Challenging the Norm by mattiewarner1

Challenging the Norm Mattie Warner

table of contents

6 Philip Johnson: The Man in the Glass House

Brutal Ends: Opposite Sides of the Brutalist Movement

Ludwig Mies van der Roheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Impact on the Chicago Cityscape

Philip Johnson: The Man in the Glass House Shannon Saville

Philip Johnson

Challenging the Norm

In the first half of the twentieth century, after World War II, the development of modern architecture began to form. The new technologies of steel, glass, and reinforced concrete cre-ated inspiration for a new style of architecture, one that stepped away from the neoclassical style of the 19th century. As the rise of modern architecture began, it introduced the world to many great architects, such as, Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe. However, there is one architect in particular who paved the way for other modernist and post-modernist architects to follow: Philip Johnson. The American architect Philip Johnson is most known for his modernist and postmodernist architectural designs. Although he does not have an architectural empire, the buildings he has created have truly made a name for him in the archi-tectural world. In a field filled with solemn architects, a place where everything is so black and white, Philip Johnson decided to be the opposite. He was always described as the life of the party, constantly coming up with

“controversial mad scientist of his profession” new ideas that broke the boundaries of modern architecture and ap-proaching everything with a sense of humor (Johnson 1994, 8). His demeanor was relaxed but outspoken, the type of person who left critics questioning his actions; always pushing his work to the edge and thinking in experimental terms while working on a project. He was often referred to as the “controversial mad scientist of his profession” (Johnson 1994, 8). His work can be de-scribed as minimalist, modern, and a little bit deconstructive, Johnson always strove to create work with an “effect”. He wanted to construct buildings that left an imprint on the mind. In his field, Johnson was always ready to test the waters of a new idea, jumping into the deep end of some-thing that other architects would be wary of coming near. Though he played a big part in the his-tory of modern and postmodern architecture, Johnson did not believe he deserved to be one of the greats: “this sort of unassuming comment is typical of Johnson in conversation but is under-cut by his professional record. Johnson’s contributions have earned him many of architectures highest awards” (Johnson 1994, 8-11).

Challenging the Norm Philip Johnson was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1906. His father was a successful lawyer, so he was born in to a well-off family, the third of four children. Although Philip looked up to his father, it is said that Philip’s great success is to be credited to the creative and intellectual life of his mother, who was involved in the arts. As a young child, Philip and his family would take trips to Europe, where he was able to admire the beautiful architectural structures each city had to offer (Welch 2000, 1-3). While he was fascinated by the gothic structure of cathedrals at a young age, Philips first dream was to become a concert pianist. That dream was quickly pushed away when he decided to go to Harvard to study classics and philosophy. His interest in philos-ophy had an effect on Johnson’s personality. The influence of a philosophical embrace of posi-tivity and an acceptance of new ideas played a key role in the development of his views and concepts, which showed later on in his architectural designs (Johnson 1994, 11). During his last year at university, Johnson began taking regular trips to New York where he was having meet-ings with Henry-Russell Hitchcock, a fellow graduate of Harvard and art historian. The two de-veloped a close friendship and bonded over their shared intellect and knowledge of ancient and modern architecture (Welch 2000, 6). Johnson and Hitchcock traveled together through Europe, documenting and discussing this “new” architectural style they were beginning to see. While in Europe they came up with a name for this new architectural look, calling it the International Style. When they returned to the states, the pair wrote The International Style: Architecture since 1922, which helped introduce modern architecture to the American people (Welch 2000, 11). In 1932, upon his return to the United States, Johnson took the position of the first director of

Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock

modernist period the Department of Architecture and Design at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. While working at the Museum of Modern Art, Johnson was able to put together the very first exhibition on modern architecture, which fea-tured works from Frank Lloyd Wright, Raymond Hood, Mies van der Rohe, and Walter Gropius (Welch 2000, 13). Though he had big dreams for this new and exciting exhibition, it did not turn out to be the great success Johnson had hoped for. After a short period as architecture director, Johnson left the Museum of Modern Art to return to Harvard, where he would formally begin his architectural studies. In 1949, Philip Johnson entered what is formally known as his “modernist period”. In this time frame, 1949-1979, he designed many structures that would define his career as a success-ful architect. One of Johnson’s earlier works began with the design of the Rockefeller Guest House in 1950. Johnson was approached by the Rockefeller family and asked to design a small town house that would be used for their many guests. He took this as an opportunity to step out-side the bounds of the structural rules for a town house. The interior had an

“But this is a room, not a garden, it’s an urban room with definite doorways and processionals, and yet it’s easy enough to penetrate. If you’re not forced to move that way and this way you won’t see anything”

Challenging the Norm view of the garden

open floor plan, de-signed with steel and glass so there would be no visible barriers to block the view of the interior of the town house. The property contained a garden with a reflecting pool, settled in the middle of the house, as opposed to the traditional location at the back end of the house. The façade of the structure was unlike any surrounding buildings, it was symmetrical and two stories high. His goal in creating this town house was to take the modern look and establish a luxurious feel to it. Though the Rockefeller Town House is not one of Philip Johnsons major works, the influence of this style can be seen when compared to what was being built at the time; it served as a proto-type for more urbanized structures (Blake 1996, 43-45). Through his connections with the Museum of Modern Art, Philip Johnson was asked to redesign The Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Sculpture Garden at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in 1953. When the garden was originally built with the museum, it ended up being a rushed project and not much though was given to it. When asked to take on the project, Johnson was thrilled to conquer the task of designing an architectural landscape. The way he approached the garden was not took look at it as a garden, but as a series of rooms in which the sculptures can be displayed, divided by different elements (Blake 1994, 54). When asked to de-scribe his thought process on the design of the garden, Philip Johnson replied, “But this is a room, not a garden, it’s an urban room with definite doorways and processionals, and yet it’s easy enough to penetrate. If you’re not forced to move that way and this way you won’t see any-thing” (Johnson 1994, 67). Though it was a challenge to figure out a way to make the space work as a whole, Johnson decided to not necessarily design the space to fit the sculptures, but to let the

Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts interior

space act as a natural backdrop to highlight each sculptural piece displayed through-out the garden. He accomplished this by creating a stable environment, using neutral colors and linear elements, to compliment the abstract forms that would reside in the interchanging space (Blake 1996, 54). Once completed it became the premium modernist public garden of New York, with its mixture of architecture and landscape. In the early 1960s, Johnson was approached by Governor Rockefeller of New York to help design the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. This project was not solely carried out by him, but it was carried out by a group of prominent architects from around the city. However, some of Johnsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas did make it through to the final design, such as his Michelangelo in-spired plaza and fountain (Johnson 1994, 74). The final design consisted of two main spaces: the auditorium and the grand promenade. Though he was working with around seven other ar-chitects, all with different opinions, Johnson was able to push his plans through to an agreement. The interior was created to have a 1930s feel but done it in a modernist way. The auditorium was fitted with eighteenth century balconies, French stair cases, an open designed acoustical ceiling plated in gold leaf, and a central fixture that decorated the room with light (Johnson 1994, 74-81). The Lincoln Center for Performing Arts was finished in 1963, six months after President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed.

