Ramon Serrano Aviles 01 PDF

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Madrid
EL IIT DE MIES VAN DER ROHE:

ANÁLISIS E HISTORIA DE UN PROCESO COMPOSITIVO
Tesis Doctoral
Ramón Serrano Avilés, Arquitecto

Diciembre 2015
Departamento de Composición Arquitectónica
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
MIES VAN DER ROHE'S ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY:

ANALYSIS AND HISTORY OF A COMPOSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Submitted to the Department of Architectural Composition, in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
‘Architecture and Heritage’ Program
Ramón Serrano Avilés, M.Arch.
Supervisors:
Roberto Osuna Redondo, PhD.
Mª Teresa Valcarce Labrador, PhD.
December, 2015
Departamento de Composición Arquitectónica
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
EL IIT DE MIES VAN DER ROHE:

ANÁLISIS E HISTORIA DE UN PROCESO COMPOSITIVO
Mies van der Rohe's Illinois Institute of Technology:

Analysis and History of a Compositive Development
Tesis Doctoral
Ramón Serrano Avilés, Arquitecto
Directores:
Roberto Osuna Redondo, Dr. Arquitecto
Mª Teresa Valcarce Labrador, Dra. Arquitecta
Diciembre 2015
Tribunal nombrado por el Magnífico y Excelentísimo
Sr. Rector de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
el día ............... de .................................................... de ........................
Presidente: D. .............................................................................................................
Vocal: D. .............................................................................................................
Vocal: D. .............................................................................................................
Vocal: D. .............................................................................................................
Secretario: D. .............................................................................................................
Suplente: D. .............................................................................................................
Suplente: D. .............................................................................................................
Realizado el acto de defensa y lectura de la tesis
el día ............... de .................................................... de ........................
en la Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (etsam).
Calificación: ..................................................................................................................
Fdo.
El Presidente ............................................................
Fdo.
Los Vocales ............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
Fdo.
El Secretario ............................................................
vi M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
CONTENTS
Contents
Abstract [/Resumen] ......................................................................... x [/xii]

Acknowledgements ............................................................................ xxiii
1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 Topicality and Relevance ........................................... 3
1.2 State of the Art .......................................................................... 8
1.3 Starting Hypothesis .................................................................. 83
1.4 Aims ........................................................................................... 86
1.4.1 Contribution to Knowledge ........................................ 86
1.4.2 Basis for Interpretation ............................................... 87
1.5 Methodology ............................................................................. 88
1.5.1 Approach ..................................................................... 88
1.5.2 Analytical Method ...................................................... 90
1.5.3 Sources of Information ............................................... 92
part i – historical survey and compositive analysis
2 Urban and Architectural Context Prior to 1938 ....................... 101

2.1 Urban Transformations at Chicago South Side ...................... 102
2.2 Origins of Armour Institute of Technology (ait) .................. 108
2.3 The Decay of Chicago South Side ........................................... 112
2.4 ait Academic Expansion Plans ............................................... 118
2.4.1 Holabird's ait Scheme ................................................ 124
2.4.2 Mies and Chicago: First Contacts ............................. 128
3 Mies's Exile and Preliminary Campus Plans, 1938-40 ........... 135

3.1 A New Vision for the Architecture Curriculum at ait ........... 136
3.1.1 Implantation of Mies's Architecture Educational
Program ....................................................................... 142
3.1.2 Mies's ait Campus Master Plan Design ................... 154
3.2 The Birth of Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) ................. 172
3.3 Urban Visions and Preliminary Designs for iit Campus ...... 174
3.3.1 Aschuler's iit Campus Master Plan Design ................ 178
3.3.2 Hilberseimer's Settlement Unit .................................. 182
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T vii

P R E FAC E
Contents
4 War Shortage and Discipline Inquiry, 1941-45 ......................... 187

4.1 Mies's iit Campus Master Plan Design ................................... 188
4.2 World War ii and the Restructuring of iit as Technology
Center ........................................................................................ 202
4.2.1 Industrial Architecture as Baukunst ............................ 208
4.3 Hilberseimer's iit Expansion Urban Studies ............................ 228
5 Post-War Construction and Planning, 1946-50 ........................ 237

5.1 Transformation of Campus Planning after World War ii .... 238
5.1.1 Negotiation of Space in an Urban Environment ..... 246
5.2 Implementation of iit Campus Master Plan Buildings ........ 249
5.2.1 Contradictions between the Different Architectural
Scales ............................................................................ 250
5.2.2 Shaping Construction to Understand Structure ....... 253
5.3 moma Exhibition and Public Recognition ............................... 258
5.4 iit and South Side Redevelopment Plan ................................. 260
5.4.1 A Plan Made Out of Assembled Urban Fragments .. 266
6 Urban Scale and Clear Structure, 1951-59 ............................... 277

6.1 Open Plan as Event Space ...................................................... 278
6.2 Operative Schemes to Structure Urban Space ........................ 301
6.2.1 Urban Intervention through Architectural Design .. 304
6.3 Construction of an Urban Landscape .................................... 310
6.4 Redevelopment: Opening a Space for Critical Construction 312
part ii – critical assessment
7 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 325

7.1 Order Principles and Their Historical Transformation ....... 326
7.1.1 Structured Elements Within a Decentralized
Pattern .......................................................................... 328
7.1.2 Structural Order vs. Transitional Organization ..... 330
7.1.3 Surpass Order from Within It .................................... 332
7.2 The Paradoxical Modernity of Industrial Construction ...... 336
7.2.1 Structural Principles from a Tectonic Standpoint .... 337
viii M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
CONTENTS
7.3 From Integrated Design to Open Composition .................... 339
8 Bibliography ..................................................................................... 343

8.1 Specific Bibliography ............................................................... 344
8.1.1 Monographs Covering Mies's Early American Work 346
8.1.2 Selected Articles on iit before Mies's Death ............ 361
8.1.3 Selected Articles on iit after Mies's Death ............... 370
8.2 General Bibliography ............................................................... 375
8.2.1 American Architecture and Urbanism around
World War ii ................................................................. 376
8.2.2 Chicago Architecture and Urban Planning around
World War ii ................................................................ 379
8.2.3 Influence of European Modernism on American
Architecture around World War ii .............................. 383
part iii – appendix
9 Research Resources ................................................................... 389

