddq noOTDD & Draooc C un**K> oUIkrS dodqI 2 DDODDOC§ B OCX. .!__]yiki 1 L -J F- •U_| T-JEt-3..3: &.'-|f:' U L8 T-r,[p| hr¦ — 'PV ^ * *__J 1 ;j I [>_D_i_d3 gii — i ? n_ — n r-K >>0 TCQrC-JT" . DoaxO?• f /Tjpsncwg:rDod]0rDM" ai DCa i3,¦'1? c> inino-.5c«Q.2>ft jH 1naooDao!M_MiirjO a raSlOOOtt_J10|]QC[_I HI -.Q.</>ca>la, oaafjl] ^QDO OOOODOOOODG^ p %ano?_] Qgdobbdi-oidibcO So| -K3 DUO" (pQ Cg_ [pODDDOODDO-IO^ ' pia DDoacao dD : OBDDODDODD(Baoc£] : Qc _5u.63made a revision in the preliminary plan necessary.This was prepared by Saarinen and presented tothe trustees in the spring of 1958. The revisions tothe preliminary plan actually produced two variations which differ in significant detail as noted below. The differences, both from the 1955 plan andbetween the two 1958 plans are significant andinstructive (see figures 8 and 9):1) The central library site. On plan 'B' thelibrary is not shown. On plan 'A' the library,clearly captioned, has moved out of the mainquadrangles completely and covers most of theblock where, in fact, Regenstein is situated today.The decision to locate the library on Stagg Fieldremoved the dilemma of how to accommodatesuch a massive facility within the confines of theoriginal quadrangles without either destroying thecharacter and quality of the original campus orseverely hampering the functioning of the new library.In a discussion with the trustees about alternative library sites in 1960: "He (Saarinen) pointedout that there is a tendency on the part of educational institutions in their campus planning to putbuildings in the wrong places and thusdestroy thearchitectural harmony of the campus plan."40However, this location, north of the previouscenter of gravity of campus life, raised a series ofproblems and shifts in planning focus similar tothose noted earlier of the chapel and medicalschool locations. Two of major significance to future planning were the physical separation of thelibrary from the academic units, faculty officesand classrooms; and the new focus of student lifeseveral blocks distant from Ida Noyes Hall andfrom the south campus.2) The related activity clusters. The LawSchool, which Saarinen designed himself, is nowin place. A modified married student housing areastill lies on the northwest edge of the campus(much reduced in plan 'B'), but the College groupand the management center have both disappeared. A very tentative life science groupinghas appeared on the block north of Billings in plan'A.'3) The landscape vistas. These appear to bealmost forgotten— indeed the extensive indications of shading are now almost completelyabsent from the plan.4) Traffic routing and parking. Plan 'A' still40. Minutes of the trustees' Committee on Campus Planningmeeting, February 24, 1960. pictures the 61st Street expressway; the other iswithout it, and showing buildings on its site. Sincethe latter subplan was the only one published, itcan be inferred that the expressway was, in 1958,a long-term goal at best. Parking, on the otherhand; now covers vast tracts, particularly thenorthwest corner of the medical center and, onplan 'A,' almost the entire block northwest of themedical center. This probably reflects concern ofthe trustees over this matter41 and parking spacerequirements imposed by the cjty in grantingbuilding permits.The preliminary Saarinen plan was thus significantly changed in a three-year period. In addition to the changes from the 1955 plan just listed,the 1958 plan makes a significant shift in approachthrough much more stress on locating buildings onavailable sites and on re-using existing buildings.In the 1958 plan 'B,' the area covered by campus development is reduced, showing acquisitionnorth and west of the campus at one-half of theother plan and basically in accord with the areasubsequently purchased and cleared for the newathletic fields. This plan focuses on developmentof newly-acquired areas with only minimalchanges to the existing campus.Thus, though Saarinen' s preliminary plan displayed his mastery of visual effect and the abilityto make innovations appear to proceed from theexisting environment, his later plans reveal hissense of the appropriate only on a structure-by-structure basis and not in terms of long-rangeforecast. Some of the drama and sense of totalcampus concept was lost in the revisions between1955 and 1958.Eero Saarinen died on September 1, 1961, but inhis seven years as consultant he had accomplisheda great deal. The largest part of his work that willsurvive consists of the two complexes hedesigned— the Laird Bell Law School Quadrangleand Woodward Court and Commons — but in hisplanning role he also played a significant part. Thelocation of Regenstein Library had been determined by his plan, and the sites of the Centerfor Continuing Education and what was to become the Cummings Life Science Center resultedfrom his planning efforts.41. Letter from Harold Moore, Chairman of the Area Committee, to Howard Goodman, Chairman of the Committee onCampus Development, January 25, 1957.64V. 1960sThe 1960s were a period of intensive campusplanning and development. Saarinen' s masterplan, reworked several times to fit the University's changing assessment of its requirements,served as a guide.The decade of the 1960s involved two planningcomponents: (1) the development and specification of detailed academic goals involving extensive additions to physical facilities (embodied in aproposal to the Ford Foundation for a challengegrant), and (2) the development of 'a planning process, to translate them into physical reality and tocontinue planning in the area of land use, landscaping and building design.The University, given the stabilization of theneighborhood, was positioned to seek increasedsupport for academic needs both from theChicago business community with which it hadworked on the renewal of the city, and fromphilanthropic sources.The new goals slowly assembled themselvesinto an interrelated package, the Campaign forChicago. To generate a large initial contributionwhich would set the pace for the Campaign, aproposal was made to the Ford Foundation for a$25 million challenge grant;42 this proposal remains the fullest statement of the directions intowhich the University proposed to channel its resources over the period 1965-1975.The proposal was anchored on estimates thatthe national college enrollment would climb from4.5 to 7 million in 1970, and that the University, asa "teacher of teachers," would be called upon toexpand its facilities significantly to provide