Some Fields Are in the City
March 28, 2005
The
field, something rawer, earthier, more fertile has its place in
The
Latin word for field is campus. There
are many campi in
At
the time he was appointed lead architect for
Netsch
was born on
Many of you know the UIC campus well, but I will remind
you that the path leading to the site at Harrison and Halsted was
circuitous. The Board of Trustees of the
University had talked of a
The
student enrollment at Navy Pier at full capacity was 4,600 students. The Navy
Pier campus had been established to serve returning servicemen taking advantage
of their GI Bill benefits, and it shared enrollments with a sister program in
The
University administration made projections about enrollment growth that, as
will happen with predictions, especially, those about the future, failed to be
realized. The chiefs in
The
extent of the project and the constraints of creating an instant campus led to
a phased program of construction. No cars
would be allowed on campus and most buildings would be limited to four floors
and basement. Netsch’s conceptually
integrated plan grouped buildings by function; classrooms with classrooms,
offices with offices, laboratories with laboratories. Facilities used by the campus community, the
library and the student center, stood separate, but they were linked to lecture
halls at the center of the campus by a system of elevated walkways, described
by the architect as pedestrian expressways.
This grouping of like with like also facilitated the phased
construction, where basic services were constructed first and more specialized
units followed. To illustrate the
placement of the buildings, Netsch employed the metaphor of a stone dropped in
a pond, with the most important buildings, such as the lecture halls, placed in
the center and other, less vital structures, lying in concentric circles as the
ripples moved outward. Netsch
acknowledges a debt to the centralized features of the Greek city-states at
Construction
was completed early in 1965, and last month the campus celebrated its 40th
anniversary. There were and remain three
primary entrances to the campus: from
From
From
Both
expressways converged on Circle Court [SLIDE 13 – circle court] an expanse of
granite and concrete that connected the library on the west [SLIDE14 – Circle
Court and Library] and the student center on the east [SLIDE 15 – Circle Court
& CCC]. In the center of Circle
Court was an open-air theater in the Greek style that served as a stairway from
Circle Court to ground level. [SLIDE 16
– Forum] Circle Court also functioned as
the roof for the ground level lecture halls.
Much of Netsch’s thinking about the campus was directed at promoting social interactions. “What happens between classes,” he said, “came to be regarded as being as important as what happens in classes.” This plan provided “the meeting-in-the-corridor on a grand scale.” In Circle Court he saw the concourse through which students in all areas of study would pass.
Above each lecture hall he designed four excedras in which and on which students could relax, study, and talk. [SLIDE 17 – Excedra] Three excedras were stepped and sheltered on the inside so that classes could be held in them. The fourth excedra was to be used for “girl watching.” The layout of concrete above each lecture hall reflected the geometry of the lecture halls that lay underneath. [SLIDE 18 – Excedra interior]
On the ground level, a thicket of columns supported the expressways. [SLIDE 19 – thicket of columns] Netsch once referred to these columns as “urban trees,”and certainly they gave a forest- rather than field-like appearance to those passing through them. Low-rise classroom buildings were connected to and branched off each expressway. [SLIDE 20 – Low-rise classroom] Clusters of these classroom buildings offered small courtyards for more socializing, and asphalt pavers nearby created terraces that were provided with folding chairs so that students could recreate the atmosphere of another great garden, the Bois de Boulogne.
An
acute observer visiting the campus might have been able to identify six
architectural principles that informed the campus layout.
Structural members were to be concrete and of
uniform strengths. Difference
in strengths were to be expressed in form. [SLIDE 21 – University Hall]
Materials were to be indestructible – concrete,
granite, and hard-surfaced brick, although textures varied from fine to course [SLIDE 22 –
Lecture Hall interior]
Each major building had its own scale, and its own
“structural-spatial module” suited to its internal needs [SLIDE 23 – lowrise
classroom])
Mechanical and lighting systems were exposed,
eliminating the need for dropped ceilings [SLIDE 24 – Library interior]
Windows were opaque enough to eliminate the need for
blinds, thereby permitting slide projection [SLIDE 25 – University Hall opaque
windows]
Proportions were to conform to the golden section
ratio in order to give consistency to the overall campus [SLIDE 26 – lowrise in
foreground, University Hall in background]]
These
principles underlay the first phase of campus construction. During that phase,
Netsch began to think very differently about his principles of design. The faculty was also thinking about what it
wanted, and by this time had made its preferences clear for buildings that
contained offices, laboratories, and classrooms, all under one roof.