9.1 Usual Block Lotting Options at Chicago South Side ........... 390
9.2 Books at Mies's Personal Library ............................................ 394
9.2.1 German Editions at Mies's Personal Library ........... 397
9.2.2 English Editions at Mies's Personal Library ............. 421
9.2.3 Other Documents at Mies's Personal Library .......... 435
9.3 Mies's iit Buildings Timeline .................................................. 446
Index of Abbreviations ................................................................ 460

List of Illustrations ....................................................................... 457
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T ix
P R E FAC E
Abstract
keywords: Illinois Institute of Technolog y, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,

American Modernism, American Urban Planning.
The Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) campus, Chicago,

by architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, is often considered as
a transitional work, usually acknowledged as significant for the
reorientation of his professional career after he emigrated to the
United States. Moreover, its favorable recognition today is some-
how indicative of its relevance as a model for urban intervention
in the contemporary American city and for contemporary city
planning in general, not to mention the profound impact that it
had on the cityscape of Chicago.
However, today we know it was rather the result of a close
collaboration between he and Ludwig Hilberseimer —later on, to
be completed with Alfred Caldwell— who merged their personal
ideas and expertise in the design for the first time. In addition
to this, when one tries to locate the design within its own histor-
ical context and evaluate the sources of its approach to it, some
contradictions arise. The major impact of the images produced
by Mies to promote its realization —widely disseminated in most
contemporary architectural periodicals— probably outshined the
particular circumstances in which the design was conceived. In
fact, it would never be materialized as originally presented, but
it was, instead, continuously reworked according to land avail-
ability in the site —a circumstance often ignored by subsequent
architectural critic, that enthusiastically praised the design even
before it was fully completed.
One of the main consequences of looking at iit from such a
standpoint is that, when historically contextualized, one can ap-
preciate that, due to the urban scale of its implementation process,
the design had to face a complex reality very different to that
initially planned by the architect, often far from his actual pos-
sibilities of intervention. Such approach is in contradiction with
the common description of the design as a ‘tabula rasa’ that al-
legedly would have been formulated on the basis of a full denial
of its context. On the contrary, the ever-changing circumstances
of the design motivated a necessary re-interpretation of the rela-
tion between its executed fragments, in order to keep the original
identity of the whole in an ever-changing context. This situation
implied a continuous transformation of the design by means of a
x M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
A BSTR ACT
steady re-composition of its elements: as the number of completed

buildings increased in its successive stages, their relation to their
site-specific context changed, in a very particular process that
these lines try to delineate. Requiring decades to be erected, nei-
ther of its authors would ever see the design finished as planned,
partially because of the difficulties in acquiring the extension of
land that it required. Considering the study of this process as able
to provide a valuable gateway to understand the urban discourse
that the architects entailed, the aim of these lines is to analyze the
problems that the iit campus design had to face.
As a starting point, a relationship between practice and the-
ory in the activity of the authors implied in iit campus design has
been assumed. Far from being interrupted during World War ii,
strong historical evidence can be found to infer that both were
developed in parallel. Consequently, the historical sequence of
the preserved testimonies has been put into context, as well as
their transformation while Mies remained in charge for the cam-
pus Master Plan. Notably, when seen from this perspective, some
ideas already expressed during his previous European practice
were still present during the design process. Particularly, Mies's
particular understanding of certain architectural concepts —
such as those of ‘order’ and ‘structure’—can be traced paralleling
the theories about urban planning from his collaborators, a fact
that possibly facilitated the campus successful development.
The study of the way these ideas were actually redeveloped
and modified in the American urban context, added to the spe-
cific process of the implementation of iit campus design, sheds a
new light for a critical interpretation of the reasons that made it
possible, and of the actual responsibility of Mies's collaborators in
its overall development and final completion.
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xi
P R E FAC E
Resumen
palabras clave: Illinois Institute of Technolog y, Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe, Arquitectura Moderna Estadounidense, Urbanismo Estadounidense.
El campus del Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) de Chica-

go, obra del arquitecto Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, es a menudo
considerado como una obra de transición que, por lo general, ha
venido siendo reconocida como relevante para la reorientación de
su carrera profesional posterior a su exilio en los Estados Unidos.
El reconocimiento del que goza el proyecto es indicativo, de algún
modo, de su importancia como modelo para la intervención urba-
na en la ciudad norteamericana contemporánea y el planeamien-
to de la ciudad contemporánea en general, sin olvidar el profundo
impacto que ha tenido sobre el paisaje urbano de Chicago.
Sin embargo, hoy sabemos que el resultado se benefició de su
estrecha colaboración con Ludwig Hilberseimer y se completaría
más tarde con la de Alfred Caldwell, quienes unieron sus ideas y
experiencia profesional en el proyecto por primera vez. Asimismo,
cuando se intenta ubicar el proyecto dentro de su propio contexto
histórico y evaluar los criterios de su manera de abordarlo, surgen
algunas contradicciones. El considerable impacto de las imágenes
producidas por Mies para impulsar su ejecución —ampliamente
difundidas en la mayoría de publicaciones de arquitectura de la
época— probablemente eclipsó las particulares circunstancias en
las que el proyecto fue concebido. De hecho, nunca llegó a mate-
rializarse tal y como fue inicialmente presentado. Por contra, fue
reelaborado de manera continua, de acuerdo a la disponibilidad
de suelo en el emplazamiento; una circunstancia a menudo igno-
rada por la crítica posterior, que elogió con entusiasmo el proyec-
to antes siquiera de que fuese terminado.
Una de las principales consecuencias de contemplar el iit
desde semejante punto de vista es que, una vez contextualizada
históricamente su puesta en obra, se puede apreciar que el arqui-
tecto tuvo que enfrentarse a una compleja realidad urbana muy
diferente a la inicialmente prevista —probablemente debido a la
escala del proyecto— a menudo lejos de sus posibilidades reales
de intervención. Este enfoque contradice la descripción habitual
del proyecto como una ‘tabula rasa’, que supuestamente se habría
formulado sobre la base de una negación completa de su contexto.
Por el contrario, las circunstancias cambiantes del proyecto obli-
garon una necesaria reinterpretación de la relación entre sus frag-
xii M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
RESUMEN
mentos ejecutados, con el fin de mantener la identidad original