additional faculty to cope with this explosion of campus population. A University of Chicago enrollment increase of 56 percent (from 6,941 to 10,854)over the ten years was projected, and it was expected that the University would have significantincreases in the number of students it would haveto house — an increase of from 55 percent of theundergraduates in 1965 to 75 percent in 1975, andfrom 22 percent of graduate students to 35 percentin the same period. An increase of faculty from895 to 1,227 was also projected.With regard to facilities, the Ford proposal contained the following features:1. First and foremost, two long-needed new libraries were to be built to relieve the outgrown42. A Profile of the University of Chicago Prepared for theFord Foundation, 2 vols. Harper Library building — a graduate humanitiesand social sciences library, and a graduate sciencelibrary. The existing graduate library at Harperwas to become a College library facility.2. Remodeled space on the main quadrangleswould be provided for the College, with CobbHall to be the first remodeled facility. This hadbecome a must, because the city Building Department was threatening to close Cobb down because it did not meet building code requirementsfor classroom use.3. Within the Humanities Division, physicalspace was not at the time of the Ford Foundationproposal considered a pressing problem, with twoexceptions: the music department, for which serious consideration was being given to developing aperformance and practice center out of the theninactive Hutchinson Commons, and the OrientalInstitute, which was in need of both exhibitionand storage space for its museum.4. In the physical sciences, on the other hand,all departments were in quest of modernizedteaching and research space, which was describedas urgent. By the time the Ford Foundation proposal was made, it had already been decided toconcentrate the new science facilities in a sciencecenter to be located west of Ellis Avenue on theblock north of Billings Hospital. The proposedstructures were to include the new geophysicalsciences building, a high-energy physics laboratory, a teaching facility for the physics department,and a new building for chemistry across the streeton the east side of Ellis Avenue.5. Among the professional schools, only theGraduate School of Business had pressing spaceneeds, and it was already proposed to solve theseby renovating Rosenwald Hall for the school afterthe geophysicists moved to new quarters. TheSchool of Education required a new nurseryschool building (as part of the LaboratorySchools). The Graduate Library School was to behoused in the projected graduate library forhumanities and social sciences. Although the LawSchool had already acquired a new physical plantsouth of the Midway, additional Law School library space was postulated as being needed by theend of the decade. A social services center wasprojected near the new SS A building, whereselected agencies would locate special servicesdesired for training and research.The Ford Foundation Proposal was, of course,not limited to new construction; it included acare-65_nomcm] ^ffnuirnaQff ^[Jnaflf U $¦aH niuu aOOffi 0goooooo^........TOtK=DOO!llP==> nrf=Ocn ni 1 lali qjJQoc^n DD^ d a c loo!n G D l — "*•BOODD0[lS/\]DOQfTj_,Da^D[b )OOOooOo¦ fc^ODDOCD_lv!_b DoJaEa ill Dooffirtal]3 *$ch [ftpn Dcq]o a0 aocnDOQljil.in Li anooooO <§ ' ' 0E3CP°iffiflp|?dDdDdddQ QDoaDLti)^ Li I"1 inri* : HU OODDDaliirWIoaaotE nQDODOD rr 3C 1-.(po|p-«D<?b iocqdDa crVhi ? C3 5rL *"i8D 3|ygnamDQ&z v o< |_ o-1 - <•^ </> o¦ k —¦EK >°trt —< Z L-2 3 O &HO^ — ann?,_iLDQhCdodD DCDmooDOwiMiril 0 &a[TtraDMOMDOOQ a raEkribotBOODaoDafl Blj-^ido moDDOramc^j piCioaiOBDOoOOBODoS „[pDDDoanDnoapa'cg _ poCfflooooo&jaraioS :0c waIoo(366^d] [fcacnfej'[[KB DOQa !P5BOH 0' 12 000000 !jfcS1 .. .sDtro on is_] qjoncc]?3<jp1 V^l lPq[EM_! | LI obtlCDOCOOooBoODdCJ"tajcD 71 g Do^n Li §OcsaCroff aQDoDaODQ DdodD Dc±)lj)D DODDDQ []QD0OQD |^ oraonpoqjCjpnrrj|DQanDc6 I- „-~/j U I p c¦"i"?I *!>¦ o •| L £ pa yCDDI]" [j^uuui-j [JVjcjj j| :15 E" Bq 1 8! DDDDDDDDDf^ : Z3oaoiC]QC_^] fix?iiDDoC3)Q[]' 3i_="[jilDaQDDtzS 5pi 00OttcDQ1|[ipic=5|rtSUCjLtZDLlfl CKEF™?fliiFIF:^[rDLTdDCbJH[iiDoooooiMooD B OxgiQaonooomooODog a aBuOooaanooDDfl §3uuuyy Q0OG (flOQQQMBcn DO— ana?_] GiomraiDOBODDODBS So]Daif[pODCS [pODDmnflDomicrj"[A]DDonDaanD : DEnoDDoOaooDGODB IM aI67fully developed statistical profile of the University's development as well as a historical sketch ofthe events leading to the state of the University atthe time of the proposal.During the process of self- study that precededthe formal appeal to the Ford Foundation,43 theofficers and trustees realized how greatly thenormal maintenance and building programs hadbeen affected by the depression, World War II,and then the expenditure of funds on behalf ofcommunity renewal.44Evidently, the Foundation was persuaded. TheUniversity was able to announce a $25 millionchallenge grant at a luncheon marking the openingof the Campaign in October, 1965 .The University, still deeply involved in urbanrenewal in these years, had not abandoned otherplanning efforts on the death of Saarinen. Evenbefore Saarinen' s death, Jack Meltzer had beenrecruited from the urban renewal effort to makeland use studies of the University area45 whichultimately were incorporated in a submission tothe city of Chicago for the Planned Unit Development, details of which are to be found below.Another offshoot of this work was a sketch planfor the campus put together by Leo Jacobson, aprofessor of planning at the University of Wisconsin, in 1962. Taking a design emphasis, it embodied the concept of a concentrically orderedcampus with a graduate core centering on a mainlibrary south of Ryerson Hall and the various departments radiating like pie slices towards a peripheral ring of College, professional school, andhousing facilities46 (see figure 10). Althoughthe orientation of the scheme does not coincide with what actually occurred, some of itsrecommendations, such as "a multi-level parkingfacility in the block bounded by Maryland, Drexel, 57th and 58th Streets"47 were actually realized, though the site chosen was one block southof the one suggested.To carry on the design continuum establishedformerly by relying on a single firm for all of itsarchitecture, the University obtained the servicesof a consulting architect, I. W. Colburn, from1964 to 1973. Occasionally other architects were43. See, for example, John X. Jamrich; Herbert R. Hengst;and Evenor Zuniga, The