All
this thinking spurred Netsch to develop the ‘field theory” that concerns us
tonight. Field theory was devised by
Netsch as an intellectual exercise, a way of escaping “the boredom of the box,”
of using complex geometries to create imaginative but organically integrated
spaces. He generated his “field” by
taking a square and then rotating that square 45 degrees, elaborating the
design with increasing complexity, growing “diagonally oriented squares or more
complicated star-shaped clusters, specifically avoiding the build-up of large
rectangular volumes or boxes with outthrusts—the almost universal way of
building architectural shapes.” [SLIDE
27, the A&A field] The field could
be generated by rotating the squares in different degrees, but at UIC field
theory buildings were based on the 45 degree rotation. By the time he was finished, he had designed
and built three field theory buildings for UIC.
Netsch’s
first field theory building was Architecture and Art. [SLIDE 28 - A&A exterior] Its floorplan
consists of a series of overlapping squares, organized around a central space
surrounded by mezzanines. [SLIDE 29 -
A&A floorplan in perspective] The floors are laid out in a continuum with
each sector 3 feet above (or below) its neighbor. [SLIDE 20 – A&A
ramp] In an acknowledgement of the most
important idea of the twentieth century, the decipherment of the structure of
DNA, Netsch conceived of a helical path connecting the interior spaces. [SLIDE 31 – helix layout] For those without the patience to move
through the helix, a great stair traverses all levels. [SLIDE 32 – A&A great stair]
Although the geometry is complex, the interior rooms are usually
orthogonal. [SLIDE 33 – A&A studio] A schematic outline of this complex
geometry as built has been placed near one of the building entrances, but I
suspect that no one tries to understand the reasoning that underlies the
design. [SLIDE 34 - A&A wall map] A building of such complex geometry requires
a lot a stairs [SLIDE 35, interior stairway], a feature not very friendly to
the disabled.
Architecture
and Art was controversial, and Netsch is understandably sensitive about
criticism of it. An impartial judgment
is difficult, because only 40% was completed.
According to one retired campus administrator, it was the “wrong 40%,”
holding departmental offices, an anticipated library, and studios. The classroom wings were to be added in the
future, a future that never came to be.
Netsch’s
second field theory building was the Behavioral Sciences Building, housing the
social sciences departments of anthropology, communications, criminal justice, political science,
psychology and sociology. [SLIDE 36 – BSB around 1965] The rotated square was again used, resulting
in another complex geometry. [SLIDE 37 –
BSB floorplan] Unlike Architecture and Art, this is a conventional four story
building. The classrooms are separated
from the offices and feature a repeating fan-shape motiv
that ranges
from small and intimate to huge. The
interior corridors of the office complex form a series of linked octagons.
[SLIDE 38 – wall map] Because there are
no windows that provide an external referent, someone unfamiliar with the
building can easily become disoriented by it. This wall diagram, part of a
series of directional signage and created at considerable expense, is one of
the most recent attempts to aid users of the building.
Note
that some offices are cantilevered out from the building perimeter. [SLIDE 39 –
BSB exterior] In the early years of the campus, junior faculty occupying these
offices were sometimes told that they were structurally unsound and likely to
shear off from the body of the building, but none ever suffered that fate.
Netsch’s third field theory building is Science-Engineering South, [SLIDE –40 – SES exterior] a building with two major wings, laboratories and offices in one, and lecture halls in the other, joined by central plaza. [SLIDE 41 – SES plaza] The laboratories are, for the most part, orthogonal in layout, virtually a requirement for wetlab equipment. Corridors ring the laboratories, and triangular-shaped offices stand next to the ring. [SLIDE 42 – SES floorplan in perspective] The lecture halls and classrooms follow the octagonal geometry that we saw earlier in the Behavioral Sciences Building, but these interior corridors lack the shared arms of the corridors in the Behavioral Sciences Building and bring the wandering visitor back to the point of entry.
Each
of these buildings has, at least somewhere, central stairwells that feature
galleries, clerestories and high ceilings. Architecture and Art has two fine
rotated-square skylights. [SLIDE 43 – A&A skylight] Science-Engineering
South has a soaring gallery, [SLIDE 44 – SES central gallery] and Behavioral
Sciences has open areas that now also serve as venues for student art [SLIDE 45
– BSB gallery ]
The last phase of campus construction saw other architects bringing their visions for academical buildings to the campus, but these buildings stand outside the core buildings conceived by Netsch. Harry Weese did the physical education building [SLIDE 46] as well as the building that is home to the colleges of education, performing arts, and social work. [SLIDE 47] These buildings were in more conventional and predictable styles, although they continued to employ brick and textured concrete.
In
the forty years since Circle Campus opened its doors, how has the University
tended these fields and what has happened to the grand plan for a campus that
was to bring students
together?
The
anticipated enrollments were never achieved.
