The view from Mount Davis: Part 2

 This is part two of a two-part series; read part one.

Architect Francis Yan (left), Gavin Tu, and Chicago Booth’s Associate Dean for Global Outreach, Bill Kooser. SCMP

The physical conditions of the site are extreme because of the steep gradient. The non-physical conditions, I contend, are as extreme. Consider that the existing structures on the site are not merely historic as buildings; they played a vivid role in the bloody 1967 Leftist Riots. During the turmoil, the British government in Hong Kong used emergency powers to detain 52 key figures in leftist organizations at Mount Davis; the procedures used in detaining and imprisoning such individuals were undoubtedly an infringement of human rights.

We also cannot gloss over the fact that, as a practical matter, Hong Kong has confiscated public land for private use. To address this issue the architects must try very hard to protect, mimic, and even enhance the natural beauty of the site, while maintaining public access to its trails. Lastly, Hong Kong prides itself on its architectural identity. Bing Thom Architects must capture this architectural ethos as best as it can.

Bing Thom Architects was a smart choice for this project for two reasons. Already mentioned in our previous post is the Hong Kong ties of Bing Thom (the firm also has an office in Hong Kong and the lead architect on the project, Francis Yan, is a Hong Konger). Second, BTA has completed numerous projects in its home base of Vancouver, which like Hong Kong is a high-density coastal city with beautiful mountain scenery.

With the caveat that renderings can never be a substitute for seeing the real finished product, let’s take a look at how well the design as we see it now addresses the challenges of the site.

Bing Thom Architects

Bing Thom Architects

Chicago Booth

Chicago Booth

Chicago Booth

The steep gradient is met in a rather conventional way, stilts. While stilts are preferable to a solid foundation that would needlessly scar the greenery of the site, it is a pity that the firm did not find a more creative engineering solution. On the other hand, the architects try to compensate by making stilts into something of a motif–and it is used to great effect on the ground-level floor.

Providing an open space underneath the middle section of the upper level, which is supported by diminutive stilts, helps solve two problems at once. It allows the two historic buildings to be left practically untouched, and able to be looked at and experienced as individual buildings by visitors and the public. As claimed in Booth’s application to the Town Planning Board, the main building “float[s] atop the existing heritage structure.” The difficult history of these buildings calls for such a deferential treatment. The open arcade in the middle of the building, along with the wide entrance that features the kind of fountain typical of public squares, also serves to welcome the public into the complex and allows the public to access the landscaped terrace below and the trails beyond without having to enter the school itself.

Ultimately, the historic site is far more accessible than it ever has been–a fact that critics of the project have overlooked. While the decrepit site was apparently open to film crews (Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution shot a scene at the former detention center), it was closed to almost everyone else. The buildings will of course be restored as part of their adaptive reuse–and for the first time since their infamous use decades ago these buildings will actually have a function, and though a private function, a deserving one: education.

Booth has even proposed a small museum exhibit to educate the public about the former detention center, though I cannot tell from the floor plans exactly what space is designated for this purpose. It supposedly will be in a “former interrogation room.”

The design also shows a concerted effort by BTA to minimize the visual impact of the building. At 52,000 square feet, the building is as small as it could reasonably be. It utilizes a green roof (by now, very common for new constructions) to mimic the lushness of the site and of course to make the building more sustainable. Most of all, it attempts to make itself seem smaller by closely hugging the mountain and taking an undulating, naturalistic (BTA says “sensuous”) ribbon form that closely matches the curves of the mountainside which no doubt inspired it. The exterior material of the building is light and mostly glass; its blueness provides a nice harmony with the color of the sea. Various landscaping features attempt to enhance the natural beauty–most successful is a circular bench and terrace made from stone (see below); the shrubs and other plantings in and around this area will, I hope, become partially overgrown and seem to be part of nature.