Utilization of Instructional Facilitiesat the University of Chicago, Fall, 1960.44. Muriel Beadle, Where Has All The Ivy Gone?, pp. 239-240.45. Minutes of the trustees' Committee on Campus Planningmeeting, May 6, 1959, pp. 3-4.46. Sketch Plan, The University of Chicago.47. Ibid., p. 25. engaged to make studies of specific areas, e.g.,Perkins and Will' s study of the School of Education complex in 1963, and Skidmore, Owings &Merrill's study of the science center in 1967.Also during the 1960s there was a new emphasis on landscaping and maintenance of the cam-jus, including engaging a landscape consultant.All of these efforts, however, were aimed atresolving specific or ad hoc problems. With theincreased building activity made possible by theCampaign for Chicago and the general expansionin higher education taking place in the 1960s, theneed for coordinating new physical developmentand assuring a continuity of planning and design,increased. To meet this need at the staff level, anOffice of Physical Planning and Construction wasestablished. This unit was assembled partly fromconstruction functions previously carried on bythe University Architect's Office, the Buildingsand Grounds Department, and the Real EstateOffice. It was created: (1) to bring the planningfunction in-house in order to provide an alternative to, or check upon, outside consultants and toprovide more continuity for master planning; (2)to stimulate an overall planning approach ratherthan being guided by architectural solutions building by building; and (3) to complete and overseethe functioning of the new planned developmentzoning for the campus (see below).Gradually the office functions evolved to include the following:1. To coordinate development of ideas. Theoffice is usually involved very early in new facilityideas of the departments, and provides advice tofaculty and others on where such projects wouldbest fit within the overall framework of campusdevelopment. In this role it provides much of theinitial design criteria of the sort once furnished byconsulting architects.2. To gather information. The office collectsstatistics on available usable space and facilitiesusage for reporting to government bodies, for assistance to University departments and for itsown analysis, and oversees the collection of planning data in the areas of space re-use, traffic, parking and residential trends.3. To advise on space allocation and usage.The office advises the administration on spaceallocations among the departments and units ofthe University, as well as on the appropriate physical usage of particular areas.4. To coordinate complex space moves, as inthe effort to keep the Bookstore in operation be-68tween the destruction by fire of its old quarters in1969 and the opening of new space for it in the oldUniversity Press building in 1971. This requiredinterlocking a succession of moves by the Comptroller' s Office and the Press, which the officecoordinated.5. To act as a liaison with the city on certainUniversity activities. The University campus is aplanned development48 of the city of Chicago.The office participates centrally in liaison with thecity on issues such as zoning, traffic, street closing, and parking, in the development area. Theoffice has monitored University commitments tothe city, most notably in providing adequate parking and in holding University development withinthe required zoning patterns.6. To monitor facilities designs. The difficultiesencountered by architects engaged to design campus buildings which at one and the same timesatisfy functional and budget considerations andyet avoid doing violence to a predominatelyneo-Gothic heritage had already surfaced with theconstruction of the Administration Building in the1940s, as we have seen. During the first years ofthe office, the tendency was to occupy the middleground between enforcing firm guidelines forcompatibility and giving good designers free rein,and out of this has developed a set of designpolicies which will be explained in detail in thechapter on the 1970s.The creation of an office to carry out these functions was essential, because the planning problems posed by development during the 1960s wereof a quite varied sort, and of a very different orderthan those which faced Cobb, starting out on acourse entirely of his own choosing, or his succes-48. "The term, 'Planned Development,' describes a uniquearea for which a unitary site plan has been prepared. The planfixes land uses, distances between buildings, allocations of openspace, on-site parking, density limitations per acre, peripherysetbacks, floor area ratio, land coverage and land use relationships with adjoining areas. Improvements in facilities andsite elements in accordance with modern city planning and sitedevelopment standards are facilitated by such a unitary siteplan. The plan is intended to insure compatibility between theproposed uses within the development area and the existinguses, activities, and character of the surrounding community.A tract of land may be developed as a Planned Developmentsubject to the applicable zoning classification and the basic intent and purpose of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance. The benefitsinherent in large scale development of land may be more effectively utilized through a Planned Development without the rulesnecessarily applied in the single lot concept of a standardsubdivision." — Chicago Plan Commission, "Rules, Regulationsand Procedures in Relation to Planned Development Amendments to the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, as amended Sept. 21,1961; June 27, 1963.70 sors, whose role was to flesh out the scheme developed by Cobb. A few of the major projects willillustrate the variety of issues faced and the typesof conflicts that developed.1. Regenstein Library. As noted before, thiswas the most pressing of the projects for whichfunds were sought and obtained.A magnificent structure was designed by Skid-more, Owings & Merrill, which provides handsomely for the requirements of these libraries, butwith noticeable impact on the patterns of use ofthe campus.As we have noted, the location of the librarynorth of 57th Street shifted the focus of campusactivity northward, away from the quadranglesand the Midway. The site location for the newlibrary forced a major departure from the principleset forth in 1902, of interconnecting the departmental libraries and reading rooms with eachother and with adjoining buildings. The final design and site plan also