Challenging the Norm

One of Philip Johnsons greatest accomplishments is his Glass House, which he con-structed as a home for himself in New Canaan, Connecticut in 1949. This structure is said to be one of the most wellknown modern houses in the world, recognized by the many awards it has won (Blake 1996, 32). This building stands out from the other buildings constructed at this time because of its unique structure. Essentially, it is a glass box, hence the name, The Glass House. Constructed solely of glass and steel beams, this house has an open interior design. The concept behind the idea was that the viewer could see this space within a space without a natural barrier between the house and the surrounding scenery; creating a seamless transition into the landscape. Although there are no walls, the living space is a very traditional colonial structure, with a kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and dining area (“The Glass House” 2018). The inside living space is designed in a way that contrasts the outside, using furniture to define the difference between the living spaces: “The fixed furniture plan contrasts with the sur-rounding landscape, which is ever-changing through weather and season” (“The Glass House” 2018). In the beginning stages of the design process to build this house, Johnson did not al-ways have a clear vision of how he wanted this project to turn out. Johnson, referring to his many different sketches, once said, “I had a U-shaped house at one time, with a semi-court, the fourth side being the drop. Then I had an early sketch with Syrian arches. That always fasci-nates scholars. I didn’t realize that I was

plan for the glass house

“a pavilion that watches over nature…” interested in arcuated buildings that early” (Johnson 1994, 30). When the vision finally came together, he knew he wanted this building to be like none-other before. The idea for The Glass House came about because he didn’t want to have to change the landscape. All of his other sketches and ideas involved cutting down trees and cre-ating more space in the clearing to fit his designs. The Glass House allowed him to create that pure modern house he was looking for and have it easily flow into the land, making the two be-come one. Johnson once referred to the structure as a “…pavilion that watches over nature and looks at the stone walls and the trees. Trees are becoming the basic building material of the place. The framing of the view, the repoussoir. The accents are all done by trees” (Johnson 1994, 34). At the time, creating structures that were symmetrical was highly frowned upon, so be-ing the rule bender he was, he decided that was exactly what he was going to do; create a com-pletely symmetrical building to prove that it can still be modern (Blake 1996, 35). Mies van der Rohe had always been a big inspiration to Philip Johnson. In fact, The Glass House was greatly influenced by Mies’ Farnsworth House. Although it was greatly influenced by the work of Mies, Johnson wanted to make sure his design stuck out as his own, doing things Mies would never do. The way Johnson uses his materials to create such a striking home is something many ar-chitects can only dream to do. He chose to design his house using glass because it is a material that worked well with the surroundings: “The beauty within the glass house is not that it’s made of glass, but how it has the ability to frame the landscape around it. It also reflects Johnsons abilities to harness the unpredictable resources of nature and turn it into architectural play”

Challenging the Norm

exterior view of glass house

(Blake 1996, 38). This is not an easy task to tackle, using the nature he saw around him and creating an architectural landscape design is quite remarkable. Being able to come to terms with all the natural elements that would come into play and make them work within a design is the skill that really defines Johnson as the great architect he was. Although the title makes it seem like a singular building, The Glass House is actually part of a larger property Johnson owned. What started off as 5 acres of land, has grown into over 40 acres, due to the fact that over time, Johnson added numerous additions to the property. The Glass House is the main centerpieces of what critics have called â&#x20AC;&#x153;a living Museum of Mod-ern Architectureâ&#x20AC;? (Blake 1996, 32). Within this complex there are multiple galleries, sculptural tributes, pavilions, and studio buildings all with a significant meaning, and all created by Johnson. One of the most interesting buildings on the property is called The Brick House. Brick House was originally designed at the same time as The Glass House but was actually finished a few months before hand. The main function of the building is to house all the support systems to run both buildings, but what it really does is create a nice contrast between the two drastically dif-ferent buildings. While The Glass House is a very natural structure designed to float with the land and have the

exterior view wih glass house in background

transparency to see everything, The Brick House is the exact opposite, com-pletely composed of brick to hide away the interior systems. The two were originally conceived as a singular composition but Johnson ended up separating the them, placing Brick House a courtyard away to create a visual tension (“The Glass House” 2018). There are two galleries on the premises, a painting gallery and a sculpture gallery. The painting gallery was created to house a number of different paintings Philip Johnson had collect-ed from famous painters such as Frank Stella and Andy Warhol. Keeping with his naturalistic yet modern theme, he designed this gallery to be an underground museum. Like his Glass House, he wanted the gallery to become part of the landscape. The whole building is essentially a grass covered hill with the edge of a roof and a simple stone entrance (“The Glass House” 2018). The Sculpture Gallery on the other hand, takes a slightly different design approach. Still keeping the natural and modern feel, the sculpture gallery is designed after the Greek islands and their marvelous stairways. This building houses sculptures with a visual sequence, refer-ring back to the guidance of the stairways. The ceiling of the gallery is made out of glass, sup-ported by tubular steel rafters. Johnson designed the rooftop this way so that light could come into play and dance around the room, creating an interesting and complex pattern of shadows and light (“The Glass House” 2018). Usually known for creating more structural buildings, Johnson did have a few works around the property that

photo of painting gallery

Challenging the Norm

were more sculpturally based. One of these would be The Ghost House. Made out of chain-link and steel, this structure plays off of two architectural directions. Though its function was to protect the enclosed flower garden from roaming deer, its main purpose was to pay tribute to one of Johnsons closest friends, Frank Gehry (Blake 1996, 199). One of his other more sculptural pieces was the Monument to Lincoln Kirstein, which was also a tribute to a close friend. The structural shape of it was a jigsaw like tower that was created to evoke a sense of imbalance. Johnson described it as “a staircase to nowhere” and this structure was something he often climbed and encouraged visitors to do as well (“The Glass House” 2018). After his great success in his modernist period of architecture, Philip Johnson transi-tioned into his postmodernist architectural period, which only spanned about ten years, from around 1980-1990. Within this time period, Johnson, and partner John Burgee, began his work on the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California. This project in particular was quite excit-ing to him because it allowed him, as an architect, to be expressive through the ecclesiastical illustration of religion. The concept behind the design for the church was to create a building that would allow the sun to reach the congregation (Johnson 1994, 97). This church ended up being like no other church, because of its postmodern style and star shaped floor plan, from the exte-rior it is hard to tell that the building is even a church. Johnson recalled his experience designing the building: “It was a little hard to build, but Dr. Schuller (his client) rose to the occasion and said, ‘If you’ve got to give to God, don’t you think it should be expensive?’” (Johnson 1994, 98). The immaculate cathedral had an open exterior structure, constructed of over ten thousand glass panels and supported by steel trusses, allowing light to penetrate into the congregation. The exterior of the building reflects the crystal like feel along with the interior that, when illumi-nated, brings the ecclesiastical feeling; truly living up to its name. As the era of postmodern architecture was beginning, there was no prominent example of a building done in a truly post modernistic style. That is, until Philip Johnson’s 550 Madison Avenue, formerly known as the Sony building, which was also first known the