del conjunto en un contexto en constante cambio. Esta situación
implicó una continua transformación del proyecto por medio de
una permanente re-composición de sus elementos: según se incre-
mentaba el número de edificios construidos en las etapas sucesi-
vas de desarrollo del conjunto, variaba su relación con el contexto
específico en que se emplazaban, en un proceso muy particular
que estas líneas tratan de perfilar. Al necesitar décadas para ser
levantado, ninguno de sus autores vería el conjunto terminado
según lo planificado, en parte debido a las dificultades para la
adquisición de la extensión de suelo que demandaba. Asumiendo
que el estudio de este proceso es capaz de proporcionar una va-
liosa puerta de entrada para elucidar el discurso urbano asumido
por los Mies, el objetivo de estas líneas es analizar los problemas a
los que el proyecto del campus del iit tuvo que enfrentarse.
Como punto de partida, se ha supuesto una relación entre la
práctica y la teoría en la actividad de los autores implicados en
el proyecto del campus del iit. Lejos de interrumpirse durante
la Segunda Guerra Mundial, existen evidencias históricas sólidas
para deducir que ambas vertientes se desarrollaron en paralelo.
En consecuencia, se ha contextualizado la secuencia histórica de
los testimonios conservados, así como su transformación duran-
te el periodo en que Mies estuvo a cargo del Plan General del
campus. Significativamente, al ser contempladas bajo esta pers-
pectiva, algunas ideas ya expresadas durante su práctica europea
anterior resultan aún presentes durante la redacción del proyecto.
En concreto, se puede trazar un paralelismo entre la comprensión
particular de Mies de ciertos conceptos arquitectónicos —como
los de ‘orden’ y ‘estructura’— y las teorías sobre el urbanismo de
sus colaboradores, hecho que posiblemente facilitó el exitoso de-
sarrollo del proyecto.
El estudio de la manera en que estas ideas fueron reelabora-
das y modificadas en el contexto urbano estadounidense, sumado
al proceso específico de su aplicación en el proyecto del campus
del iit, arroja una nueva luz para una interpretación crítica tanto
de las razones que lo hicieron posible, como del papel real que los
colaboradores de Mies tuvieron en su desarrollo y ejecución final.
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xiii

P R E FAC E
Conclusiones
Digamos que nuestro trabajo es hacer evolucionar la arquitectura

—y, en el proceso, evolucionar nosotros mismos
A. Caldwell 1
Transformación histórica de los principios de orden
Dadas las circunstancias de su exilio americano, Mies y Hil-

berseimer optaron por una combinación de planeamiento urbano
y proyecto para el proceso —inusualmente largo— de desarrollo
de su proyecto del Plan General del campus del iit. en una época
de cambios históricos profundos, entre ambos consiguieron esta-
blecer un conjunto de principios lo suficientemente abiertos como
para poder ser reorientados en caso de ser necesario. Revisando
la progresiva descentralización de las políticas urbanas en los Es-
tados Unidos desde los años de la depresión, el Plan General del
campus del iit propuso un nuevo modelo de intervención urbana,
que ofrecía una respuesta a los problemas inéditos de planeamien-
to a los que tuvieron que enfrentarse sus creadores. Su objetivo
fue lograr un espacio donde se produjese un desarrollo progre-
sivamente autónomo, coherente con lo que percibían como una
nueva realidad —representada por el impacto de la guerra y el
surgimiento de una economía de consumo a una escala sin prec-
edentes— que vino a transformar el planeamiento de la ciudad
americana tal y como había sido llevada a cabo hasta entonces.2
Hilberseimer y Mies propusieron como solución un modelo
basado en un patrón abierto y de baja densidad, que se pudiera
integrar en el tejido urbano ya existente por medio de infraestruc-
turas metropolitanas. Éste modelo sugería una evolución natural
de los principios organicistas del Estilo de la Pradera más acorde
a las nuevas necesidades urbanas, a través de una particular ar-
ticulación del entorno urbano preexistente con un nuevo paisaje
construido más verde. Este nuevo modelo urbano no se puede
entender sin tomar en consideración la contribución de Hilber-
seimer. A pesar de que sus escuetas directrices fueron heredadas
del Plan General del campus ait —previamente proyectado en
solitario por Mies— las teorías de Hilberseimer, elaboradas du-
rante el rediseño del Plan General del campus del iit a principios
1 C aldwell , A. (��), «Architecture: Vision of Structure,» The Structurist, ��/��: ��

(��-��) [traducción del autor].
2 C ohen , J.-L., «German Desires of America: Mies's Urban Visions,» en B ergdoll ,
B., R iley, T. (eds.) et al. (��) Mies in Berlin (New York: moma), págs. ��-�� [traducción
del autor].
xiv M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
RESUMEN
de los años ��, más que probablemente, ejercieron una gran influ-
encia sobre este último.
Elementos estructurados en un patrón descentralizado
Teniendo todo esto en cuenta, resula especialmente revelador

el desarrollo del llamado modelo urbano de la ‘Unidad de Asen-
tamiento’ por Hilberseimer.3 Concebido como parte de sus estu-
dios personales sobre la ciudad jardín de finales de los años ��,4
Hilberseimer formuló su esquema de la ‘Unidad de Asentamien-
to’ por primera vez a su llegada a los Estados Unidos. Aunque su
intención era proponer un modelo urbano capaz de operar con los
“elementos del planeamiento” en términos puramente modernos
de función, circulación o ratios de densidad,5 su configuración
final también tenía en consideración las particularidades del en-
torno.
Con la intención de combinar los sistemas de infraestructu-
ras de las ciudades contemporáneas con el entorno preexistente,
el patrón descentralizado tenía como fin producir un paisaje con-
struido totalmente replanificado, acorde con la “acumulación in-
orgánica de elementos opuestos” de la metrópoli americana6 (Fig.
8.3). En palabras del propio Hilberseimer, dado que
“(…) los problemas cambian con el patrón social de su tiem-
po, así como la manera de entender los objetivos de la planifi-
cación urbana. Ya que esos objetivos dependen, en cualquier
periodo, del estado de la ciencia y la tecnología. La prob-
lemática actual del planeamiento urbano no puede resolverse
con patrones del pasado. Intentar resolverlos con aquellos lle-
varía a formaciones decorativas y no estructurales”.7
En cualquier caso, esas formaciones estructurales implicaron

cierto conflicto social cuando deducía que
“(…) las nuevas necesidades sociales presentan nuevos prob-
3 H ilberseimer , L. (��), «The Elements of City Planning,» Armour Engineer and