The design itself is attractive but not mind-blowing. Perhaps that is a good thing. Hong Kong architecture is characterized by being boldly contemporary and, at its best, highly visually engaging. The design is both of those things, and so it is certainly appropriate for Hong Kong. Hong Kong is also defined by the marriage of old and new. By skillfully weaving historic buildings into a modern ensemble, BTA’s design embodies Hong Kong architecture. Primarily, however, the design is an intelligent response to the challenges of the site. The architecture is eye-catching, but overall it treads carefully–with good reason.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Like other buildings in Hong Kong, the entrance floor is the middle level. This configuration is a happy one, for it means that students and faculty will be forced to constantly pass through the “public sphere” of the building–which, with its impressive views, is also a kind of “sky lobby.” The floor plans seen above give an idea of how BTA may have created the design around programmatic needs: these space dictates, then, are another reason in addition to the shape of the mountain for the contours of the building, since the architects wanted to keep it as small as they could while meeting the client’s needs.

Just one thing truly irritates me about the design. On the roof, a semi-translucent fence obscures mechanical equipment. This trick is age-old, and very uncreative. However, I suspect that this design choice was made because the architects wanted to keep the building’s visual height (the height excluding the fence) as low as possible.

(N.B.: Booth’s current Hong Kong campus is located in a custom-designed space at Hong Kong’s Cyberport that opened for students in August of 2014, and will move to the new site when the new building is completed.)

Two renovation projects underway

Two renovation projects to historic, former residential houses on the east side of campus are underway.

First, the Human Development building at 5730 S. Woodlawn Avenue will get a rear addition and ADA accessibility. Human Development will leave, presumably, as it will become the new home of the Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences (MAPSS) and the Committee on International Relations (CIR) graduate program. CIR and MAPSS are both located in Pick Hall, which is getting quite cramped. Pick houses the Political Science Department as well as programs like the Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

Below, a rendering by McGuire Igleski & Associates, who will be completing the adaptive reuse project (HSR Associates is overseeing the project), and a screenshot of map imagery of the work as of October:

McGuire Igleski & Associates, Inc.

Nearmap

The newly renovated and expanded facility will “provide the programs with reception and lounge spaces as well as offices and meeting rooms,” according to the architects.

According to this somewhat sketchy site, the budget is about $1 million. It is not clear when it will be completed, but probably by December of 2016.

The project is somewhat more difficult that it would appear because of a tension between accessibility and preservation–a dilemma that the ADA created for almost every old institutional building seeking renovation. The preservation issue comes up because the University voluntarily granted preservation easements to front facades of buildings on this corridor of Woodlawn to Landmarks Illinois as part of a deal struck with the community called Institutional Planned Development 43 (PD43). This agreement came about after the University bought what is now Saieh Hall for Economics; the community was alarmed because they believed, probably correctly, that the University wanted to tear down some of the historic houses to build a new addition to Saieh. Ultimately, the University preserved those houses and connected them to the large new-construction Saieh annex in the rear, a solution that cost more money but ended up being better architecture (a wonderful if rare example of Hyde Park NIMBYism working out well for all parties).

As reported by the Hyde Park Herald, required public meeting were held for the 5730 S. Woodlawn project and the University obtained the permission of Landmarks Illinois to lower the front entrance (while raising the grade of the front yard) to make the building’s front door handicap accessible without the University’s needing to build a ramp. Lowering the door and the floor just past the door on the inside is a tricky thing to do, especially because of a mosaic that the University intends to keep. Mosaics are obviously not easy things to move.

According to a Facilities survey, the 5730 S. Woodlawn building was built in 1896 by Harvey L. Paige. It was originally an apartment occupied by University professors Frank Tarbell, Ernst Freund, and Joseph Iddings. The University purchased it in 1952.

The second renovation project is at the former Student Counseling building, 5737 S. University Avenue, which will open in Spring 2017 as the new home of the Stevanovich Institute on the Formation of Knowledge (SIFK). Student Counseling already moved in 2014 to Alumni House. SIFK, announced in April 2015, is an ambitious effort to “bring together scholars from many fields to examine the historical, social and intellectual circumstances that give rise to different kinds of knowledge, and to assess how this knowledge shapes the modern world.” It was named in recognition of a $10 million donation from trustee Steve G. Stevanovich (for whom the Stevanovich Center for Financial Mathematics, just three houses up the street, is also named).