AT&T building, was constructed. 550 Madison Avenue is known as one of the few buildings besides The Glass House that really defined Johnsons career and made his name well known (Blake 1996, 193). Although it was not the first ever building to be constructed within the postmodern movement, it has become one of the biggest and most recognizable: “While cities around the globe were erecting bastardizations of the International Style office towers, Johnson and Burgee were finish-ing a granite clad, gold leafed, postmodern masterwork for AT&T. The practice of reviving histo-ry for use in a new movement had earlier emerged in the forms of smaller buildings but it took Johnson –never afraid of the marriage of art and commerce –to put it firmly on the map.” (John-son 1994, 8) This building was one of Johnson’s first structures that was very visually different from the work of Mies van der Rohe. Always adapting his style, Johnson made it a point to step away from the influence of Mies and try out a new architectural style, completely differing from all of his other Mies inspired works. What made it so different is the archaic style of the building. Most buildings of the time were made to look sleek, have been constructed out of glass, but Johnson refused to follow suit and proposed a stone structure in pink granite with a high arched entry way and a split pediment on top to resemble 18th century designs (Johnson 1994, 104). Critics of the time were

Philip Johnson

Challenging the Norm

“…art is the only thing I’ve been alive for.” not fond of this new style or the approach Johnson took, calling its ap-pearance “broken”. However, looking back, the approach Johnson took in creating 550 Madison Avenue “is now seen as the turning point in a movement that revived decorative programs of ex-pression and the art of building corporate symbols” (Johnson 1994, 8) and brought the word postmodernism back into the mainstream media. As Philip Johnson reached the later years in his life, he began to rely on partnerships with other architects and agencies, mostly overseeing projects and working less on works of his own. When asked if he would ever be finished designing buildings Johnson replied, “My body has slowed but not my mind, I will never retire” (Welch 2000). After living a long life, Philip John-son passed away in 2005 inside his home in New Canaan, Connecticut at age 98. In a way, he was right, he did never retire because his legacy lives on through his works, inspiring people every day to achieve their dreams and reach their goals. Johnson lived a life full of many achievements including the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 1979, the AIA Gold Medal in 1978, and the Twenty-Five Year Award in 1975 for his Glass House. His vision of becoming an architect played out well, considering he is one of the most influential names in modern and postmodern architecture: “Once I discovered architecture as a need of my nature, then that enthusiasm knew no bounds...art is the only thing I’ve been alive for. There’s no such thing as leisure time. If your work is architecture, you work all the time. You wake up in the middle of the night. ‘I’ve got a wonderful idea!’” (“Philip C. Johnson 2018). From his innovative and unique modern designs to his sleek and archaic postmodern designs, Philip Johnson made an impact on history. His ar-chitectural influence will live on through his works, but his memory will always remain within the glass house.

BRUTAL 26

Opposite Sides of the Brutalist Movement Andrew Merkel

AL ENDS Following World War II, the United States entered an era of unprecedented financial growth. Many took advantage of this opportunity to move to the suburbs and live out a happy, simple life and enjoy the now. Others chose to look toward the future. People saw the potential for exponential growth of cities and sought to accommodate it with buildings made with unapologetic shapes and materials. Structures both strikingly utilitarian and beautiful. This movement was led by a group of architects who saw a chance to push America to the forefront of modern architecture. Their style is known now as Brutalism.

“Brutalism is the collective name for the explosion of sculptural concrete architecture that spread across the globe like a grey fungus between the late 1950s and the late 1970s,” (Heathcote 2016). Brutalist architects exploited cheap, durable materials in order to rebuild Europe as well as to prepare America for the future. In post-World War II America, cities were growing rapidly, and new ones were popping up. People needed a way to accommodate for their growth while looking forward, and Brutalism presented itself as the solution. With the means and resources widely available, and architects chomping at the bit to create exciting structures, there was nothing stopping Brutalism from taking over America. So, it did.

To fully understand the American brutalist movement, we must start at the origin of Brutalism as a whole. In 1947, in the south of France, construction started on the building that would later become the cornerstone of this movement. The Swiss-born architect Le Corbusier had begun moving forward on his series of housing projects called Unité d’Habitation. Originally designed to be built from steel, but woefully underfunded, Unité was born from a combination of a lack of resources and an abundance of innovation. “Out of a superficially discouraging situation, Le Corbusier conjured concrete almost as a new material, exploiting its crudities, and those of the wooden formwork, to produce an architectural surface of a rug-

Challenging the Norm ged grandeur that seems to echo that of the brutalist movement was, why it was so popuwell-weathered Doric columns of temples in lar, and why it was often problematic. “The the Magna Graecia — it was not a question name Walter Netsch isn’t a household one, of ‘Architecture is that which makes magnif- but it should be,” (Paglia 2008). Walter A. icent ruins,’ the concrete work at Marseilles Netsch was an architect, native to Chicago, started as a magnificent ruin even before the known for his mathematic approach to arbuilding was completed,” (Banham 1968, chitecture. He was born into a wealthy fam16). The raw concrete exterior of Unité be- ily who encouraged him to pursue both art trayed the previous architectural conventions, and business. As a child, he enjoyed drawopting for rugged, intimidating surfaces in- ing patterns and constructing his own play stead of the more popular and inviting wood, spaces out of boxes his father brought home steel and glass. Corbusier simply called his from work. “From an early age, Walter was style “béton brut”, which translates to rough- fascinated by patterns and geometries found cast concrete. From these two words, the bru- in nature. His mother’s family owned a summer home on Lake Winnipesaukee in New talist movement was born. Hampshire, where Walter recalls collecting In America, a man named Walter Netsch leaves and rocks, watching shadows, and was on the forefront of the brutalist move- wanting to be an artist,” (Clement 2008, 27ment. His designs clearly illustrate what the 28). Eventually, Netsch’s interests developed