Alumnus � (�): �� (Dec., ��) [University Archives (Paul V. Galvin Library, iit)] [traduc-
ción del autor].
4 S paeth , D. (��), «Ludwig Hilberseimer' s Settlement Unit. Origins and Applica-
tions,» en P ommer , R., S paeth , D., and H arrington , K. In the Shadow of Mies: Ludwig
Hilberseimer—Architect, Educator and Urban Planner (New York: Rizzoli), págs. ��-�� [tra-
ducción del autor].
5 H ilberseimer , L. (��), «The Elements of City Planning,» Op. cit., págs. �-��
[traducción del autor].
6 H ilberseimer , L. (��), «Amerikanische Grostädte,» en Groszstadt Architektur
(Stuttgart: J. Hoffmann), pág. � [citado según «American metropolises,» in H ilber-
seimer , L., A ureli , P. V., and A nderson R. (eds.) (��) Metropolisarchitecture and Selected
Essays (New York: Columbia University, gsapp Books), págs. ��-��] [traducción del au-
tor].
7 H ilberseimer , L. (��) The New City: Principles of Planning (Chicago: Paul Theo-
bald & Co.), pág. �� [traducción y cursivas del autor].
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xv
P R E FAC E
lemas técnicos, y las nuevas técnicas conllevan nuevos prob-

lemas para la sociedad. La sociedad, como norma, logra su-
perar los problemas creados por la tecnología”.8
Sin embargo, la opinión de Hilberseimer de que “las ciudades

de la era industrial no han encontrado aún un patrón adecuado
para el desarrollo de todas sus potencialidades según su función y
desarrollo tecnológico”, en ningún caso derivaría en una postura
estrictamente moderna, al asumir que éstas “son una conjunción
de partes no relacionadas, cada una molestando a las demás”.
Hilberseimer concluía —quizás con demasiado optimis-
mo— que “las viejas ciudades podrían replantearse y rehacerse
como organismos que funcionen bien, en los que cada parte esté
relacionada con las demás y con el conjunto en harmonía”,9 sugi-
riendo de manera polémica que los patrones sociales ya existentes
debían ser ignorados en beneficio del buen funcionamiento del
orden general.
Orden estructural contra organización transitoria del

desarrollo
Bajo esta perspectiva, la noción de “orden” resulta particu-

larmente relevante. Hilberseimer y Mies compartieron una visión
del orden urbano de las ciudades americanas contemporáneas
durante los años que duró su colaboración para el diseño del Plan
General del campus del iit. Sin embargo, a pesar de basarse en
una conceptualización común a ambos, cada uno desarrollaría
ésta de una manera ligeramente distinta.
De hecho, Hilberseimer asumía inteligentemente las lim-
itaciones del planeamiento urbano al enfrentarse a la continua
evolución de las fuerzas sociales de la ciudad, admitiendo que
“siempre hay un desfase” y, consecuentemente, “las implicaciones
de una nueva alineación de fuerzas normalmente no son aprecia-
das hasta que los efectos negativos de la actuación de esas fuerzas
negativas es ya evidente”.10 Dado un orden carente de jerarquía
o centro, lo que permitía reorganizarlos era la existencia de una
organización formal del patrón. No resulta difícil de imaginar
que Mies compartiese su aversión a la “salvaje descentralización”
y a la insatisfactoria “desurbanización carente de plan”, así como
8 Ibid.
9 H ilberseimer , L. (��) The Nature of Cities: Origin, Growth, and Decline. Pattern and
Form. Planning Problems (Chicago: Paul Theobald & Co.), págs. ��-�� [traducción del au-
tor].
10 Ibid.
xvi M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
RESUMEN
su llamada a “la inmediata acción constructiva”.11 Una vez más,

los nuevos patrones formales de la ciudad tenían la obligación de
reflejar nuevas formas de sociedad.
Mies ya se había pronunciado sobre la cuestión fundamental
del orden durante sus primeros años de carrera profesional en
Europa. De hecho, la noción de orden que manejaba Mies era
cercana a la conceptualización de la arquitectura metropolitana
de Hilberseimer, que “representa el diseño de las condiciones so-
cio-económicas operativas en la actualidad” y que “es en esencia
la creación de espacio”.12 Este orden se describía como “un en-
cuentro con un plan inmanente; participación en la creación”,13
una noción de orden puramente moderna que alejaba a Mies de
cualquier condición normativa de la vida real. Muy al contrario,
exigía una actitud activa para lograr una transformación progre-
siva de la realidad preexistente desde sus fundamentos. De hecho,
Mies había estudiado con profundidad ciertas teorías de la épo-
ca sobre el desarrollo de organizaciones coherentes basadas en
procesos naturales (Fif. 8.4) para las que “producir algo nuevo
implica transiciones lentas, pequeñas y sutiles”,14 en una continua
iteración con ligeras variaciones.
Desvelando aspectos ocultos de su estructura interna, el todo

resultante se revelaba como “no solo una suma o resultado, sino
también como una novedad emergente o síntesis creativa”,15 de
las diferentes realidades independientes que lo precedían.
Transformar el orden desde dentro
Estas ideas encajaban especialmente bien con el paisaje ur-

bano de Chicago. La famosa división del suelo en una cuadrícu-
la homogénea, que ordena las extensiones de llanura sobre las
que se asienta la ciudad, había llevado a asumir, desde su fun-
11 H ilberseimer , L. (��) The New Regional Pattern: Industries and Gardens, Workshops
and Farms (Chicago: Paul Theobald & Co.), pág. �� [traducción del autor].
12 H ilberseimer , L. (��) «Architektur ist Raumschöpfung,» en Op. cit, pág. ��
[«Architecture is the creation of space,» en Op. cit, pág. ��] [traducción del autor].
13 M ies van der Rohe , L. (n.d./��?) Cuaderno manuscrito sin fechar y sin paginar
[Mies van der Rohe Archive, Manuscript collection (moma , New York)], transcrito en
«Appendix ii Notebook (��-��) �. Notes for Lectures,» en Neumeyer , F. (��) The Art-
less Word: Mies van der Rohe and the Building Art (Cambridge, Mass.: mit Press.), págs. ��
[traducción del autor].
14 Wheeler , W.M. (��) Emergent Evolution and the Social (London: K. Paul, Trench,
Trubner & Co.), pág. ��. Cita del subrayado en la edición en inglés en propiedad de
Mies, conservada en la Ludwig Mies van der Rohe collection, Special Collections De-
partment of the University Library (uo c , Chicago) [véase Apéndice] [traducción del
autor].
15 Ibid., pág. �� [traducción del autor].
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xvii