The elevated walkways were deserted during the winter months and
impassable after winter storms. Snow
removal proved difficult. The concrete used in the construction of the stairs
leading to and from the expressways crumbled as a result of interaction with
the salts used to dissolve snow, and the heating elements embedded in the
concrete failed after a time. Netsch’s elaborate lighting system had given the
core campus a fairlyland appearance at night, but, perhaps because of concerns
about security, it was replaced with high intensity lamps on poles and
permitted eventually to fall into disrepair.
Although Netsch had provided for channels to be inserted in the gaps
between the granite slabs of the expressways that would carry off rainwater,
most students and faculty from that era remember how they dodged puddles and
dripping water as they passed underneath.
By
the early 70s the era of generous state support came to an end. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the
other half of the Architecture and Art helix remained uncompleted. [SLIDE 48 – A&A Unfinished facade] And now it can never be completed. The bare
walls where the projected wing was to be joined to its parent now face the
student residence commons, a series of low-rise dormitories filling the
northeast corner of the campus. [SLIDE 49 – Student Residence Commons]
Other
projected construction also didn’t come to pass. The third phase plan included two wings that were
to extend west from the library to Morgan St., but the only reminder of their
intended placement now are stucco panels at each end of the building [SLIDE 50
– West face of Library]
As
far as the expressways were concerned, enough was enough, and they began to be
pulled down in 1993 as part of a major campus remodeling initiative. [SLIDE 51, campus without expressway]
Netsch
has rightly observed that he cannot be faulted for the failure of the
university to provide adequate maintenance, but opinions about what the campus
should be have also changed, and the desire for green and openness and light
was evident whenever the community had the opportunity to express itself.
Those
in charge of the 1990’s remodeling conducted a series of charettes, group
sessions in which opinions of students on the campus environment were
recorded. Some of the remarks relating
to refurbishment of the student center have been preserved on one wall of the
second floor dining area. [SLIDE 52 –
Student center comments on wall]
Where
once were expressways, there is now a single grade level walk traversing campus
from north to south and following the route of the old expressways. Circle
Court is gone, and the forum has been replaced by a plaza in which earnest
environmentalists and savers of souls ask for a minute of a student’s
time. [SLIDE 53 - Plaza]
The excedra including the one designed for “girl watching” have been
replaced by low roofs that tip the hat ever so gently toward the rotated
square. [SLIDE 54 -
The
asphalt pavers on which folding chairs evoked the Bois have been replaced by
small quadrangles and hills upon which students lounge, strum guitars, and talk
seemingly endlessly on their cell phones.
A glass enclosed shop serving Intelligentsia coffee has replaced the
wind-swept caverns of University Hall’s lower level [SLIDE 56 - University Hall
from the west] and faculty do exchange gossip as they carry their expressos and
lattes with a shot of hazlenut to their offices, just as Netsch hoped they
would do, although primarily with members of their own departments. The massive piers of University Hall express Netsch’s
principle that different strengths be expressed in form, although the concrete
requires patching in places where it has flaked off the building. The glass enclosed room of the projecting
coffee shop once marked the approach to a double-armed ramp that led to the
ground level.
The
student center terrace facing Halsted has been glassed in and is now an annex
to a food court and used for campus receptions. [SLIDE 57 –student center
enclosed terrace]
But
most of all there is, in temperate seasons, green, green
everywhere. [SLIDE 58 – Enclosed
garden] There are still no cars on campus, and the brick walls that evoked
taunts of “Fortress Illini” around the perimeter have come down, to be replaced
in many cases by iron fences. Here and
there are secluded garden spots.
There
has been an effort soften the hard surfaced brick and concrete and to make the
campus more comfortable for students by installing “oases,” foyers and open
areas now outfitted with comfy chairs and sofas. [SLIDE 59 – oasis]
The
great passageway through the Science Engineering Laboratories [SLIDE 60 -
approach to SEL from north] evokes even more the feeling of a Piranesi print
now that the expressway has been removed. [SLIDE 61 - SEL passage] An engineering research facility disturbs the
massive symmetry of the “city under a roof.”
[SLIDE 62 – Engineering Research Facility]
The
crystalline symmetry of Netsch’s field theory buildings and the use of concrete
and brick in their construction render them difficult to modify, and indeed
there have been almost no major modifications to them. In the Behavioral Sciences Building an open
area underneath the outside stairs has been glassed in to provide seating for a
new food court [SLIDE 63, BSB enclosed dining area], and large windows were
added to an area previously used for student dining to create a new
faculty-staff dining room. [SLIDE 64 –
BSB Dean’s Room]
The
asphalt pavers, octagonal in shape, form an octagonal patio, mirroring the
field inside.
These
are beautiful and unusual buildings, and they have their defenders as well as
their critics. But the control of space
that is readily apparent in the architectural drawings is less evident to those
working inside those buildings.