UNITE D’ HABITATION, BERLIN

24 into a passion for architecture, which he went on to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1937. Netsch spent his time in undergrad focusing on research and design while the rest of the world marched toward World War II. After Pearl Harbor, Walter, like many of his classmates, was drafted into the Army, where he served as an engineer (Clement 2008, 31). After the war, he was sent to Great Falls, Montana before being discharged in 1946. After returning to civilian life, Netsch moved back to Illinois, where he worked as part of a three-man architecture firm. He worked there for a year, learning how to run his own firm and gaining experience for supervising his own buildings. From there, he moved to the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, where he worked all over the country and began to make a name for himself. He was transferred to SOM’s San Francisco branch in 1951, where he got the job he would later describe as “his big career break,” (Clement 2008, 33). He was assigned to work on the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. When Netsch saw the plans for the barracks, he pitched his own design, which was eventually approved in place of the original. It was this project which eventually led him to win the commission for what is arguably his most famous work, the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “Netsch talked about the fierce competition to gain the AFA commission, with every major architect of the day vying for it. He sketched out the ideas of the other great mid-century modernists, referring to them

by their first names,” (Paglia 2008). Other architects in contention included Wallace K. Harrison, Phillip Johnson, and Marcel Breuer. More than three hundred firms in total were vying for the commission. Eventually, however, it was granted to SOM, to be led by Netsch. The site for the academy was more than seventeen thousand acres of wilderness, which Netsch and his team were to transform into a fully functional and visually remarkable training facility. Regarding the process, Netsch later said, “Every morning for a month, the Air Force gave me a helicopter, and I flew up and down every mesa, every valley. They spread out like fingers. Then I would drive over the land in a Jeep. And as the master plan developed, I walked every road,” (Clement 2008, 36). The crown jewel of the academy’s campus was the chapel. It combined Netsch’s childhood love of patterns with inspiration

AIRFORCE ACADEMY

from European cathedrals and his own cutting-edge tastes, forming in a grid of 17 tetrahedrons made from glass and steel that stretched over one hundred and fifty feet high. The result was a strikingly angular building that seemed to cut through the air around it. The design was polarizing to say the least. Reactions ranged from overwhelmingly positive to confusion and disgust. Eventually, the design was approved, with the aid of numerous notable architects coming to Netsch’s defense. The chapel was completed in 1963 and was the first building credited to Netsch individually. The completed chapel firmly established him on the cutting edge, but Netsch’s work on the rest of the campus should not be downplayed. “Certainly, the AFA Cadet Chapel is Netsch’s greatest claim to fame, and it anticipates the theatrical expressionism of a lot of recent architecture, such as the DAM’s Hamilton Building, by Daniel Libeskind. But Netsch oversaw the whole cam-

pus. One of the many subtle attributes of his design is the way he used curving roads so that approaching visitors could glimpse postcard views of the complex set against the backdrop of the mountains,” (Paglia 2008). The whole project showed Netsch’s talents and foresight, launching him into the next stage of his career, with his use of angular geometry and raw materials pointing toward the work he would do in the future. While he was still working at SOM, Netsch started his own independent design studio in Chicago. It was with his new firm that Netsch began to focus on campus architecture and fully embrace the brutalist style. Notably, Netsch lead the design for the Circle Campus of the University of Illinois in Chicago, starting in 1963. His team devised

DAM’S HAMILTON BUILDING

Challenging the Norm

CIRCLE CAMPUS

a system for the campus around a core that was based on a mathematical prediction of student traffic with common areas, with shorter classes being located near the center of campus and studio and lab spaces located nearer the edges. Netsch also jumped at the chance to incorporate high rise and low-rise buildings by implementing a dual level walkway system stemming from the campus core all the way out to parking lots and public transit, allowing to students to travel across campus quickly and avoid potential inclement weather. The whole campus was made of granite, brick, and pre-cast concrete, with the concrete being of uniform strength throughout (Netsch 2008, 105). Aesthetically and theoretically,

Netsch’s campus design strongly resembled the utopian society that the brutalists envisioned from the start, all the way down to trash cans designed to encourage their use. Unfortunately, Netsch’s plans worked much better on paper than in practice. Lack of visibility made Netsch’s walkways dangerous to navigate at night, especially in the middle of Chicago. “The deeply shadowed concrete walkways are the inevitable backdrops for urban murders,” (Heathcote 2016). Additionally, Netsch’s uniform geometric design made it easy to get lost inside buildings. Through the years, many of Netsch’s designs for the campus were changed, and eventually many were demolished.

WALTER NETSCH Netsch continued to work on college campuses around the world, responsible for the designs of more than a dozen libraries. In 1970, he started work on the Northwestern University Library. His concept for this library was that it serves as the heart of the campus, providing a repeatable system that could provide infinite expansion as the school continued to grow. This project was a landmark from many different perspectives. As a system, it showed that it could establish a repeatable yet flexible plan for an ever-growing campus. It showed how compartmentalizing problems in the design process can result in efficient use of space. It also proved itself to be an expressive design through use of simple materials, displaying brutalist principles as clearly as possible. In the end, Netsch’s Northwestern University Library was never systematically expanded the way he envisioned, but it still demonstrat-

ed the possibility and functionality of its concept. Finally, it is representative of Netsch’s style of architecture as a whole: “Ultimately, it is possible to see in Netsch just we want to see. His work is inconclusive and open, and it thus seems to leave room for our interpretation,” (Goodman 2008, 94). If Walter Netsch represented Brutalism’s strict adherence to systems and pattern, then on the other side of the same coin Marcel Breuer represents its ability to bend those rules. Born in 1902 Hungary, Breuer spent his early life pursuing a passion for art of all kinds. Growing up in Pecs, he had practiced sketching, painting and sculpture. His background with these media would eventually play largely into his more expressive interpretation of brutalist architecture. His family encouraged his study of the arts and helped educate him with art journals and exposure to earlier great artists. Despite the opportu-