P R E FAC E
dación, que esas propiedades tan fácilmente identificables podían

intercambiarse, promoviendo así una especulación en sus barri-
os urbanizados,16 que pocas veces era sancionada. Como conse-
cuencia —a pesar de lo estricta que pudiera parecer la definición
geométrica de la ordenanza y la estabilidad proporcionada por las
infraestructuras metropolitanas— los edificios de Chicago nun-
ca habían sido enteramente regulares. La mayoría se construía
en agrupaciones de parcelas unidas, en busca de una diferenci-
ación para sus propias construcciones.17 Esta variedad permitía
una progresiva implementación de intervenciones urbanas muy
diversas, dentro de una continua reorganización del territorio de
la que se aprovecharía el iit para su propia evolución institucional
(Fig. 8.6).
Después de emigrar a América, Mies amplió esta noción de
orden, tal como se puede encontrar en sus escasos pronunciamien-
tos en lo que a urbanismo se refiere. Curiosamente, Mies puso
mucho cuidado en distinguir totalmente la noción de “orden”
de la de “organización”. Con su característica argumentación
aforística, Mies señalaba puntualmente que
“(…) uno solo puede ordenar aquello que ya se ha ordenado
por sí solo. El orden es más que organización. Organización
es la determinación de la función. El orden, sin embargo,
confiere un significado”.18
En consecuencia,
“(…) si ofrecemos a cada cosa lo que le pertenece intrínse-
camente, entonces todas ellas encontrán su lugar. Solo allí
podrían ser lo que son y podrían ser conscientes de sí mismas.
El caos en que vivimos daría paso al orden, y el mundo recu-
peraría el sentido y la belleza”.19
Aunque se desconocen las razones detrás de una afirmación

tan sombría —dado su relativo éxito profesional de entonces—
parece posible suponer que la ciudad americana de aquellos años
le pareciese altamente funcional aunque, de alguna manera,
16 Whiting , S. (��), «Superblockism: Chicago's Elastic Grid,» en EL-K houry,

R. and Robbins , E. (eds.) Shaping the City: Studies in History, Theory and Urban Design (New
York: Routledge), págs. ��-�� [traducción del autor].
17 Ibid [traducción del autor].
18 M ies van der Rohe , L. (n.d./��?) Manuscrito para una conferencia sin fechar
[Mies van der Rohe Archive, Manuscript collection, file ‘Misc. Drafts and Speeches’
(moma , New York)], pág. �; transcrito en «Appendix, iv ��-��. �. Lecture. Chicago,
occasion and date unknown,» en Neumeyer , F. (��) Op. cit., pág. �� [traducción del
autor].
El discurso se describe en los archivos como “Manuscript of one important ad-
dress Mies gave here in German”. Mies no adquirió la ciudadanía estadounidense —y
por tanto, no hablaba inglés fluidamente— hasta ��.
19 Ibid, pág. � [traducción del autor].
xviii M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
RESUMEN
menos significativa de lo que podía ser. En cualquier caso, Mies

utiliza aquí la distinción entre orden y organización para discutir
ésta de manera proactiva, a pesar de adoptar un discurso basado
en el compromiso cívico tradicionalmente conservador.
Lo que sí se puede deducir de estas líneas es que, para él, el
orden no era ni una forma de regulación ni un a priori abstracto.
El orden aparece más concretamente como un hecho dado en una
realidad concreta y un momento histórico concreto, solo para ser
intuido en las complejas, y a veces impredecibles, relaciones de la
ciudad —“este mundo”, declaró en una ocasión, “y no otro es el
que se nos ha ofrecido. Es aquí donde debemos actuar”.20 Existe
un orden intrínseco en las distintas manifestaciones del caótico
día a día de las ciudades contemporáneas. Manifestaciones que,
sin embargo, podían ser interpretadas como ejemplos de la per-
sistencia de ese orden.
No por casualidad, Hilberseimer había presentado teorías
análogas en el campo del urbanismo, caracterizadas por una
estructura clara y reconocible según un patrón, más que por la
formalización de una disposición.21 Este orden “orgánico” apare-
cía como un “conjunto correcto de interrelaciones de las partes”,
en “una reciprocidad coherente y comprensible de los elementos
similar a aquellos sugeridos por organismos o estructuras com-
plejas”.
Hilberseimer, de manera significativamente paralela a Mies,
señaló que ese orden “no debería confundirse con la organización,
que es mecánica”, para concluir que “el orden se ocupa de la vida
así como de las formas y medios de vida; la organización sólo se
ocupa de las disposiciones”.22 Para él, el urbanismo tradicional
había considerado el orden como algo un plan constructivo que,
como una figura, podía ser impuesto al presunto desorden sobre
el que actúa. Frente a esta visión, Hilberseimer contemplaba este
desorden como algo ya presente en el mundo y que por lo general
20 M ies van der Rohe , L. (n.d./c.��). Manuscrito para una conferencia sin fechar
ni paginar [Mies van der Rohe Archive, Manuscript collection, file ‘Misc. Drafts and
Speeches’ (Washington d.c ., l o c)], transcrito como «Appendix, iv ��-��, �. Miscel-
laneous—Notes to Lectures,» en Neumeyer , F. (��), Op cit., pág. �� [traducción del
autor].
21 Esto situaría en contexto el enfoque dado a la inserción del Plan General del cam-
pus del iit en la trama urbana del South Side de Chicago South Side por S. Whiting,
citando las teorías sobre la percepción de la forma de A. Hildebrand, en Whiting , S.
(��), «Bas-Relief Urbanism: Chicago's Figured Field,» en L ambert, Ph. (ed.) Mies in
America (New York/Montreal: wma a /cca), pág. �� [traducción del autor].
Aparentemente, Whiting parece estar juzgando la recepción de las imágenes pro-
ducidas por Mies —y quizás la manera en que ésta condicionó el desarrollo de todo el
Plan de Reurbanización del South Side de Chicago— a pesar del hecho de que éstas
nunca describieron su forma final, ni tan siquiera reflejaban la realidad del campus,
sino más bien trataban de transmitir una idea de las posibilidades de los principios de su
proyecto.
22 H ilberseimer , L. (��) Op. cit., págs. xiv-xv [traducción del autor].
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xix