departed from the quadrangle concept. An irregular "quadrangle" is inpart formed at the main entrance to the library bythe projections of the library, augmented by landscaping to the west and the older buildings on thesouth side of 57th Street. However, for this"quadrangle" to be visually effective, 57th Streetshould be vacated. Further, the siting tends toblock the pedestrian flow from the central quadrangles developing north of 56th Street.2. The College Center. The renovation ofspace for the College in Cobb Hall and in HarperMemorial Library and adjoining buildings is theforemost illustration of a new planning strategy ofthe sixties — large-scale renovation. In contrast tothe completely new structure erected for the library, the College Center was contained withinexisting buildings. Of course the remodeling ofsmall amounts of space for new purposes had occurred from time to time from the earliest days ofthe University, but in the sixties, for the first time,planning strategies were based on the wholesaleconversion of structures or even groups of structures from one function to another. In the case ofthe College, the renovation commenced withCobb Hall, the University's oldest building. Bycompletely gutting the interior while saving theexterior walls and the foundation, the entire building was recast— adding a modern structuralframework, a new stairtower, and an additionalfloor, so that besides classrooms and a few offices,the building now contains an auditorium, an exhibition gallery, and a student lounge.While the next phases of the College remodel-ing had to wait until the libraries were removed toRegenstein at the end of 1970, the end result combined a special study library (in the connectedthird-floor reading rooms of Harper, Wieboldt,and Business East) with new offices and classrooms in former library workrooms and referencerooms in the Harper building. The College alsoreceived one wholly new facility for its use, thelaboratory building attached to the rear of the Research Institutes. Actually, this construction wasdictated by the removal of the old College laboratories on Stagg Field to make way for Regenstein.3. The Professional Schools. The College wasnot the only beneficiary of the renovation strategy. The Graduate School of Business expandedinto Rosenwald Hall when Rosenwald was vacated by the Geophysical Sciences; and the Business, Education, and Divinity Schools made useof space vacated by the libraries in Business East,Judd, and Swift Halls, respectively.4. The Science Center. In contrast to the College and Professional Schools, the sciences wereurgently in need of new space, particularly research laboratories with the special built-in support units — environmental control rooms, fumehoods, casework— that modern research requires.Some of these facilities had long been on the drawing boards — Searle Laboratory, the new chemistry research facility, had been in planning fortwenty years, and Cummings for ten. But all ofthe sciences now share in the new facilities. If weenumerate them — Searle for chemistry, Hinds forgeophysics, Cummings for microbiology andbiophysics, High-Energy Physics for the physicsdepartment, the College laboratories — it will beseen that their location reinforces the trend towards clustering the sciences to the west of thecentral quadrangles, a trend that had beenestablished with the construction of the ResearchInstitutes. The significant development emergingwith this new construction was the coordinationby a centralized agency—the Office of PhysicalPlanning — of the plans of two separate divisions,Physical Sciences and Biological Sciences— toform a true science center, a definite advance overthe earlier ideas of the future development of thatcentral area of the University. This proposal (seefigure 11), put forth in 1967, was developedwith the collaboration of the physical sciencesfaculty and the Faculty Committee on AcademicFacilities (the Goldsmith Committee). It providesfor a harmonious sharing by the Physical Sciencesand Biological Sciences Divisions and guided theplacement of the Cummings Life Science build ing, the Kovler Viral Oncology Laboratories andthe Hinds Geophysical Sciences Laboratories.These projects are beginning to make the conceptof that area as a science center into a reality, andthey are shaping a new quadrangle in accord withthe planning and design policies described in thefollowing section on the 1970s.5. The Student Village and Arts Center. Ofparticular interest among a number of specialstudies done at this time is Edward L. Barnes'plan for the Arts Center and Student Village in1967, because, like the earlier planning for relocating the College to the south of the Midway in the1920s, this plan was drawn up following extensive debate and study by the faculty. One of themajor features of the plan, the Student Village,was later dropped due to changes in the economyand in student enrollment. The plan (see figure12) is also significant for its utilization of thequadrangle concept of Cobb's original campusplan in a modern architectural setting.The report of the faculty committee (called theBlum Committee after its chairman, Walter J.Blum), published in The University of ChicagoRecord, 49 stated that:. . .the Committee came to agree upon five generalconceptions which it believes should guide the University in the development of student residences andfacilities during the next decade. They are:First . . . (to) keep pace with the quality of housingfor unmarried students ... at other high qualityschools ...Second. . . that housing for unmarried students belocated so as to produce flows of student trafficthrough the campus, including the evening hours . . .Third ... to give students the feeling that thereare many and diverse opportunities for extracurricular activities on the campus and that there ismore than just one spot for "student life" ...Fourth . . . Hyde Park should be developed as anatural area for married student housing ...Fifth . . . privately owned commercial facilitiesadjacent to or near the campus should be regarded asessential ingredients in student life .. .50In an article on the proposal for developing thenew north quadrangle, which was intended to fulfillsome of the recommendations of the committee,the following summary is provided:The North Quadrangle is the end product of exten-49. "Report of the Faculty Advisory Committee on StudentResidences and Facilities,'* University Record 2, pp. S-33.50. Ibid., pp. 5-6.71LEGENDBiological and Physical Sciences BuildingsExistingFutureOther BuildingsCorridors57th St s alibraryresearch InstitutesFIG. 