No renderings yet for the renovation project, though the architect has been chosen: Kansas City-based BNIM, a large firm that touts its focus on sustainability. BNIM was the architect of record on Steven Holl’s Bloch Building at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art and Moshe Safdie’s remarkable Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts. The renovation project should cost around $1 million as well.

According to Facilities, the house was built in 1897 by Howard Van Doren Shaw, and was originally the George E. Vincent residence. It was purchased by the University in 1965.

There is a risk with this second project of losing a beautiful arts-and-crafts living room. It would be sad if the architects demolish it.

UChicago

UChicago

The view from Mount Davis: Part 1

Writer’s note: Construction of Chicago Booth’s Hong Kong campus is planned to begin this summer. In this post, part one of a two-part series examining these plans and how they came to be, we will do things a little differently. Although the news is old, because it is one of the most interesting chapters in University of Chicago history and is also a fascinating business story we are giving this series a more indulgent writing style than that of our usual posts and approaching it from the business and real estate angle in addition to the architectural one. Apologies for the delay and length but this story deserves it.

Mount Davis (Wikipedia)

The former detention facility, once a British officers’ club (SCMP)

The site hugs the western slope of Mount Davis. Located on the seaward side of the road, it is an almost vertical drop to the turquoise water. Standing on the site, you consider that it would be a perfect location for a resort, if this subtropical island were merely that–but the spectacular view you see happens to be the same wide channel that, to the northeast, adjoins fireworks-and-neon-skyscraper-framed Victoria Harbor. For this island paradise is Hong Kong Island, the most prized territory of Hong Kong SAR, and for over sixty years and under two different nations, one of the world’s great financial centers.

You can’t build your resort here either, even if you were willing to pay full price–probably in the hundreds of millions–for the land. This land has long been protected, government land. Today it provides public trails beloved by Hong Kong residents. To make matters worse for you, it is an annoyingly historic site. The grade-III listed structure was on old artillery battery, converted by the British after the war into an officers’ club and later used as a detention center for political prisoners.

But someone is building here: The University of Chicago. It seems more than a little odd that a midwestern university, rather than the Hong Kong government, or the Communist Party of China, or even Hong Kong University, should be the ones to repurpose the site and build a $50 million structure on it. But the reasons may have as much to do with Asia’s past as its future.

Chicago Booth’s former Asian headquarters for its Executive MBA program was Singapore–in the historic House of Tan Yeok Nee, a 19th century house built for a Chinese merchant that is now a national monument.  And while it may surprise Americans to learn that Hong Kong officials wanted to lure the world-class business school to their city so badly that they are leasing government-owned oceanfront land on prestigious Mount Davis in one of the most expensive cities in the world to Booth for a nominal HK$1000 (about $127) for a ten-year lease, we must remember that for decades Singapore has been a fierce competitor of Hong Kong. Along with South Korea and Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong were two of the “Four Asian Tigers” in the latter half of the 20th century competing for foreign investment. The decision to court Chicago Booth so aggressively partly reflects this old rivalry and partly reflects the little-known fact that Hong Kong has lagged behind Singapore in significant ways, despite being the undisputed leader in the finance and securities industry (Singapore is somewhat less dependent on the financial services industry; a quarter of its economy is industrial). Singapore surpassed Hong Kong in GDP per capita in 2003, it ranks higher in competitiveness, and has grown faster in recent years.

Dr Andy Kwan Cheuk-chiu, director of the Hong Kong-based ACE Centre for Business and Economic Research, told the South China Morning post that “Singapore’s government is more far-sighted than Hong Kong’s in economic planning.” And Hong Kong’s sky-high property prices have greatly increased businesses’ costs, to Singapore’s advantage. “Hong Kong also lags behind Singapore in areas like education and innovation,” Kwan said. Indeed, Hong Kong clearly expects Booth to provide network effects that will boost Hong Kong’s market position in education. “The establishment of a campus of Chicago Booth in Hong Kong will enhance the city’s position as a regional education hub,” Secretary for Education Eddie Ng Hak-kim said in a statement announcing the deal with Booth, as reported by Bloomberg. And having a top business school is seen as an advantage for any city hoping to lure talent and drive innovation.