P R E FAC E
se manifiesta de manera natural. Su patrón era un esfuerzo por

dotar de expresión formal a este orden preexistente y subyacente,
darle una estructura. El propio Mies ofreció una explicación com-
pleta del uso que daba a los términos “estructura” y “principio”:
“(…) la estructura es el todo en su conjunto —hasta su últi-
mo detalle— de acuerdo a una idea común. A eso llamamos
estructura”.23
El Plan General del campus del iit, estructurado de acuerdo

a la cuadrícula del tejido urbano del South Side de Chicago, refle-
ja con claridad esta conceptualización. Sobre ésta cuadrícula del
territorio, esencialmente un “campo”24 horizontal, se extendía un
grupo no jerárquico de edificios interrelacionados entre sí. Aun-
que esa imagen sea probablemente responsabilidad de Mies, no
se puede dejar de admitir el poder de visión de Hilberseimer para
asumir los complejos —y a menudo contradictorios— roles en el
urbanismo de las políticas públicas, los intereses de los promotores
privados, y los residentes, que aparentemente eran secundarios
para Mies. El proyecto del campus del iit no solo rechazó acomo-
darse al status quo, sino que también propuso una visión completa-
mente nueva para la regeneración del área sobre la que se asent-
aba, forzando una acción y una transformación en una dirección
compartida por el bien de todos. Es aquí, de hecho, donde puede
apreciarse con más claridad la idea de urbanismo moderno como
organización integral de Hilberseimer.
Pero la ingenua asunción de Hilberseimer de un crecimiento
linear para sus planes en su totalidad, donde todos sus elemen-
tos reflejarían un punto de vista perfectamente claro, unificado
y equilibrado en todos sus estados, en realidad hacía imposible
su realización. A pesar del rigor de su aproximación científica a
la ciudad moderna a través de su investigación teórica, su con-
ciencia de que los “síntomas del presente desequilibrio del orden
en el mundo” pueden no ser suficientes para “proporcionar los
medios de reconciliar al hombre con la fuerza del Zeitgeist” o siqui-
era “ayudarle a lograr sus propósitos”.25 De hecho, cualquier or-
ganización completa —incluyendo la ‘Unidad de Asentamiento’
postulada por Hilberseimer— parece hoy haber sido formulada,
23 C arter , P., «Mies van Der Rohe: An Appreciation, This Month, of His �� th Birth-
day,» en Architectural Design ��: �� (Mar., ��) [traducción del autor]. La explicación de
Mies probablemente estaba motivada por el significado, más amplio que en inglés, del
término aleman ‘Struktur’.
24 Whiting , S. (��), «Points and Fields: Chicago's Urban Orders,» en Op. cit., pág.
�� [traducción del autor].
25 H arrington , K. (��), «Ideas in action: Hilberseimer and the Redevelopment
of the South Side of Chicago,» en H arrington , K., P ommer , R., and S paeth , D. (eds.)
In the Shadow of Mies: Ludwig Hilberseimer. Architect, Educator and Urban Planner (New York/
Chicago: Rizzoli/aic), pág. �� [traducción del autor].
xx M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
ACK NOW LEDGEM EN TS
paradójicamente, contra cualquier evolución social.
De un proyecto integral a una composición abierta
El plan de Mies de extender el campus más allá de los límites

de la manzana, para conectarlo a las infraestructuras urbanas ex-
istentes, exigía una negociación constante con el entorno. El Plan
General del campus del iit fue un proyecto en transformación,
que evolucionó de un diseño integral a una composición abierta,
paralelamente a la transformación de su relación con su contexto
inmediato, en una constante reinterpretación que tuvo especial
cuidado en no perturbar su propia funcionalidad interna.
El éxito de la propuesta de Mies reside en la particular com-
binación de un doble compromiso: por un lado, resolver en el cor-
to plazo las necesidades funcionales dentro de los límites de las
propiedades progresivamente adquiridas por el iit; por otro lado,
una firme resolución a largo plazo de mantener una organización
clara, conforme con la estructura formal de los fragmentos ya eje-
cutados previamente.
Fue la lógica interna de su patrón formal, la posibilidad abi-
erta de su diseño, lo que permitió la redefinición de la relación del
campus con su entorno, haciendo posible futuras expansiones a
pesar de la creciente complejidad del conjunto. Paradójicamente,
esa posibilidad sólo se apreciaría años después, cuando el iit fue
efectivamente adoptado como modelo para el consiguiente de-
sarrollo del South Side de Chicago. Materializado antes de que
diferentes agencias gubernamentales se involucrasen en lo que se
llamaría el Programa de renovación urbana, el campus del iit
instauró un modelo de lo que sucedería en los siguientes años.
En otras palabras, la completa reurbanización del South Side de
Chicago siguió una imagen que describía lo que el iit pretendía
ser y no una solución arquitectónica final, a pesar de que dicha
imagen pudiera inspirar un método operativo.
Mies entendía el orden como un fundamento histórico espe-
cífico, esencial para la evolución de cualquier organización so-
cial, e intentó materializarlo a través de una espacialidad abierta,
donde una comunidad pudiesen caminar hacia la realización de
potencialidades previamente inadvertidas. La forma de lograrlo
era una organización autorreferencial de sus distintos elementos
arquitectónicos, en la que el tiempo quedaría en suspenso, debido
al lento desarrollo de su compromiso con un Plan General.
Probablemente nadie resumió esta postura con tanta clar-
idad como Caldwell algunos años después. Al preguntarse a sí
mismo: “¿Cómo deberíamos describir nuestro trabajo? ¿Cómo
trabajamos con la estructura?”, respondió sin dudar: “la estructu-
ra contiene el embrión de lo que es —el principio”, “una secuen-
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xxi