11— Sketch Plan for the Science Center72«** *.»7I •v* # »M I *<'* • * oX¦o..¦¦¦¦ — ~" — ^§«$»@S3rseB ®SS®€S$®$®S3 EgS3 Cg uumrnramrFp w>{*)*W<&£Mm illn •Mb a35*®3 I 1§R PSrr"tl hagK^S !&!i !88SO ! !sive planning and study by a Faculty AdvisoryCommittee on Student Residences and Facilities.The Committee, chaired by Walter J. Blum, Professor of Law, consulted with other faculty members, architects, planners and more than onehundred students during the year-long study.They reviewed all of the on-campus dormitoriesoperated by the University, married student housing, athletic facilities, and dining areas."[We] found ourselves considering such diverseoperations as the dormitories, the UniversityBookstore, Jimmy's Tavern, and the Postal Substation," the final report stated.The Committee agreed that housing and relatedfacilities for both married and unmarried students belocated within walking distance of the campus; that itbe planned to create a 'lively, well-traveled campus;'that it include a wide variety of types of housing tomeet individual needs.Members stressed the importance of includingfacilities for educational, recreational, and social activities within the housing units to foster group cohesion, small group study, and social development.They also encouraged the development of culturaland athletic facilities as a "significant factor in attracting and holding students.'51The work of the Committee encompassed amuch broader scope of campus planning than thespecific plans as developed by Barnes, and theconcepts they put forth transcend the particularphysical plans that were developed and in partdiscarded in following years.Although the student village was not built, theart department finally acquired a new home, including an art gallery, in the location designatedby Barnes.Before moving on to the 1970s, the accomplishments in planning and building ought tobe tallied up against the goals as summarized inthe Ford Foundation proposal.1. Regenstein Library. We have seen that thefunds raised permitted the construction of a gemof a building, with some relatively minor sitingproblems. What was not realized at the time wasthat a very large proportion of graduate andundergraduate students would be spending asmuch time as possible in the building, and demanding services it was never intended to provide. The issues at Regenstein in later years werelargely the fruits of its success.2. The College. As a result of the remodelingprogram funded by the Campaign for Chicago, theCollege has received both an attractive setting and51. "The Blum Committee," The University of ChicagoMagazine 60 (November 1967). a physical unity which it could not claim since theearly 1920s. Not every desired goal has beenaccomplished — the Harper Library has not succeeded in attracting undergraduates from Regenstein to the degree hoped, for example — butthe quality and arrangement of the new space areinfinitely superior to the old.3. The Science Center. The development ofnew facilities was crucial to retaining the kind offaculty and students the University needs to maintain its position in this area of research. A newteaching facilitity remains a pressing need, but itsvery expense makes it hard to place in a list ofpriorities.4. The Graduate School of Business. From thelow point of 1956, with 36 faculty and 200 studentshoused entirely in Haskell Hall, the School todayhas grown to some 75 faculty members and 865full-time students housed in Haskell, BusinessEast, and Rosenwald Halls, the latter providingthe major space. This major unit of the Universitycould not have played the role it has played since,without the remodeled space made available for it.5. The Art Center. The construction of theCochrane- Woods Art Center is a major start innew facilities for the arts which the University hashad to defer repeatedly since the 1920s. But it isonly a start, and new accommodations for themusic department and a theatre still are required.6. Student Facilities. The Student Village concept was not fulfilled, in part due to lack of funds,and in part from lack of student demand for theUniversity's dormitories. Recent housingshortages have focused attention on the problemagain, but the solutions developed have been interms of remodeling older buildings rather thannew construction, as will be discussed in a latersection.7. Other Goals. For the rest of the Campaign'sgoals, both success and failures have to be reported. The University did indeed secure fundingfor its social services center on south campus.The School of Education received no new building, but space freed by the library's move to Regenstein, and declining enrollment, alleviated theproblem. University enrollment did increase — butnot by the 56 percent projected in the Ford profile.It peaked at 8,579 in 1968, then declined slightly,and by 1975 it was 7,773, a 12 percent increaseover 1965.We might conclude by saying that some successes of the Campaign brought forth new problems for74the next generation, and many of the needs unmetin the 1960s are still to be met in the 1970s.VI. 1970sEven while the last of the projects funded in thefirst phase of the Campaign for Chicago werebeing completed (the last new building to be completed was the Cochrane-Woods Art Center, in1974, while the renovations of the GraduateSchool of Business continued until 1975), a newstimulus to planning was presented by the launching of the second phase of the Campaign forChicago, already under discussion in 1974.Although the emphasis in this phase was on programs and endowment rather than on facilities,construction was accorded a third of the $250 million campaign goal.Among the most important new facilities is thenew Surgery-Brain Research Pavilion, which infact completes the original Coolidge and Hodgdonplan of the 1920s; the expansion of Billings intocriss-crossing wings, erected as tangents to theoriginal quadrangle, completes the medical center's original plan.But while parts of the second Campaign forChicago were dedicated to completing activitiesbegun decades before, other events, both nationaland local, had contrived to alter the framework onwhich past planning had proceeded, influencingthe nature, and cost, of projects in the Campaignand redirecting the focus of planning, design andmaintenance of campus facilities.Inflation was escalating costs of running theUniversity, especially for operating and maintaining buildings, while