Challenging the Norm

nities presented, Breuer felt trapped in his relatively provincial town and yearned for a more cultured city to practice in. At the age of eighteen, he moved to Vienna to study art formally at the Akademie der bildenden Kunst, only to be disappointed when it did not meet his lofty expectations. It was here, however, that Breuer first heard about the Bauhaus school in Weimar. Immediately feeling out of place in Vienna, Breuer took the opportunity to study elsewhere (Hyman 2001, 40). Although he planned to primarily study painting and sculpture, he already had a deep appreciation for the practical applications of art. It was in Weimar that Breuer decided that he would pursue functional design instead of traditional, purely aesthetic art. This appreciation was stoked into

a flame at the Bauhaus, where he studied craftsmanship in the carpentry workshop. He continued to study painting and showed a great talent for it, but eventually Breuer decided to focus on practical design instead, later remarking: â&#x20AC;&#x153;To be a painter you have to be a genius, or you are nothing. Take Picasso, for example. He processes everything into art. That takes enormous self-confidence and Picasso has plenty of that. I like to do something more normal,â&#x20AC;? (Hyman 2001, 45). Although he took this change of course to study carpentry and furniture design, this path inevitably led him to architecture, in no small part thanks to his contact with Walter Gropius. Gropius served as a mentor and friend for Breuer at the Bauhaus, eventually hiring him to help with private architectural commissions. These would become Breuerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first architectural attempts and mark a shift toward seriously pursuing architecture. He continued to hone his skills at the Bauhaus until 1928, when he left in order to work more independently and experiment with larger buildings. For the next several years, Breuer would move around Europe as a practicing architect before moving to the United States. In 1937, Breuer finally made the journey into America, where he taught at Harvard alongside his former mentor Gropius and continued to design buildings professionally. The two of them formed a professional part-

nership, working together and building off each other’s ideas over the next several years before eventually dissolving their successful firm in 1941. During this time the two had drifted apart in vision until Breuer felt that their partnership was “objectively and personally possible no longer,” (Hyman 2001, 108). By this time, Gropius had already passed the pinnacle of his career and was not pushing forward, while Breuer still had yet to prove himself and wanted keep progressing. After the two went separate ways, Breuer became free to push his designs into new directions, becoming more angular and rugged, and eventually aligning with the brutalist movement. In 1946, Breuer left his teaching job to move to New York and start a new firm. It was

here that he left behind his Bauhaus roots and established himself. He began designing houses with the robust geometric shapes and multipurposed rooms that he would later be known for but were primarily constructed of wood instead of the raw materials he would be known for later. These houses were designed with the intention of bringing modernist homes to working class Americans. Breuer’s houses definitely gained a lot of traction design-wise, but he ultimately failed to reach his target demographic. In particular, a house designed for a 1949 exhibition at the museum of modern art cost significantly more than the average American could afford: “At $27,475 (nearly $300,000 today) and intended for one acre of land, it was well beyond the reach not only of the average American but even of the middle-income family for which it purportedly was build,” (Hyman 2001, 127). The houses Breuer designed during this time were very influential and solidified him as a great modernist architect, while also serving as a stepping stone to the buildings he would create later on in his career. By the 1950’s, Breuer’s independent firm had exploded, and he was now working on

ST. JOHN’S ABBEY increasingly exciting concrete buildings. His change in materials seemed to be an obvious progression. The uniformity of raw concrete not only allowed for the simplicity that would focus the design of his buildings on their formal qualities but also solve the problems he had run into before with prohibitive costs. In 1954, Breuer began working on the Saint John’s Abbey Church in Collegeville, Minnesota. This building strongly exemplifies his exciting and decisive command of concrete forms. Breuer’s brand of Brutalism differed from the norm because he was not opposed to creating decorative, sculptural structures while still maintaining strong, geometric forms and raw materials. This is made explicitly clear in Saint John’s. In front of the main building stands an enormous bell banner, a 112-foot-tall tower standing on four legs with a 100-foot-wide flat plane jutting from the middle of it. Inside this massive sheet of concrete reside five brass bells. The design for this structure is so radical that Breuer himself was surprised that the church was so supportive of his ideas (Hyman 2001, 143). The primary building of St. John’s

Abbey is hardly a basic structure itself. Facing the bell banner is an enormous wall of honey combed stained-glass windows, which take in the light reflected from the enormous banner, providing the immense form with a function. The sides of the building are made up of a repeating pattern of sunken triangles that stretch from floor to ceiling. Inside, the pattern is mirrored with an oscillating triangular ceiling. The concrete extends even into a designated structure for the organ player. Breuer’s experience designing St. John’s Abbey led him to continue to work with the Catholic church in the future, notably on the Church of St. Francis de Sales in Muskegon, Michigan.

Breuer leaned fully into the brutalist style in extending floors above. He also tackled the the 1960’s. Reducing the amount of glass issue of privacy in a residential area by usused in buildings and expanding upon his al- ing windows sparingly but effectively. In the ready sculptural style. One notable example entirety of the building there are only seven of his work during this time is the Whitney windows, each of which point to a specifiMuseum of American Art in New York City. cally selected view which doesn’t impede With this building, Breuer sought to solve the on its neighbors. This building shows one issues involved in constructing a new build- of Breuer’s greatest, but least noticed traits: ing in an already tight urban area. From the his ability to design a structure that is both exterior, you can see that each ascending visually interesting and respectful to the area floor hangs further out into the air than the around it (Hyman 2001, 182-183). one before it, allowing the structure to house galleries larger than its first floor. This allows Throughout his later career, Breuer made the building to come right up to the street more and more public projects, especially without feeling crowded while simultane- museums and libraries. By the time he reously maximizing the amount of works that tired in the late 1970’s Breuer had essentially can be shown by expanding the floor space. standardized his library design to a simple Underneath the entrance is a basement level but effective box shape. The Atlanta Central courtyard, which retains unobstructed sun- Public Library, his final completed building, light due to the meticulous spacing of the stood in stark contrast with that trend. Like

Atlanta Central Public Library

Challenging the Norm

his Whitney Museum building, the Atlanta Central Public Library had to fit into a densely built urban area, and he solved that problem again by having the building jut out over the sidewalk, this time more extremely than before. This building from the outside looks like some sort of hyper-sized cubist sculpture, with several box shapes protruding in and out of one another. On the inside, the three primary levels of the building were connected by a massive set of concrete staircases that allow all three floors to be seen at once. This library, now considered one of Breuer’s best late career projects, serves as a perfect footnote to his career. Finished just a year before his death, the Atlanta Central Public Library showed that Breuer wasn’t content with reusing proven solutions to problems even at the end of his career. Brutalism as a whole was a wildly popular style during its hay-day, but ended rather abruptly when the economy started to decline in the 1970’s. Other than a few exceptions and stragglers, like Breuer’s Atlanta Central Public Library, the movement didn’t

live through the decade. “Brutalism’s demise in the late 1970s was sudden and complete, an extinction event like that of the dinosaurs. But there was no meteor, just a slow drip of bad press - a growing media and public resentment of ‘concrete monstrosities’, as well as the decline in the scope and spending of local authorities,” (Heathcote 2016). Once a revolutionary style praised by critics, Brutalism had become an eyesore to most, and people stopped approving brutalist designs. Where people once saw a vision for a better future, they now only saw a shadow of a more optimistic past. In almost every major city in the country, there are enormous, plain concrete buildings standing as a reminder of a fad that died out decades ago. That’s not, however, to say that the movement was a failure or a mistake. Architects like Breuer and Netsch are not forgotten or forsworn. In recent years there has been somewhat of a revival of the brutalist movement. People are beginning to appreciate the ideas that the brutalists were pushing towards, looking at the world through the same rose-tinted glasses that those before them wore. While it is still unlikely that the brutalist movement will ever be fully revitalized and popular as it once was, people are less opposed to its polarizing aesthetic as they once were, and we can look back at the era and appreciate what was left behind for us.