Singapore’s reaction to the news was also framed in terms of regional competition for talent and good schools. A Singaporean member of parliament, Inderjit Singh, who sits on the parliamentary committee for education, told local newspapers that Chicago Booth’s departure was a “pity,” especially because of Singapore’s hard-won reputation as a higher education hub in the region (according to University World News). He was quote as saying, “I think this will definitely be a dent in our efforts to attract good schools here, and to transform us into an attractive city for talent, especially those from Asia.”

Partly perhaps as a consolation to Singapore and Chicago Booth’s alumni community there, the University of Chicago will retain a small footprint in Singapore that includes a financial mathematics program.

To us, of course, it would seem that the decision to move to Hong Kong was an obvious one, given Hong Kong’s superior status as a financial center and a gateway to the world’s second largest (or largest, depending on who you ask) economy. But the EMBA program in Singapore attracted students from mainland China, too–so it was not strictly necessary for Booth to relocate. Chicago Booth’s longstanding prestige, which has been strengthened by the improved reputation of the University’s undergraduate program, allowed the University to negotiate more effectively. The University of Chicago has more name recognition today in Asia than it does in many parts of the US.

Enough emphasis has been given to the University’s immense good fortune in securing arguably the best possible site in all of Asia for its branch location that we can close with discussing the difficulties the site poses. The first problem, already mentioned, is the historic nature of the site. How can the University build around the historic structures and preserve them? The second is the steep gradient of the site, a familiar issue in Hong Kong. The third is that the land is a public good. Not only will the University have a contractual obligation to maintain public access to the system of foot trails, it will also have a public relations imperative to build a new structure will be seen by Hong Kongers as an architectural enhancement to Mount Davis and as an authentically Hong Kong building. The University went a long way towards meeting the latter requirement with its choice of architect: Bing Thom Architects. The firm’s founder Bing Thom–famous for his contributions to his hometown of Vancouver–was born in Hong Kong. (Immigrants from Hong Kong have a huge presence in the Canadian city.) And the lead architect for the project is a Hong Kong citizen, Francis Yan Mang-yan, of the firm’s Hong Kong office.

This is part one of a two-part series; part two will discuss how the architects are responding to the challenges of the site and offer a preliminary critique of the renderings. 

The Campus Review is on Instagram: @thecampusreview

Follow for exclusive photos of the University of Chicago campus. As always, the focus will be on the architecture. For stunning pics of the historic campus and other images sans architectural commentary, @uchicago @uchicagocollege and @uchicagoadmissions are all great follows.

Steve Wiesenthal leaving

Gensler

University Architect Steve Wiesenthal, who came to Chicago in 2008 from the University of California San Francisco (via the University of Pennsylvania Health System and Venturi Scott Brown & Associates), will be departing at the end of this month. The University is conducting a search for his replacement.

He will be sorely missed. While I did not laud all of his decisions, I noted in this blog that he was largely doing an excellent job. As a planner, he was dedicated to enriching campus life by enhancing the pedestrian experience of campus through projects like the 58th Street pedestrian paths, the Midway crossings, demolishing the old Post Office building, and carving out a portal from the Admin Building. As an architect, he made it clear that the University’s new architecture would not be conservative in style (as perhaps some would have hoped), embracing emphatically modern architecture over historicism. At the same time, he demonstrated a sensitivity to the University and neighborhood’s historic buildings as well as the concerns of the non-University community. The best projects of his term encapsulate these broad objectives: Mansueto Library, Saieh Hall, the Logan Center, and Gordon Parks Arts Hall (and the various landscape and quadrangles projects).

He also was part of the team that took on the ambitious 53rd Street revitalization project, possibly inspired by Penn’s very successful efforts at improving its West Philadelphia neighborhood. While I have largely stayed quiet about 53rd Street developments because this blog is not about commercial real estate, I am very much in favor of them.

