A Talk for the Chicago Literary Club
March 28, 2005
William Goodrich Jones
Chicago’s motto, Urbs in Horto, Garden in a City, implies that the country can be brought within urban boundaries, integrating rural delights into the complex system of human relationships that defines cities. It is these shared understandings of work, manners, politics, arts and services that make urban life possible and even gratifying for large numbers of people living in densely populated areas. The garden in the country, in the 19th century, a place of rest, repose, reflection, and harvest, was, in Chicago, transformed into a vast system of public parks, Washington, Jackson, Humboldt, Garfield. At the hands of Frederick Law Olmsted and his contemporaries, the garden was made into something civilized and civilizing.
The field, something rawer, earthier, more fertile has its place in Chicago also. Field is both surname and proper name that occupies places of prominence in the public eye. Fields of all kinds abound in Chicago, although resemblance to their rural counterparts may be fanciful. Within a mile of our venerable Club lie Meigs Field, Soldier Field, Marshall Field and Company, the Field Museum of Natural History, Hutchinson Field in Grant Park, and, further afield, Wrigley Field, the Field Offices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Cellular Field (demoted in status from Comiskey’s park to field). Aircraft have their own spaces, O’Hare, Meigs, and, from another era, Ashburn and Cicero. We have our share of magnetic fields in the giant attractions of nuclear magnetic resonance machines, classical allusions (Olympia Fields), The Marian Fathers Fields (baseball), and Irving Kaplansky’s Fields and Rings (Chicago Lectures in Mathematics). Of the 650 locations at which to buy Mrs. Field’s Cookies, Chicago can boast 12 of the 21 locations with 37 miles of the Loop. Eugene Field, toiled for the Chicago Daily News, but was buried, not in Mr. Potter Palmer’s field, but in a tiny gardenlike plot within the confines of Kenilworth’s Holy Comforter Church.
The Latin word for field is campus. There are many campi in Chicago, but our attention is drawn tonight to the campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago and the initial 40 acre site originally known as Chicago Circle. Walter Netsch, a partner in the distinguished firm of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, and the person with overall responsibility for the project, created his own kind of field which I shall discuss in due course.
At the time he was appointed lead architect for Chicago Circle, Netsch had already achieved recognition for two campi, the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School (1955), and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs (1959). He had also played a major role in the design of 30 West Monroe, the Inland Steel Building (completed 1957), a building that looks as fresh today as the day it opened its doors. Netsch developed the original plan with cantilevered office spaces, separate utility core, and a double curtain wall on the exterior that allowed for an air plenum between the curtains. A model of this tower is owned by the Art Institute and has been exhibited several times. The building was completed by Bruce Graham who did not retain the double curtain wall. [SLIDE 2: 30 W. Monroe]
Netsch was born on Chicago’s south side and received training at MIT. He worked briefly with Morgan Yost in Kenilworth before becoming affiliated with Skidmore, the firm uncharitably mocked by Frank Lloyd Wright as Skiddings, Owe More, and Sterile.” His distinctive chapel at the Air Force Academy (SLIDE 3: USAFA Chapel) is a structure built from linked tetrahedrons and thousands of pieces of stained glass. It became a media event and generated public attention both to Netsch and to SOM.
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 Chicago campus for many years, deciding to uproot the undergraduate division on Chicago’s Navy Pier to one of ninety possible locations. [SLIDE 4: NAVY PIER] Although the University’s medical campus had flourished on Chicago’s near west side for almost a century, the Board of Trustees was inclined to the view that tender shoots of impressionable undergraduate intellects were best nourished in a true garden setting. The leading contender was Miller Meadow, a Cook County Forest Preserve in Maywood. Miller Meadow once was home to a field of its own, Checkerboard Field, the site of the first commercial scheduled airmail line. [SLIDE 5 – Checkerboard Field Monument] Other considered sites were the south Loop yards, Meigs Field, and Garfield Park. The process concluded with the decision to select the plot bounded by Taylor, Halsted, Morgan, and Harrison Streets. An agreement between Mayor Richard J. Daley and President John F. Kennedy sealed the deal and resulted in urban renewal monies being allocated to the Harrison-Halsted site. All but $4 million of the $27 million cost of the land was paid for through this arrangement. To the dismay of the area’s residents, it also meant displacing a sizeable neighborhood reflecting the diverse ethnic history of the City. The area homeowners association, led by Florence Scala, believed that Mayor Daley had betrayed a promise to maintain their neighborhood and vigorously opposed the construction of the new campus, taking its protest all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The court was unsympathetic, but the association’s suit delayed construction for a year.