Ludwig Mies van der Roheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Impact on the Chicago Cityscape Mattie Warner

Challenging the Norm

Lake Shore Drive apartments from the shoreline

Born in Germany in 1886, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was a legend of his time. His years of work and design set the standards for the field of architecture and his designs were never lacking over the years of his career. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, known to his peers as “Mies”, left an everlasting impact on the Chicago cityscape with his use of contrasting materials, such as glass and steel, along with his exquisite eye for design. Mies recognized that architecture was always in a state of innovation and he welcomed these innovations with open arms, ready to help transform the built environment. In Mies’ own words, “Advancing technology provided the builder with new materials and more efficient methods which were often in glaring contrast to our traditional conception of architecture. I believed, nevertheless, that it would be possible to evolve an architecture with these means.” (Pridmore 2005, 137-144) These pieces of architecture that he made showed the world what the future of architecture could look like. Much like the majority of art from the past, it pushes the current artist to go beyond.

A known fact among architecture connoisseurs is that Mies was not a conventional architect. He did not use traditional design methods or traditional design material. Mies did not believe that architecture was a play on forms, he believed that architecture was developed from components. He believed that each piece was a different, yet imperative, element. Mies thought that if each element was not attached to one another, each element can be appreciated for its function and can be re-used in different buildings. Mies repeated many different techniques throughout his designs and integrated many of these individual elements into different buildings.

Challenging the Norm

Lake Shore Drive apartments

Mies was an intelligent man and had much to say throughout his career as an architect. One phrase that he coined is “less is more”. This phrase influenced almost everything Mies created. The glass and steel architecture that Mies was notorious for may be “minimalist” but always had substantial meaning and function behind it. Many American architects misunderstood Mies’ philosophy of simplicity. One of these architects was Frank Lloyd Wright. Mies’s relationship with Wright started with mutual respect. The two met when Mies was in Chicago making plans to move there permanently. Wright admired Mies and invited him to his home in Wisconsin, where each of them had the intentions it would be for just a few hours, but the visit turned into a few days. With the two of them having the typically enormous egos of architects, conflict was destined from the start. In 1946, the Museum of

Lake Shore Drive Apartments Modern Art, or MoMA, mounted one of Mies’s designs. Wright came in and immediately started pointing at his work, claiming that he was behind everything that Mies had done. Wright felt some amount of remorse after his outburst and wrote Mies a letter apologizing for what he had done. Mies acknowledged his letter saying that he would come back to visit, but never did. Mies became known for his phrase “build, don’t talk” after this incident. Frank Lloyd Wright took one last hit on Mies, relating his internationalism directly to communism. Wright stated that both movements must destroy in order to create. Mies did not give into Wright’s tantrum and remained unruffled. Another major influence on Mies’s work was early Catholic philosophy. The writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas were his main inspiration. Mies was far from religious but chose to explore religion for more enlightenment. Aquinas wrote that the spiritual world could be discerned by the observation of visible things. He said that human beings could perceive any object as having essence from God. In Mies’s eyes, this meant a single sheet of steel or a sheet of glass. With this in mind, Mies struggled to assemble his buildings with essence in mind. He was an extremely abstract thinker. (Pridmore 2005, 137-144) The Lake Shore Drive Apartments were the first sky-rise apartments to be built in Chicago in Mies’ glass and steel style. They had a certain look from the outside that had not yet been explored. Mies took architecture to a whole new level with these apartments. The simplicity of the 26-story high rise had a significant effect on developing modern architecture in the Chicago cityscape. As they stand today in Chicago, it is evident that Mies was ahead of his time as you see how well this piece of architecture fits into the rest of its built surroundings. The construction method of the Lake Shore Drive Apartments had never been seen before. The structure is based on a 21-foot grid. At every intersection of the grid, there is a steel column used for support. The mullions of the Lake Shore Drive Apartments are placed 5’-3” from the center at each modular line. A mullion is a vertical bar that adds support in between window panes. In traditional apartments, the design of the space is typically the most important factor. These design factors could be the composition, window type, or materials. Contrasting these conventional apartments, the Lake Shore Drive Apartments have a primary focus on the construction of the structure. Mies’ hierarchy of focus for the structure started with the structure, then the mullions, the windows, and lastly the interior partitions. Since the mullions are attached directly to the columns, they serve no special purpose other than to be aesthetically pleasing to the viewer. (Balser 1999, 10, 31)

39 interior of Lake Shore Drive

The outer skin of the apartments is a wall of glass connected to the structure through the inside of the building. The Lake Shore Drive Apartments have transparent views of the Chicago skyline from the floor to ceiling. The contrast between the black steel supports and the seamless, glass transparent windows, makes the towering building irresistible to the eyes. One flaw in the design was privacy. Since the windows stretch from the ceiling to the floor, the residents did not have much privacy. Mies then designed uniform, gray curtains, and white sunshades to go behind the aluminum supports. This would create an interesting effect for anyone walking along outside with some of the windows appearing to be transparent and others to be reflecting the light. From inside the apartment, light enters the space from all sides, casting interesting shadows across the space. From the rooms, you can view Lake Michigan from one side, and from the other side of the apartment you can see urban Chicago. These views are ever changing and never static in modern day Chicago. (Balser 1999, 52)

Mies had at one time seriously considered living in his own building. Once he put some thought into moving, he realized that he could not deal with hearing residents complain about the functionality of his work. Personally, I agree with his decision and believe it had the best outcome for him to be able to appreciate his work from afar. Some people have complained about how the elevator is slow. Every elevator I have ever used has never arrived fast enough, so I understand this but find it unreasonable to complain about when it is such a common issue. This issue can be solved by updating the technology to get the biggest and fastest elevator, but this takes away from the originality of the structure. The main, and most life-threatening, issue with this structure is that when it is windy outside, the building will sway. Chicago is known for its high winds, being dubbed the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Windy Cityâ&#x20AC;?. The winds interrupting the peace of the building would move enough to swirl the water in toilets and move the blinds back and forth. Some residents compare the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sway to being aboard a cruise ship. When some residents see that the forecast will be windy, they tend to stay at work later, so they do not have to deal with motion sickness back at home. The cost of the apartments today is around $100 per square foot plus $20,000 for a parking spot. Today, you can find residents of all different ages living in the lake shore drive apartments. (Balser 1999, 64)