at the same time there wasincreasing difficulty in obtaining adequate funding. These factors led to a major emphasis on conserving and renovating existing facilities toachieve maximum use of existing buildings, and toslow the expansion of the physical plant. Expanding the capacity of the athletic facilities within theexisting shell of the Field House is one example ofresponse to this new emphasis. Plans for total redevelopment of the interior of Walker, in the samefashion as earlier work in Harper, Business Eastand Rosenwald, is another. Numerous smallerrenovation projects further develop this rejuvenating approach.Closely related to this emphasis was the incorporation into the project costs of funds as endowment for maintenance and operation of newfacilities. While this approach has the disadvantage of increasing the sums to be raised for con struction, thereby slowing new development, itwas designed to preclude future drains on theoperating budget of the University.At the end of the 1960s, in response to environmental concerns, the University had carriedout a conversion of the fuel system at theBlack stone Avenue Steam Plant from coal to natural gas, along with similar conversions in neighborhood apartment buildings. This work succeeded in achieving a significant reduction in airpollution. Now another set of events at an international level is forcing conservation of energyupon the University. Whereas at certain times inthe past fuel shortages would threaten the operation of the campus (usually they were due tostrikes in the coal mining industry), now the concerns are the high costs of gas and electricity andthe inefficient uses of energy.These escalating costs for energy reinforce theconcern for gaining maximum use for existingbuildings and limiting new construction to thoseprojects that can obtain funds to cover futureoperating costs. They also dictate a whole new setof building design criteria involving insulation,window design, and a new approach to controllingheating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.Student population and the supply of housingwas another area where changes occurring beyond the campus were affecting the University.Housing of the student population is at all times aplanning consideration, but in the 1970s it wasmore accurately described as a dilemma. Becauseof the ebb of the postwar baby-boom and elimination of the military draft, the student populationhad significantly lessened. But the available housing for students had decreased at a much sharperrate, primarily due to the conversion of rentalapartments to condominiums.The University had stepped into the Hyde Parkreal estate market to purchase several propertiesthat were not receiving adequate care and management and were therefore beginning to createconcern among neighbors in the community asthey began to deteriorate.One of the properties purchased, the ShorelandHotel, soon filled an urgent need for additionalstudent housing (a repeat of the use of buildingslike the Piccadilly Hotel, purchased in the early1960s, for student housing), and additional planning is under way to expand its facilities to matchthose available within or in the vicinity of otherdormitories.An event that culminated years of planning wasthe acquisition of south campus. At the end of the751950s specific planning had begun for the acquisition and development of south campus, the landbetween 60th and 61st Streets from CottageGrove A*venue to Stony Island Avenue. This areahad been included in the various Saarinen plans,and formal steps toward acquisition through urbanrenewal were initiated early in the sixties. Finallyconcluded in 1976, this acquisition was interrelated with the acquisition and clearance of thefour blocks west of Ellis Avenue and south of 55thStreet in furthering the basic purposes of theurban renewal projects in Hyde Park-Kenwoodand in creating a land bank for future developmentby the University and related institutions.VII. Contemporary Planning Policies andApproachesTo meet the planning aims of the University andto respond to the new developments enumeratedabove requires the combined pursuit of three general types of goals: conservation of resources, including careful scrutiny of budgets and buildingcosts; innovation in restructuring the internal environment to improve the functioning of existingfacilities and to obtain maximum benefit from newbuildings; and the maintenance of both designquality and continuity.Previous efforts at assuring design compatibility by the Office of Physical Planning have nowbeen formalized into basic planning and designpolicies that are being applied as a guide to development of the University campus. Since financiallimitations precluded the wholesale restructuringof the campus along the lines envisioned in Saarinen' s 1955 plan, the maintenance of design continuity among the structures assumed increasedimportance as a means of visually unifying thecampus. This monitoring role was at first the responsibility of Saarinen and later of I. W. Colburnin reviewing and advising the trustees on the plansof other architects. It was finally assumed by thestaff of the Office of Physical Planning and Construction. The major policies are as follows:I. Continue the heritage of the quadrangles.Preserve the space and design quality of the existing quadrangles and create new courts or quadrangles as new development occurs.2. Provide architectural continuity. Develop ineach new building appropriate physical relationships to the neo-Gothic character of the earlier buildings. Recognition of this heritage is to beexpressed in termsi of sympathy for, and understanding of, the roots and traditions from which it came rather than through mere imitations orcopies of existing forms.Relationship between the old and the new is tobe established through a consistent use of buildingmaterials and the careful design application ofscale, color, texture proportion and design detail.3. Emphasis on the whole campus. Primarysite design emphasis is on the shaping of space bythe building mass. While each building is requiredto be designed as a thoughtful, artistic response toits particular program and to budget and site requirements, it must also be compatible with thedesign fabric of the campus, enriching the campusboth functionally and aesthetically; each buildingis to relate to adjoining buildings, not competewith them.4. Physically connect buildings to allow forinternal circulation. Such linkage will facilitatefaculty and student