P R E FAC E
cia de partes, procedentes de un principio interno: una idea de las

partes”.26 Caldwell concluía:
“Digamos que nuestro trabajo es hacer evolucionar la arqui-
tectura —y, en el proceso, evolucionar nosotros mismos”.27
26 C aldwell , A. (��), «Architecture: Vision of Structure,» en The Structurist, ��/��:

�� (��-��) [reeditado posteriormente como «Architecture: Vision of Structure—L'Ar-
chitecture: Vision de la Structure—Architektur: Einsicht in die Struktur,» en B laser ,
W. (��) Architecture and Nature. The Work of Alfred Caldwell—Architecture et Nature. L'Œuvre
d'Alfred Caldwell—Architektur und Natur. Das Werk von Alfred Caldwell (Basel/Boston/Stutt-
gart: Birkhäuser Verlag), págs. ��-�� [traducción del autor].
27 C aldwell , A. (��), «Architecture: Vision of Structure,» en Op. cit., pág. �� [tra-
ducción del autor].
xxii M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
Acknowledgements
With infinite slowness arises the great form, the birth of which is the
meaning of the epoch.
Not everything that happens takes place in full view.
The decisive battles of the spirit are waged in invisible battlefields.
L. Mies van der Rohe28
My gratitude to iit for its generous concession of its Interna-

tional Scholarship in ��-��, which made me possible to expe-
rience personally Mies's legacy, and sowed the seeds of the ideas
here expressed. These lines have been written in an attempt to
give back everything that I received there.
I also owe my gratitude to the faculty at Department of Ar-
chitectural Composition, etsam, whose accessibility has enriched
the ideas that I try to outline in this essay. Particularly, to its Head
of Department and my thesis supervisors: their concern and care
have been the best way to teach me that commitment and preci-
sion is not only at odds with methodological flexibility, but, com-
bined, they can provide particularly rich prospects for research
and knowledge. Finally, and above all, I would like to thank to my
colleagues and fellow candidates, together with whom I learned to
enjoy reading, writing, and thinking about architecture.
This dissertation would have not been possible without the
patience and support of all my family. This work is dedicated to
all of them, and especially to my wife and to my son, who illumi-
nated its end.
28 M ies van der Rohe , L., (n.d.) manuscript for a lecture [Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe papers, ��-��, Manuscripts Division, box ��-��, sheet �� # mss -�� (Washing-
ton d.c ., l o c)] [translation by the author].
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xxiii

xxiv M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
1. INTRODUCTION
It is easy to forget that Mies's iit campus plan depicts an imagined,

completed institution.
In ��, and for years to come, much of the campus was a patchwork of
dilapidated commercial and residential buildings. Old Armour build-
ings were also present, but Mies consistently omitted them from models
and aerial perspectives.
The order and location in which new buildings were actually built
turned out to be a function of available funding, iit bureaucratic infight-
ing, a world war, and after the war the complex dynamics of a rapidly
growing technical university.1
1 S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), «A New Architectural Language: ��-

��,» in Mies van der Rohe: a Critical Biography. New and Revised Edition (Chicago: uo c), ch. �,
pp. ��-��.
A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T 1
2 M I E S VA N D E R R O H E ' S I L L I N O I S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y
M O T I VAT I O N
1.1 Motivation
1.1.1 Topicality and Relevance of iit Today 1.1 iit campus today (2015), in its ur-
ban context (opposite page).

The Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) campus, Chicago,
by architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, has been recently sub-
jected to important interventions that motivated a conservationist
debate2 that have put it into place among the contemporary archi-
tectural debate [Fig. �.�].
Not in vain, the whole complex is commonly accepted to-
day as a representative exponent of a certain Modern attitude for
the construction of the contemporary city. Exceeding its common
consideration as a transitional work, it is considered today as a
model of a disciplined approach to architecture design and urban
intervention, that has inevitably characterized the subsequent
configuration of large American cities.3 This fact has promoted,
a posteriori, an interpretation of the figure of its architect, and spe-
cifically of this one work, as representative of a kind of attitude
towards architectural design in the urban the context in which
it arose, that is particularly close to certain values traditionally
associated to American architecture and urban planning,4 such
as those of pragmatism or organizational efficiency.
Furthermore, a claim for a “tough, hardened lyricism that
would be uniquely American” has been posed by scholar stud-
ies about this period of his practice.5 But even if the architect's
struggle for “forging a language”6 out of the rolled steel sections
catalogue is nowadays considered patent, the emphasis on issues
2 The whole iit campus was included in the u . s . National Register of Historic Places in
��.
3 This line of research has been developed gradually since the celebration in ��
of the exhibition Mies in America at the Whitney Museum of American Art, whose cata-
log —L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��) Mies in America (Montreal/New York: cca /wma a ;
Harry N. Abrams)— was mainly devoted to iit, and remains today as a basic reference
for its study for its extraordinary documentary effort.
4 His works at m o ma bear the label «American Architect German born», as pointed
by B laser , W. (��), «After Mies or: Thirty Years Later,» in Die Kunst der Struktur—L’art
de la structure (Stuttgart/Zurich: Verlag für Architektur), p. ��.
5 L ambert, Ph. (��), «Forging a Language,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
6 Ibid.
M O T I VAT I O N
such as its dazzling reminiscent quality despite the material short- 1.2 iit campus today (2015) in its ur-
age with which it was to be made —both absent in his disciples ban context, with buildings by Mies
work—, or his particular determination to resist the pragmatic highlighted (opposite page).
Only about half of the existing campus
forces that shaped American architecture and urbanism immedi-
buildings today were actually built by
ately before and after the war years, has proven the limits of the
Mies, and the presence of its original de-
interpretations to which it has been routinely subjected.
sign is in debt to the commitment of his
Indeed, two statements are often formulated to describe to-
followers with its further development.
day Mies van der Rohe's whole American work, that iit came Its extension, traditionally limited by city
to initiate. The first one is that it was abstract, so that the con- transportation infrastructures, has been
structive means used for its materialization or the use for which filled recently with new buildings.
it was designed would be secondary, or at least, not as defining
as the development that it made of an architectural discourse of
its own. Usually, this statement has justified all kinds of trans-
positions, appropriations or interpretations of his work, generally
apart from the particular historical and material context in which
it was conceived. The second statement is that it was pragmatic,
and lacked the sensible quality of his early work. This would in-
volve an architecture overly focused on the resolution of technical
and compositional aspects, probably in an unsurpassed way, but
ultimately cold and impersonal.
Key
IIT Buildings* ics & Electrical Engineering 30 Keating Sports Center