The one time I heard him speak, he told a story from his very first day on the job. A trustee called him and barked, “Your job is to keep another Legoretta disaster from happening!” (referring to the Mexican-pomo trainwreck that is Max Palevsky Commons.) In this narrow but critical task he was successful. During a time of massive spending on campus infrastructure, it was no small feat to ensure that no large eyesores were built. His greatest achievement, however, was administrative. He was the first University Architect to be given–probably due to his advocacy–a bigger role in high-level administrative decision-making. His chief legacy, thus, is a greater emphasis on architecture and an acknowledgement of its importance within University leadership. 

Regenstein Library A-level renovation underway

Yesterday someone posted the above photo on UChicago’s infamous “Overheard” Facebook group.

What it shows is the Phase 1 work of the “A-level” (the upper basement floor of the Regenstein Library) renovation project, which installed a glass curtain wall. (There were previously  to the “A-level,” the upper basement floor of the Regenstein Library. The project was previously reported on by the Maroon and announced by the school’s Library News site:

Plans for the reconceived A Level feature a new 72-foot glass wall that will provide a view of the Jean Block Garden and bring daylight deep inside the room. A broad open area at the center of the floor will allow groups to gather around movable whiteboards, and a 36-person digital classroom for active learning will be available for library workshops and spontaneous use by students. The central zone will be lined with a variety of collaborative spaces, including a high work bar, conference tables, and lounge chairs, as well as café tables along the large glass wall. Video monitors will be available, and an easy-to-operate “one button” video production studio will enable students to create video essays and rehearse presentations. On the east side of the floor, a technology zone will include studio space for creating web tutorials, producing webinars, and delivering online instruction.

Work on the A Level is occurring in three phases, as funding becomes available…. The second phase, beginning in 2016, will focus on the center open area and collaborative spaces on three sides. The third and final phase, focusing on the active learning classroom and the east side of the central zone, is likely to be completed in fiscal year 2017.

The firm responsible is Woodhouse Tinucci Architects. They recently completed Booth 455, the business school’s beautiful new space on the ground floor of NBC Tower across from the Gleacher Center. They also participated in the appalling renovation of Eckhart Library (it’s not ugly, but it destroyed a gorgeous historic library), the Young Memorial Building renovation, and the stunning Bond Chapel restoration. Check out the amazing renderings.

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Woodhouse Tinucci Architects

Besides the glass wall, the courtyard/garden space and the wood panelling promise to make the new A-level a much more beautiful and desirable space to study. It will undoubtedly be very popular, and it’s nice to see that they’re not trying to gussy up the Regenstein’s modernist architecture (the ceiling will not be painted white, for example, like it was with the first floor renovation). Touches like the wood panelling are sort of 1960s and blend well with the Regenstein’s original look. The planned renovation–which will cost over $1 million–also takes into account the University’s changing needs: a room will be fitted out for recording MOOCs.

New renderings for Keller Center (Chicago Harris)

Recently I updated my article on the Keller Center project this with this image, noting the change from the previous preliminary renderings. Now more renderings of the same design have surfaced on the Harris School’s website and on the University’s campaign website. Here they are:

UChicago Image

UChicago Image

Any hope I had of 1960s interiors being left in tact is gone. The interior rendering shows a really uninteresting and indistinctive design that achieves only openness and sunlight, and hopefully the final product will be better. The exterior shot is stunning. On the whole, a similar plan to the first one we saw. The budget is about $50m according to Mortenson’s website.

The incredible transformation of West Campus

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This isn’t news since it’s been the case for over a year I think, but only five buildings are left between 56th Street and 57th and S. Drexel Ave and S. Cottage Ave. If they are not yet acquired by the University, they will eventually be acquired and demolished. It’s incredible to see the change from just a few years ago, when these blocks felt downright residential–even as the new hospital had been built.

Crain’s Chicago Business.