access and interaction andalso allow for more flexibility in the servicing ofthe interconnected buildings (e.g. several buildings can be serviced from one common loading/unloading area).5. Separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic,and separate service vehicles from automobiletraffic. The first priority in circulation is ease ofunencumbered access for pedestrians within thecampus. Second priority is the provision for service vehicles necessary to maintain the campusbuildings and grounds. Use of privately-ownedautomobiles on or about the campus is discouraged. Unimpaired access for emergency vehicles is considered essential in all site development plans.6. Provide for flexibility in new construction.Buildings are, to the extent possible within program and budget constraints, to be designed toallow for future change, thereby extending the usable life of the facility by increasing the opportunity for remodeling and reducing future renovation costs and to provide for future effectuation ofthe previous five policies.A few specific illustrations of the ways in whichcontemporary structures were related to the existing campus buildings are: the continuing use oflimestone as the basic building material; thecourtyards created by the Law Buildings, Woodward Court and the Cochrane-Woods Art Center;the interplay of vertical and horizontal lines in thestructures of Law, Wyler Hospital and International Studies; and the texture of materials andrhythm of building form in International Studies,76Geophysics, Regenstein and the Social ServicesCenter. More limited, but none-the-less importantdesign decisions were construction in 1974 of thenew bridge between Rosenwald and BusinessEast in the neo-Gothic style and the neo-Gothicextension to the Chicago Lying-in Hospital on thewest facade to effect a transition to the modernstyle of Wyler Hospital.Several planning efforts are now in early stagesof development that may be added to a future review of planning. One is a study of the feasibilityof constructing a replacement patient facility atthe medical center. The study encompasses abroad evaluation of operations and facilities forthe hospitals and clinics and the medical school.A second project is a major extension of theemphasis on renovation noted above in connection with the Campaign for Chicago. The University, through the Illinois Educational FacilitiesAct, has sold $35 million of bonds to finance renovation projects in order to gain maximum use ofthe existing plant and to provide for space needsthat cannot be funded in any other way.A third effort, of which this report is a part, is areview of past plans, with evaluation of the campus as it is today, and an analysis of needs andprojection of development to meet these needs inthe future.Carrying out these steps will add a new chapterto planning at the University.VIII. ConclusionsAs we have seen, the University of Chicago hasdeveloped two master plans in the course of itshistory, as well as several block or quadrangleplans covering only a section of the campus. It hasalso erected temporary buildings, or located activities in existing structures which, by reason ofvacancy or proximity , more or less lent themselvesto a purpose; or it has adopted other makeshifts.Some of the makeshifts (such as the Tudor-stylestores at 61st Street and Ellis Avenue) have beenclever, and some of the permanent buildings (suchas the Accelerator Building) have only been ableto serve their original purpose for a very briefperiod. Out of all of this experience, the followingconclusions can be drawn:1. Leave room for expansion. Every plan theUniversity has adopted has been considered bysome to be too expansive when it was adopted;but none of them really provided enough in keyareas. Both central libraries, Harper and Re genstein, were full, or nearly so, within five yearsof being opened. In its five decades the medicalcenter has added eleven buildings to the originaltwo, nearly filling all of the space originallyallotted to its development. The chemists, on theother hand, for decades had an available buildingsite adjoining their existing facilities, and thus itwas only necessary to predict the point at whichexpansion was required and then to begin seekinga donor.2. The faculty's goals and academic programwill have precedence over all others. The shift ofHarper Library to the south center of the centralquadrangles was at the behest of the faculty. Thelocation, and plan, for the medical center stressedacademic interests; and the construction of several structures intended for a specific facultygroup's research (Whitman, Accelerator, and theKovler laboratories are three examples) providefurther illustration. Needless to say, facilities arising from a highly specialized need can never bedealt with on a master plan, since the need is immediate. Within the special guidelines pertainingto development of facilities for this research-oriented University, three working principles canbe seen:a. Get the planners involved with the faculty asearly as possible so that foreseen goals can beincluded in advance planning;b. To the extent possible, within the constraints of special program needs and limitedbudgets, design buildings that are adaptable andmodular, suitable for varied uses, not the result ofthe limited desires of one individual.c. Develop a conceptual physical plan that canbe more readily ' 'bent" as the particular needs aredefined so that it can sustain the accommodationsdemanded of it.3. Make early and adequate provision for support facilities (power plants, freight docks, storage buildings, shops, parking) required byacademic development. The difficulty here is usually to identify the need as early as possible, sincethe prospect of donors for this kind of structure isslight, and funds must be set aside from unrestricted endowment gradually, starting as earlyas possible.4. The master plan should serve as a standardof comparison, not a straightjacket. In the initialphases of planning with Eero Saarinen in 1955,Julian Levi and Jack Meltzer pointed out thatwhat was desired was something against whichproposals could be judged, that the de-77terminations sought should be fundamental ratherthan detailed, in terms of area rather than site, andfor ultimate goals rather than for specific contracts. This was a reiteration, noted at the beginning, of the intent of the original Cobb plan "not. . .to represent the buildings . . . so mpchas to indicate the general arrangement."5. Interdependence of