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 Galesburg. The Galesburg program only lasted a few years, but the Pier’s robust enrollments resulted in the sending of those completing its two-year preparation to finish their degrees in Urbana. Interestingly the alumni association so turned its attention southward that only a partial record of Navy Pier alumni exists, the majority of records showing them only to be graduates of the Urbana-Champaign campus.
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 Urbana predicted that enrollment would soon grow to 32,000, with only 300 to 400 students to be enrolled at the graduate level. Because the campus was conceived as a commuter institution and out of deference to other colleges in the city, dormitories were not part of the landscape. Enrollment peaked early at 16,000 undergraduates. Graduate programs were quickly added, and, over time enrollment expanded to 4,000 graduate students, excluding enrollments in professional schools.
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 Ephesus and Miletus, and he had also seen what could be achieved with concrete in Chandigar and Canberra. Also, the affordability of concrete as a building material was persuasive for such an extensive undertaking.
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 Harrison St. to the north, from Roosevelt Rd. to the south, and from Halsted St. on the east. The west side of the campus abutted the old neighborhood, and little effort was made to give it a welcoming face. The striking feature of the north and south entries were the massive expressways that raised pedestrians above the major thoroughfares of Taylor and Harrison streets. [SLIDE 6 – north entry] These express walkways, or “expressways” were intended to provide access quickly and efficiently from rapid transit and parking lots. Great slabs of granite cut from a Minnesota quarry formed the walkway surface and gave contrast to the brick and concrete materials of classrooms and offices. Beneath the expressways were paved walks that sheltered foot-traffic from the elements [SLIDE – 7 lower level ].
From Halsted Street, the huge student center (in this case designed not by Skidmore, but by C. F. Murphy Associates) shielded the core campus from the noise of the nearby Dan Ryan. [SLIDE 8 – CCC] A legacy of the neighborhood association’s lawsuit was the preservation of Mr. Hull’s mansion, restored to its 1880s appearance. [SLIDE 9 – Hull House restored] During its service to Miss Addams and her settlement house, it looked very different, [SLIDE 10 – UA Hull-House before demolition] a reminder that those were fields that nourished poverty, prostitution, and alcoholism, but that also launched several generations of successfully assimilated immigrants.
From Taylor Street, the expressway began at grade level and rose to pass through another enormous building, the Science Engineering Laboratories, described by Netsch as a city underneath a roof. [SLIDE 11- SEL from Taylor] Everything about the proportions of this building is oversize. The bricks in the facing are twice the size of bricks used in smaller campus buildings [SLIDE 12 – SEL face with large columns and oversize brick] A nice arrangement of large and small bricks creates an endless interlocking pattern of letter “I’s.” The huge columns supporting the roof were repeated in smaller scale around the perimeter of the lecture centers, although rotated 45 degrees to expose a different geometry to the passerby.
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 30 – 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 - Lecture Center roof] Every now and then a reminder of the old expressway can be found [SLIDE 55 – remnant of expressway]
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 Roosevelt, and near them is a complex of playing fields and dormitories, taking the place of the original Maxwell Street Market. The police station that introduced so many episodes of Hill Street Blues now houses the University’s police and has been restored to an elegance it never had during its earlier, working lifetime serving the neighborhood. [SLIDE 66 – UIC Police Headquarters].
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 Sears Tower]
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.
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 University of Illinois campus (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, c1980)
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 United States Air Force Academy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). I am grateful to Prof. Bruegmann for his comments on Netsch’s contributions to the 30 W. Monroe Building.
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:
Robert Allen Daugherty’s “The University Library Building” p. 282-304, in Beverly P. Lynch, ed., The Academic library in transition (New York: Neal-Schuman, c1989) provides additional background on the campus plan.
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 University of Illinois at Chicago faculty volunteered the anecdotal comments. In addition to the included stories about Architecture and Art and Behavioral Sciences, one faculty member noted that in Behavioral Sciences junior faculty were usually assigned to offices without windows.
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, University of Illinois at Chicago, from the archive of Copelin Commercial Photographers. All slides from University of Illinois collections are used with the permission of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Slide 5: ÓGeorge Yanos, 2005
Slides 6-11: University Archives, University of Illinois at Chicago
Slide 12: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones, 2005
Slides 13-22: University Archives, University of Illinois at Chicago
Slides 23-24: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones, 2005
Slide 25: University Archives, University of Illinois at Chicago
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, University of Illinois at Chicago
Slides 32-25: ÓWilliam Goodrich Jones
Slide 36: University Archives, University of Illinois at Chicago
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