Federal Center in Chicago

Challenging the Norm

Federal Center in Chicago

Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; influence on the architecture in Chicago was drastic. He influenced several generations of architects and will continue to influence future architects. His designs gave way to spaces that are quiet and calm, none of his designs are loud or distracting. There are four phases that are closely connected to a balanced interrelationship: material, construction, aesthetics, and transparency. Mies viewed construction as a spiritual event that contributed to the quality of architecture. Mies wanted to preserve the whole in its beauty and wanted to refine it. Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s idea of a technical solution is best represented in the Federal Center in Chicago. The Federal Center was an open-ended plan. It is a group of three buildings built on two sites in downtown Chicago. The 30-story Federal Courthouse building is on one side of Dearborn Street, the 42-story general purpose office building and single-story post office are located on the west side. The high-rise buildings are placed on a 28â&#x20AC;&#x2122; grid and are perpendicular to each other defining the southeast corner. The post office is positioned in the opposite corner. Together these buildings make the opposite of a static plaza. They open up the space by not enclosing the space with all high-rise buildings. (Balser 2004, 10) Congress allotted $100,000,000 US dollars to complete this project. With the form and position of the courthouse being fixed, several alternative locations were proposed to determine the position and size of the other buildings. The first proposal for the office building was on top of the courthouse building. This then left the post office to

outer skin of Chicago Federal Center

be the only other building on the western side. In the second proposal, two identical offices were arranged symmetrically. In the third proposal, the courthouse building and office tower were the same size. Lastly, in the fourth proposal, which is very similar to the third proposal, the office tower is much smaller than the courthouse. In the first three proposals, the plan shows the sizes and locations of all the buildings. The buildings were extremely similar and almost identical. This changed drastically when Mies made his final designs blueprints. (Balser 2004 10,11) The character of the Chicago Federal Center reached a new level when Mies decided to design the outside of the building with a clean and other skin. Like the Lake Shore Drive Apartments, Mies established another signature mark on these sky-rises. When constructing buildings like these, one must consider potential temperature control features. Thermal expansion can cause the steel to expand, or contract, due to temperature fluctuations. So, the most effective way to minimize the thermal expansion is to enclose the entire structure. This was Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thought process behind blanketing the entire structure with glass panes. By placing these glass panes, or skin, in front of the structure it makes the support structure a more independent component by not letting the temperature effect it anymore. With the structure hidden within the skin, the skin is the new design component. Now everyone that passes by the high-rise will see a sleek exterior. This relates to Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; repeating designs that make sense; he did not spend time developing new ways. (Balser 2004, 12,13) Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s uniform skin is an attempt to reach infinity. The ground floor of his building is viewed as a special concept. The floor is open with all transparent walls. The function of this floor is strictly as an entrance. This emphasizes the

Challenging the Norm

“We go on our own way. We do architecture solely with structure. A day will come when others who have something important to give will no longer do what we are now doing...”

feeling of space flowing in and out of the building. The old Federal Building was old with a classic stone façade. It had a stereotypical golden dome on top signifying government from the outside. This is how any traditional courthouse would look and feel. Mies took this as his challenge, to make a whole new face for the Courthouse. Mies separated the interior from the exterior. It signified the structure becoming larger with a longer lifespan, and that the interior was ever changing. “Mies’s technological solution is not form but universal space”. (Balser 2004, 14,15) Mies preferred the word development to design. We as designers, always develop ideas from what comes to us at first. We always think about the possibilities that can be done and then we attempt to make them possible. We develop our ideas from critical standpoints. Mies developed his ideas from a clear construction, where the dimensions were repeated or altered in some ordered way. He thought that it was essential that the construction of individual forms created unified whole. (Balser 2004, 72) Mies said, “We go on our own way. We do architecture solely with structure. A day will come when others who have something important to give will no longer do what we are now doing. Architecture must grow out of its own time, just as the old architecture did. Every epoch achieves as much as it ventures to achieve”. My impression from this quote is that Mies was trying to be a step ahead of others in his field. Still, to this day you can pick out a Miesian structure and admire the amount of thought that was put into it. He was always thinking of the future and of his designs would withstand time. (Balser 2004, 26)

Chicago Institute of Technology The main campus of the Chicago Institute of Technology is an outstanding example of Mies’ work. In 1976, the American Institute of Architects designated the campus as one of the 200 most important works of architecture in the country. Mies was recruited specifically by the college to rationalize the campus. Mies’s academic buildings on campus stood in sharp contrast to the previous buildings. His building styles embodied 20th-century methods and materials. His buildings were majestically harmonious. The urbanism of the Chicago Institute of Technology became a reflection of the school’s focus. The plan of this campus was one of Mies’s largest projects. The campus contains 20 of his buildings, the greatest concentration of Mies-designed buildings in the world. (Perez) The building sizes were determined by what would be inside them. He set dimensions based on the arrangements of desks, drafting tables and benches. The grid created the spaces between the buildings which incorporated Mies’ concept of “universal space”. He experienced challenges with buildings that didn’t fit into his structured grid. He would rework his plans until he found a concept that kept all the variables to create a successful campus. It was very important to Mies that the buildings kept a modern style. During the development of the campus, Mies kept an eye out on the trends of the world and designed for them. While designing for the future, he used his signature materials; steel and glass. Through the Chicago Institute of Technology’s campus, Mies refined the language of modern architecture. He perfected his ideas on structure and proportion. His craft was exceptional, and this is viewed best in Crown Hall. Crown Hall is the campus’s most admired building. (Perez)