New LASR and call for preservation

facilities.uchicago.edu

The Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research (LASR) is being “renovated and expanded” but a more accurate way of describing the project is that the building will be altered almost beyond recognition. 

The new Perkins Eastman building that work will soon start on will serve as the home of the Enrico Fermi Institute (which recently moved out of LASR into the Eckhardt Center) and the Kadanoff Center for Theoretical Physics. 

The renderings actually show a pretty tasteful new building–but it is clearly a new building.The original building was apparently designed to support additional floors, but the real problems here the cantilevered addition and the obscuring of the original second floor, not the added height. While it looks like there might be limestone masonry, the design departs dramatically from the simple modernist design of the current building. It is admittedly better from a preservation perspective than tearing down the building would have been.

facilities.uchicago.edu

facilities.uchicago.edu

facilities.uchicago.edu

facilities.uchicago.edu

facilities.uchicago.edu

Obviously, the University knows best about its needs and it’s believable that the University has outgrown the low-rise science buildings from the 1950s and 60s–LASR, High Energy Physics, and the Accelerator Building. However, I would argue that there is a preservation argument for saving these buildings. Architecture that now seems old but not old *enough* to be worth preserving may, in less than fifty years time, be considered in a similar light to how we view the prewar buildings on campus now.

LASR is a beautiful 1965 symmetrical building by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, but I can live with the changes being made to it. But what about its neighbors, High Energy Physics and the Accelerator Building? (See below). Like LASR, the High Energy Physics building reflects its (then) high-tech nature with striking architecture. It has very interesting windows and is structured as a limestone block placed a smaller glass cube. And like LASR, it is a nicely scaled structure that adds needed limestone and campus feel to a small city of glass towers. The Accelerator Building is a much less likable building but it performs a similar function, in spite of a 1991 addition to the second floor that made the building uglier than it originally was. It also is an important marker in the architectural history on campus as one of only three standing postwar pre-1960 buildings built in a modern style (the other two are the 1949 Administration Building and the 1954 1155 E. 60th Street building; some other buildings completed in this period on the hospital campus continued in the neo-Gothic style). And it has aged well and is covered in ivy, something that would be unimaginable on a 21st century science building.

Jack Mitchell/The Campus Review

Jack Mitchell/The Campus Review

photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu

photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu

photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu

An old memo and an old master plan indicates the University’s plans to raze Accelerator and High Energy Physics for the Eckhardt Center, which obviously did not happen. But they are probably next up on the sciences list after the LASR project.

Accelerator Building (Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, 1951)–note the second-floor addition:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

High Energy Physics building (Hausner & Macsai, 1967):

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Facilities department surveyed both buildings in 201. Interestingly, the survey lists the date of Accelerator as 1949, not 1951–I am not sure which is correct. These surveys (HEP here, Accelerator here) are interesting reads and objective enough but in the case of the Accelerator Building the survey unfortunately provides justification for a demolition or significant alteration (a la LASR):

“The historic integrity of the original design has been compromised by later modifications such as original window openings having been filled in with masonry; aluminum-framed glazed entrance vestibules that have been added on the west facade; and the addition of louvers and other mechanical devices at windows and other masonry openings.”

Most alarming of all is the indication on the old master plan (see above) that the Kovler Viral Oncology Labs is a potential development site. This jewel-box 1977 building by the late Jack Durkee Train (a founder of the firm Valerio Dewalt Train Associates–who designed Lab School’s Earl Shapiro Hall and Gordon Parks Arts Hall) is unlike any other campus building but its limestone facade and sunken windows borrow from the campus Gothic. The way it plays with light and shadow recalls some of the best of 1970s architecture, such as Marcel Breuer’s Whitney Museum. And while it may no longer be a useful laboratory, it could be repurposed as a medical library, for example. We shouldn’t pay too much attention to old master plans, of course, especially since the one above has been departed from several times already (it didn’t plan for a new hospital, demolishing Pierce, etc.). 

Jack Mitchell/The Campus Review

Jack Mitchell/The Campus Review

Eckhardt Research Center is open!

