<p>Please someone tell me what the unifying themes are here, and how this remains true to the more architecturally uniform (and, to my eye, beautiful central quadrangle). </p>
<p>UChicago seems to be going for wonky architecture more befitting a technical institute (like MIT), than a traditional liberal arts/research university. The introduction of the new North dorm today was the last straw for me. I’m begging for something gothic after decades of these strange buildings. All of the above links make it seem as if aliens had landed in Hyde Park and decided to design a bunch of buildings.</p>
<p>I don’t care about architecture. Really, I don’t.</p>
<p>I don’t care about shiny. Really, I don’t.</p>
<p>And, to be honest, neither do students. The only people who care whether the dorms are “nice” are prospectives and parents, the kids who live there think more about whether they’re allowed to paint their rooms or smoke indoors and get away with it or have loud parties.</p>
<p>Instead, I care about buildings being useful for the purposes they serve. Seems like the new residence hall has adapted some of the best parts of “what works” for University culture, and I just cross my fingers that it’s built carefully. I remember the mad dash to put the final touches on South Campus for opening day; I have no idea whether that rush to the finish affects students now, but I had heard some stories.</p>
<p>Neogothic would be nice, but an 800-person neogothic dorm would be some kind of big joke.</p>
<p>Whats wrong with modern architecture? It works well, showing that Chicago has a foot in the classical and a foot in the modern.
Tradition is stupid. Uniformity is stupid. Harvard and Yale can build their fake Gothic buildings, while were having fun. You need to relax.</p>
<p>By the way, you keep saying this building is polarizing, but you seem to be the only one with a strong negative opinion. Most people have been either “eh” or “i really like it”.</p>
<p>I’ve also been periodically posting social media comments on the building (e.g. “It can’t possibly look worse than Pierce, but it looks like it’s trying.” and “Bring back the Gargoyles. This has no soul.”). I don’t appear to be the only one with strong opinions about this building.</p>
I don’t think Harvard has a single fake Gothic building, something I have always viewed as to its credit. Yale’s decision to build another fake Gothic building – its first since the 1930s – was itself pretty controversial, although to be fair in Yale’s case the last time it built new dorms they were hyper-modern and have been unpopular since the day they opened. I don’t know whether anyone complained about the design of Whitman College at Princeton.</p>
<p>For the most part, when universities build new buildings, they are contemporary, of the time of their design. That’s certainly what Harvard has always done. And Yale, too, for that matter, at least until now. Think Eero Saarinen’s Morse/Stiles, Gordon Bunshaft’s Beinecke Rare Book Library, Cesar Pelli’s Malone Center, Louis Kahn’s Mellon Center for British Art, Philip Johnson’s Kline Biology complex. And even the new colleges are true to the post-modern sensibilities of Robert Stern, their architect, who is both popular and critically respected, and also dean of Yale’s architecture school. </p>
<p>With the exception of Max Palevsky, which is a cheapo, functional piece of crap right smack in the middle of the campus, I think most of Chicago’s newer buildings are pretty successful. The Mansueto is stunning, and people really seem to love the Logan Arts Center and the Business School building, and even South Campus.</p>
<p>As I said in other posts, a mix of modern and creative styles into a school’s architectural plan is certainly a good trend. My issue though, is that in a very uniform manner for virtually any new construction, the UChicago model has been to go for a significantly highly acclaimed architect and to rely upon very modern design. From basically the 1970s forward (when neo-brutalist was in vogue), this seems to be the university’s approach.</p>
<p>Again, mixing it up a bit is fine. 4 decades of this consistent approach, however, has led to a campus that is a scattered hodgepodge of architectural styles. It’s as if no one considers how the overall campus may look after decades of sustained approaches to new buildings.</p>
<p>Here’s something Steve Wiesenthal, whose title includes “University Architect,” wrote recently. If nothing else, it’s his job to consider how the overall campus may look.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Today the University of Chicago is in the midst of a historic transformation. In the first two decades of the 21st century, the number of buildings that have been built or are under construction represent 40 percent as many buildings as were constructed during the entire prior history of the University. It is our challenge, responsibility, and aspiration to carry out this expansion in the service and spirit of the University’s education and research mission.</p>
<p>To make the most of this period of transformation, we have identified four design principles that are deeply tied to the University’s core values.</p>
<p>Foremost is the creation of buildings and spaces that promote the exchange of ideas.</p>
<p>We aim to design settings that encourage interaction among faculty, students, and others across disciplines and at multiple levels, from laboratory to ground-floor caf</p>
![https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regenstein_Library_entrance2.jpg[/url]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regenstein_Library_entrance2.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://devbio.uchicago.edu/contact/img/image1.gif[/url]](http://devbio.uchicago.edu/contact/img/image1.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/images/Daytime-reflection-7-26-09.jpg[/url]](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/images/Daytime-reflection-7-26-09.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Max-palevsky-commons.JPG[/url]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Max-palevsky-commons.JPG%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