Crown Hall layout

Crown Hall Crown Hall represented a unique design opportunity for Mies. He had been appointed the director of the Department of Architecture at Illinois Institute of Technology and was given a free hand at establishing his own curriculum. He was commissioned in 1950 to design a new building on campus for the Department of Architecture for the Institute of Design. With this new task, Mies was his own client. With himself as his own client, he had free range to create pretty much whatever his heart desired. Mies could utilize both his ideas and architectural education, that he would later be teaching. (Balser 2001) Pao-Chi Chang and Alfred Swenson were both students of Mies and were later professors at the Illinois Institute of Technology. They experienced first-hand the struggles of both having class in Crown Hall and later teaching in it. They were inside the building in all different circumstances, whether it was day, night, or through the seasons. Behind the glass walls, they saw all the seasons from winter to fall. They saw how the space worked when it was crammed full of people and when it was just them inside. During these times, they truly started to understand the beauty behind Crown Hall. Throughout the construction of Crown Hall, they observed Mies making it completely different than the other buildings on campus. The site of the building was already predetermined on Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original plan but ended up being much larger. The campus had many smaller buildings that were meant to act as â&#x20AC;&#x153;sliding planesâ&#x20AC;? to create a series

elevated enterence into Crown Hall

of flowing spaces from site to site. The materials of the earlier buildings were the black painted steel frames filled with brick and clear glass. Crown hall has absolutely no brick, only steel and glass along with large areas of obscure glass. The original six-foot by six-foot module was abandoned in this project, replaced by a five-foot by five-foot module. All other buildings on campus were entered in on the ground floor of the site and Crown Hall had a raised entrance. Some infer that Mies made Crown Hall dramatically different because he saw a chance to express his best design ability. Maybe he wanted to dramatically change his style, so it would then influence his later work. (Balser 2001, 8-21) Crown Hall has a large 220-foot by 120-foot roof plane, which is suspended from four 120-foot plate girders. The columns are spaced evenly to form three bays. Under the steel roof, a secondary concrete slab structure, with bays, comes up from the lower level. This great glass room on the upper level has a ceiling height of 18 feet. This was designed to house the Department of Architecture with all of their classes meeting in the one open space. Here each student could critique each other’s work. The lower level is divided into more conventional rooms to accommodate the Institute of Design. All of the walls of glass are glazed with obscure glass. (Balser 2001, 26-27) Crown Hall’s exterior is a masterpiece of exquisite architecture. It is well proportioned and composed. There are crisp details and sharp refined angles. One can view Crown Hall as a piece of abstract art because of the sheer contrast from traditional architecture on the campus. There are two pairs of doors used to enter the south entrance to the building. One of the doors is blocked by a steel mullion which can be referenced to a piece Mies admired, Karl Fredrich Schinkel’s Bauakademie in Berlin. These partitions were carefully parti-

Challenging the Norm tioned so that from one view the entrance appears to be blocked. The effect can be thought of as a special space. One who is viewing can feel a sense of openness with no loss of definition. In contrast, the north entrance has a bridge-like pair of stairs and landing that rises up to the upper level. It is more of a narrow entrance divined by an oak partition which extends the full width of the entrance bay. Mies was able to make the upper level of Crown Hall almost empty. The space only had two duct shafts and few oak partitions. The interior of this space is exactly how Mies wanted, simple and natural while still having a clear design intent. (Balser 2001, 8-21) Crown Hall had no interrupting supports. The entire outer wall consists of glass panels fixed between the steel supports. The lower panels of glass are sandblasted matte glass. Crown Hall makes the idea of Mies convincing. Crown Hall is a flawless beauty and is viewed as one of Mies’s greatest accomplishments both by himself and his critics. Mies said, “I believe that this is the clearest building we have ever created and the best when it comes to the expression of our philosophy”. (Balser 2001, 28) The outer shell was like Mies’ other work in Chicago. The shell creates a clear plane for the construction and emphasizes the idea of projecting the T-profile. The vertical and horizontal construction of the hall is vis-

elevated enterence into Crown Hall

ible from afar and at the same time unmistakable. Miesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; philosophy was that the function could change in a building without altering the design of the building. The generous space for 300 students expresses this idea. The hall combines technical education and practical training. The hall without interior supports can seem like a sanctuary for students. The walls do not trap students into a contained area. They are able to be creative from wall to wall. The students can feel at home, where calm aesthetics call them back to the architecture and inspire them. This perfected space has a major influence on both the students and the professors that are inside daily. (Balser 2001, 44-45) Ludwig Mies van der Roheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impact on Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s built environment was legendary. Through breaking the norms and using materials that were not common, he has left a foot print that will challenge designers of today and tomorrow. He was knocked down by the traditional architect but kept rising up from the ashes proving them wrong. Mies never lashed out at individuals who did not see the world through his eyes. He has, and will always be, a well-respected man.

Challenging the Norm

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

bibliography

Challenging the Norm

Philip Johnson: The Man in the Glass House Blake, Peter. Philip Johnson. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1996. Johnson, Philip, Hilary Lewis, and John T. O’Connor. Philip Johnson: the architect in his own words. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1994. Peter, John. Master of Modern Architecture. New York: G. Braziller, 1963. Welch, Frank D. Philip Johnson & Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000. “The Glass House.” The Glass House. Accessed February 18, 2018. http://theglasshouse.org/explore/. “Modern architecture.” Wikipedia. February 18, 2018. Accessed February 18, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture. “Philip C. Johnson.” Academy of Achievement. Accessed February 20, 2018. http://www.achievement.org/achiever/philip-johnson/. “Philip Johnson.” Wikipedia. February 18, 2018. Accessed February 18, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Johnson.

Brutal Ends Opposite Sides of the Brutalist Movement Banham, Reyner. The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? London: Architectural P, 1968. Clement, Russell T., and Walter Andrew. Netsch. Walter A. Netsch, FAIA: a critical appreciation and sourcebook. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press, 2008. Heathcote, Edwin. “Brute Force.” The Financial Times, May 7, 2016. Accessed February 12, 2018. Hyman, Isabelle. Marcel Breuer, Architect: The Career and the Buildings. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2001. Paglia, Michael. “Walter Netsch: Remembering the Air Force Academy designer.” Westword, June 26, 2008. Accessed February 10, 2017. Sirman, Brian M. “Yankee Brutalism: Concrete Architecture in New England, 19571977.” Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Summer 2016. Accessed February 11, 2018.

Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe’s Impact on the Chicago Cityscape Blaser, Werner, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, the Department of architecture… Birkhauser, 2001. Balser, Werner, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Mies van der Rohe: Lake Shore Drive Apartments: High-Rise Building/Wohnhochhaus. Birkhauser, 1999. Blaser, Werner, et al. Mies van der Rohe. Zentralpostamt mit zwei Hochhausern Federal Center Chicago: Central Post office with two Office Blocks. Birkhauser, 2004. Perez, Adelyn. “AD Classics: AD Classics: IIT Master Plan and Buildings / Mies van der Rohe.” ArchDaily, 15 May 2010, www.archdaily.com/59816/ad-classics-iit-masterplan-and-buildings-mies-van-der-rohe. Pridmore, Jay, and George A. Larson. Chicago architecture and design. Abrams, 2005.