campus and community .The impact of the neighborhood was recognized(and the drain on resources was significant) in the1950s. The neighborhood continues to have animpact; and the concern of the University for itssurroundings and for the level of city servicesmust continue.6. Master plan vs. guide to development. In reviewing the impact of the past efforts at planningand campus-wide studies in relation to the impactof development of particular projects — e.g.Harper Library, Rockefeller Chapel, the medicalcenter and Regenstein Library — we find that thelatter dominate the direction and form of development as much or more than an overall plan. This awareness and an understanding of the continual shifting and changing of requirements forphysical facilities suggest an emphasis on a planconsisting of: 1) a structural framework of services and general functional grouping (the Saarinen approach); 2) a general design concept forcontinuity (illustrated by the Cobb plan and thedesign policies enumerated by the Office of Physical Planning and Construction); and 3) a processfor planning and development of the particularbuildings as they are added (embodied in the tradition of faculty committees appointed to addressspecific needs and the ongoing staffing of a professional planning office).7. Quality of Development. Finally, whateveris developed, by whatever planning process, theinstruction of Rockefeller, noted at the beginningof this review, should be borne in mind:"Do not on account of the scarcity of moneyfail to do the right thing in constructing the newbuildings. We must, in some way, securesufficient funds to make it what it ought to be."78BIBLIOGRAPHYAbrahamson, Julia. A Neighborhood Finds Itself.New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959.Alumni of the University of Chicago, various,"What, no Gothic? [a collection of indignantalumni letters]," University of Chicago Magazine 39 (December 1946), pp. 1-2.Audrain, Calvert W. "Campus in Community,"Society for College and University PlanningQuarterly 2 (July 1968), pp. 11-14.Beadle, Muriel. The Hyde Park-Kenwood UrbanRenewal Years, privately published, 1964.Beadle, Muriel. Where Has All The Ivy Gone?Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1972.Boucher, Chauncey S. and Braumbaugh, A. J.The Chicago College Plan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.Coolidge and Hodgdon; and Seem, Ralph B."Chicago to Have Notable Medical Educationand Hospital Buildings," The University ofChicago Magazine 19 (December 1926), pp.55-59,96-97."The Cornerstone Laying of the UniversityChapel and the Dedication of Whitman Laboratory of Experimental Zoology," UniversityRecord [New Series] 12 (July 1926), pp. 197-203.Fishbein, Morris with DeLee, Sol Theron.Joseph Bolivar DeLee, Crusading Obstetrician. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1949.Flexner, Abraham. Medical Education in theUnited States and Canada. New York: Carnegie Foundation, 1910.Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. A History of theUniversity of Chicago: The First Quarter-Century. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1916.Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. William RaineyHarper, The First President of the Universityof Chicago. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1928.Hicks, John D. "The Development of Civilization in the Middle West, 1860-1900," inSources of Culture in the Middle West, ed.Dixon R. Fop. New York and London: D.Appleton-Century Company, 1934, pp. 73-101.Jamrich, John X.; Hengst, Herbert R.; andZuniga, Evenor. The Utilization of Instructional Facilities at the University ofChicago, Fall, 1960. East Lansing: Center forthe Study of Higher Education, Michigan StateUniversity, March 1961. Jenkins, Charles E. "The University ofChicago "Architectural Record 4 (Oct .-Dec,1894), pp. 229-246.Levi, Julian H. "Expanding the University ofChicago," Casebook on Campus Planning andInstitutional Development: Ten Institutionsand How They Did It, comp. by Rork, John B.and Robbins, Leslie R. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1962, pp. 107-127.Lowrey, Jeannett. "The New AdministrationBuilding," University of Chicago Magazine 39(October 1946), pp. 15-16."The Medical Program," University of ChicagoMagazine 17 (November 1924), pp. 8-9.Morgenstern, William V. "One Man's Opinion:Speaking of Gothic," University of ChicagoMagazine 39 (December 1946), pp. -7-8."A New Power Plant," University Record [NewSeries] 14 (April 1928), pp. 102-104."The North Quadrangle," The University ofChicago Magazine 60 (November 1967), pp.2-9.O'Hara, Frank Hurburt. The University ofChicago, An Official Guide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928.A Profile of the University of Chicago Preparedfor the Ford Foundation, 2 vols. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago, April, 1965.Reeves, Floyd W., ed.The University of ChicagoSurvey, 12 vols. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1932-1933."Report of the Faculty Advisory Committee onStudent Residences and Facilities," UniversityRecord 2 (January 23, 1968), pp. 3-33.Rossi, Peter H. and Dentler, Robert A. The Politics of Urban Renewal: The Chicago Findings.New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.Saarinen, Eero. "Campus Planning, the UniqueWorld of the University," Architectural Record 128 (November, 1960), pp. 123-143.Sketch Plan, The University of Chicago.Chicago: privately printed, October 26, 1962.Stagg, Amos Alonzo and Stout, Wesley Winans.Touchdown! (NY & London: Longmans,Green and Co., 1927).Tannler, Albert M. "The Creation of CharlesHitchcock Hall 1900-1902," The University ofChicago Library Society Bulletin, Fall 1975,pp. 22-30.Tannler, Albert M. One In Spirit. Chicago: University of Chicago Library, 1973."The University to Build Shops," UniversityRecord [New Series] 17 (April 1931), pp. 116-117.79Veith, Ilza and McLean, Franklin C. Medicine atthe University of Chicago, 1927-1952. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1952.Wright, Frank Lloyd. "The Art and Craft of theMachine" (an address at Hull House, 1903), inEighty Years at Hull House, ed. Allen F. Davis and Mary Lynn McCree. Chicago: QuadrangleBooks, 1969, pp. 85-88.Zimmerman, Herbert P. "The AdministrationBuilding — An Official Interpretation," University of Chicago Magazine 39 (January 1947), p.10.80THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingS m>¦asr*ma*0 dT I ofm £ c 333 P Tj;2 > ¦oi* a!~*0O Fr- 0>! i2 2 0 I¦^ O m¦* r- 0CO 3