Updated 12/1/15 with information about the cafe.

Updated 12/21/15 with information about the landscape architects.

—-

UChicago image

The William Eckhardt Research Center, announced in 2010, has opened on schedule. The building was designed by HOK and lighting master Jamie Carpenter (who did the “Light Bridges” pedestrian crossings over the Midway, and is noted for the lobby of 7 WTC in New York). Perhaps the most significant aspect to the building, in terms of overall campus planning, is the phenomenal northward extension of the so-called “Science Quad” (previously just the “Crerar Quad”). A full third of the North Sciences Quadrangle is paved–which is more than I would like and means less lawn for students to relax or sunbathe on–but nonetheless the new quad enriches the campus and makes the west side of S. Ellis Avenue, the location of the medical campus and most science buildings, feel much more, well, campus-y–which in turn integrates it better with the main quadrangle system extending south of the Regenstein Library to 59th Street. Improved integration of sciences with humanities/social sciences in the built environment translates, it is hoped, to an improvement in the lives of science students and in the stature of the sciences at Chicago. The design firm behind the North Sciences Quad is Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates (MVVA), arguably the most successful landscape architecture firm in the country.

The quad has a lot of large limestone blocks. An article on the Facilities website helpfully explains this design choice: “[C]ampus landscape designers desired to give the landscape some weight of its own, lest the buildings dominate the experience of being in the quad.” The blocks’ “scale – both as individual stones and as a long seam of stones running throughout the site – puts the landscape on equal footing with the surrounding buildings.” It is a clever solution to the problem posed by having such a tall and massive ensemble of buildings (especially Eckhardt).

The construction of the quad is an engineering feat, since a great deal of it is actually on top of the Eckhardt’s two basement levels. The design also has a sustainability component: an underground storm water retention system will be used for irrigation. These photos from the Facilities website plus a screenshot from a mapping website show a bit of what went into this effort:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Another way in which the architects and the University’s planners tried to deal with the problem posed by such a imposing cluster of buildings was in the design of Eckhardt itself. The two below-grade floors I mentioned, which are very large and deep, are important because without so much below-ground space the building would had to have been even taller. Furthermore, the building’s reflective glass creates a sense of being open to the broader campus, especially on the east side of the building which is emphatically mirror-like, a tableau for displaying the neo-Gothic limestone buildings back at the viewer. The exterior of the first floor of the building facing Ellis and 57th Street also has modest concrete strips which harmonize with the surrounding limestone, and help to foster a more human scale. The building’s glassiness is site-specific for another reason, too. It deliberately parallels and enhances the effect of the Joe Mansueto Library. These two glass buildings come together with Walter Netsch’s highly abstracted Brutalist-Gothic Regenstein Library and Henry Moore’s monumental “Nuclear Energy” to form a strikingly severe, yet beautiful, stretch of campus that feels like an essay on materiality. To look at this corridor is to reflect on the the meaning of glass, limestone, and weight itself. The Modernist and sleek contemporary glass designs put together feel more futuristic than the 21st-century buildings would by themselves (as the directors of Divergent noticed). But it is not a naive futurism; it is a seeming promise to approach the future confidently and expectantly–but not forgetting the grimness of human endeavor, and the power imperfectly wielded by the American university.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The interior the building is of course fairly bland and corporate, as would be expected in a modern, highly functional science building. But here too care is taken to “open” the building to the rest of the campus by taking advantage of the exterior glass walls, as you can see in some of the photos below. A cafe promises to be a popular student hangout (especially in the colder months, when the quad is not so inviting).

Lastly, the building obviously is very high-tech. I don’t really know or understand much about the technology and equipment that students and researchers will be using, but this video explains some of it. Clearly, having the best facilities and equipment is necessary for a school’s science program to be considered top-rate. The $215 million price tag of the building reflects the expensive science equipment needed for the University to be a destination in physics (and molecular engineering!); it’s an important investment, and the only real downside was increasing the University’s debt load. The 1940s limestone monolith which Eckhardt replaced was undistinguished.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.