The
difficulty of working within the constraints of field theory has led to few
emulators among contemporary architects.
Faculty still complain about the physical separation of offices,
classrooms, and lecture centers, arguing that Netsch’s grand plan prevents
conversation between faculty and students instead of promoting it.
When
talk of accommodating students with disabilities was considered, it was assumed
that they would be enrolled at the Urbana-Champaign campus. During the refurbishment of the campus in the
90s, elevator extensions were added to the lowrise classrooms. A building like A&A, however, poses
distinct problems and a small lift has here been installed to raise the
disabled the three feet from one level to another. [SLIDE 65 – A&A lift]
The campus continues to expand. Although some of Netsch’s buildings remain
incomplete, construction will begin soon on a new advanced chemical research
building, and a student activities building is under construction across from
C. F. Murphy’s student center. A tax
incentive financing project has brought construction of new townhouses on
Halsted south of
So we may say this field, this campus in urbs, continues
to be productive, to grow, and to fulfill the vision that brought it into being
40 years ago. [SLIDE 67 – Enclosed garden showing
UIC
as we now call it awards doctorates in over fifty programs and numbers among
its graduates newscaster John Chancellor and governor
Jim Thompson. Discarding the agreement
that the campus would forego dormitories, the first campus dormitories were
constructed in the early 80s.
Construction has continued ever since, and the campus fills them as fast
as they are built.
Walter
Netsch was quoted as saying of the Circle Campus, “I hope this is the last
nineteenth-century campus we ever design.
Next time I hope to approach a campus as a single system, not a group of
objects.” Without our knowing how he would
approach a 21st century campus, we will surely agree that Netsch’s
original intent of promoting conversation, debate, and learning between
students and faculty are still goals worth pursuing, and, based on the record,
have to a satisfying degree been achieved.
Sources
An account of
the process leading to the selection of the Harrison-Halsted site is provided
in George Rosen’s Decision-making,
Chicago-style: the making of a
A collection of
essays dealing with the planning, design, and construction of the Air Force
Academy appears in Robert Bruegmann, ed., Modernism at
mid-century: the architecture of the
A review of the
phased plans for the Chicago Circle Campus can be found in “Campus City,
Chicago,” Architectural Forum, vol.
123, no. 2 (Sept. 1965) p. 21-45. An
update on the development of the campus appears as “Campus City Continued,” Architectural Forum, vol. 129, no. 5
(Dec. 1968) p. 28-43.
Essays and
photos of Netsch’s “field theory” buildings appear in Progressive Architecture, vol. 50 (Mar. 1969), p. 94-110.
Invaluable
content is provided by Walter Netsch himself through the Art Institute of Chicago’s “Chicago
Architects Oral History Project:
http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/netsch.html
Robert Allen
Daugherty’s “The University Library Building” p. 282-304, in Beverly P. Lynch, ed., The Academic library in transition (
The author of
tonight’s paper describes field theory in an earlier publication, “Academic
library planning: rationality,
imagination, and field theory in the work of Walter Netsch,” College & Research Libraries, vol.
51 (May 1990) p. 207-220.
A pictorial history
of the Circle Campus is contained in Fred W. Beuttler, Melving G. Holli, and
Robert V. Remini, The University of Illinois at Chicago:
a pictorial history (Charleston:
Arcadia, 2000)
The reference
to Frank Lloyd Wright’s characterization of SOM as “Skiddings, Owe More, and
Sterile” was taken from Robert A. M. Stern’s Pride of place: building the
American dream (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1986), p. 73.
Various
Photo Credits
Slides 2: ÓWilliam
Goodrich Jones, 2005
Slide 3: http://www.millennium- ark.net/index_images/USAFA.Chapel.6.jpg
Slide
4: James S. Parker
Collection, University
Library,
Slide
5: ÓGeorge Yanos, 2005
Slides 6-11: University
Archives,
Slide
12: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones, 2005
Slides 13-22: University
Archives,
Slides
23-24: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones, 2005
Slide 25: University
Archives,
Slide
26: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
Slide 27: Deutsche Bauzeitung, vol. 104, no. 1
(Jan. 1970), p.13
Slide
28: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
Slide 29: Deutsche Bauzeitung, vol. 104, no. 1
(Jan. 1970), p. 11
Slide
30: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
Slide 31: University
Archives,
Slides
32-25: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
Slide 36: University
Archives,
Slide
37: Deutsche Bauzeitung, vol. 104, no. 1 (Jan. 1970), p.27
Slide
38-41: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
Slide 42: Deutsche
Bauzeitung,vol.104, no. 1 (Jan. 1970), p. 23
Slides
43-67: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
William
Goodrich Jones
Rev.
March 24, 2005
Sources
added 9 May 2005