1 iit Main Building Research Building) 31 Tennis Courts
2 iit Buildings & Grounds Stor- 14 igt Central Building 32 Bailey Hall
age Building 15 Leadership School 33 Cunningham Hall Apartments
3 iit Machinery Hall 16 Paul V. Galvin Library 34 Gunsaulus Hall
4 iit Facilities Garage 17 Siegel Hall 35 Carman Hall Apartments
5 Parking Lot 18 iit s.r. Crown Hall [& Institute 36 McCormick Tribune Campus
6 iitri Materials Technology (/ of Design] Center
infac) Building 19 State Union Village 37 Commons Building
7 iit Transformer Vault 20 Hermann Union Building 38 St. Saviour Chapel (/Robert F.
(/Central Electrical Vault) (/‘The hub’) Carr Memorial)
8 iit Heating Plant 21 Alumni Memorial Hall 39 McCormick Student Village (/
9 iitri Engineering Research (/ 22 Perlstein Hall Residence Hall)
iitri Research Center) 23 Whisnick Hall 40 Farr Hall
10 iitri Life Science Research 24 Vandercook College of Music 41 Fraternity Houses (/‘The
Building (/‘Incubator’) 25 Chicago Transit Authority (cta) Quad’)
11 iitri Chemical Research Bdg. West Building
12 iitri Offices Tower (/‘iit 26 cta East Building Other Relevant Structures
Tower’) 27 Stuart Building in the Area
13 Institute of Gas Technology 28 iit Life Science Building 42 Chicago Housing Authority
(igt) South Building (/iit Phys- 29 iit Engineering Building � (cha) Dearborn Homes
* Structures in red designed by Mies van der Rohe
I N TRODUCTION
1.3 Views of iit campus buildings

today, as institutionally presented.
Note the emphasis made on the spatial
quality of its landscaping and green
courts. These undoubtedly modulate
now the open spaces in the campus, by
enhancing the continuity of its different
buildings. The delineation of the public
spaces at iit today seems to be closely in-
ter-related with both.
In addition to this, just as much of the relevant works of Mies

van der Rohe, one can appreciate that the whole iit campus de-
sign was the result of a long process that, once completed, showed
little evidence about the circumstances of its production or about
the conditions —such as the unique urban environment where
it took place— that it necessarily had to satisfy. Moreover, the
architect frequently used representation to convey a general idea
of his intentions and to place the design in a wider disciplinary
discussion, and not just describe its actual reality.
As a matter of fact, when one characterizes iit campus design
by this deliberate attempt to conceal efforts in its results many
of its peculiarities seem to explain, almost immediately, some of
the features that one can experience in it.7 Furthermore, it would
come to clarify these statements that, being both true to a certain
point, the project partially denies: it has proved suitable for a va-
riety of uses and situations over time, it has a dignified and natu-
rally elegant appearance, and it is, first and above all, accessible
and welcoming [Fig. �.�].8
7 His work has been often characterized this way, and it has been usually noted that
“(…) the simplicity he strives for, which seems to be so effortless, is the result of uncea-
sing thought and painstaking work”, as it is pointed in H ilberseimer , L. (��) Mies van
der Rohe (Chicago: P. Theobald), p. ��.
8 The participatory character of iit Campus has been explicitly recognized, among
others, in S mithson , A. and P. (��) Mies van der Rohe (Berlin: Technische Universität
Berlin), when they described iit arguing that “(...) a building today is only interesting
if it is more than itself. If it charges the space with connective possibilities —especially
if it does this by a quietness that up to this time our sensibilities could not recognize as
architecture at all, let alone be able to see clearly enough to isolate its characteristics
(...),” in Ibid., n.p.
M O T I VAT I O N
1.4 Different views of the so- called

‘Mies Alley’ at iit campus, as seen
today (top), and originally (bottom).
There have been numerous attempts to
capture in images the spatial experience
of crossing the green spaces contained
by the various buildings of the complex.
Since the completion of the construction
of the whole campus, the progressive
development and adjustment of the land-
scaping project has nuanced the pres-
ence of Mies's buildings in these areas.
These circumstances, together with the specific characteris-

tics of the original design, have come to hinder further detailed
analysis. In fact, only some of the buildings originally designed
by Mies were finally erected, and the campus Master Plan was
completed only decades later by some of his disciples, in a totally
different context and facing a program of requirements in con-
tinuous transformation [Fig. �.�]. Apparently, this situation would
have obscured, when not directly impeded, any critical assess-
ment of its specific contributions, and therefore undervaluing its
actual relevance.
I N TRODUCTION
1.2 State of the Art
Major studies on Mies van der Rohe's work have been com-
monly linked to several events such as exhibitions and confer-
ences —often with an international scope— usually related to
the periodic revisions that have regularly thought around the
permanence and the influence of his work.9 Generally, these have
been followed by publications which provide us today a reveal-
ing portrait of the evolution of its different interpretations over
the years,10 and especially that of his American work. When the
extensive literature on Mies's American work is limited to that au-
thored by the people responsible for its most influential revisions
and relevant interpretations —and, more particularly, to that of
iit— two groups arise:
1.5 ‘Mies van der Rohe’, catalog of 1.2.1 Authors that dealt personally with Mies
the homonymous exhibition at moma,
New York.
They usually provide information and references obtained
This monograph was originally pub-
from a direct relation with the architect, and their work have gen-
lished on the occasion of the first major
erally constituted a direct source of information for later studies.
retrospective exhibition on Mies's work,
held at the Museum of Modern Art in
Commonly, this circumstance made up for its deficiencies or inac-
September, ��. The book, however, curacies, as well as a certain bias around his persona, sometimes
made an interpretation of Mies's work probably even with a implicit consent of Mies himself.11 Among
different from that offered by the exhibi- these, we can include, in chronological order:
tion design, conceived personally by the
architect himself. a. Philip C. Johnson — American architect, he contacted
Mies during his stay in Europe in the ��s, and became his main
supporter upon his arrival to the United States. In ��, as the
9 This has been one of the main criteria to analyze, in the Bibliography section —
see chapter �—, the literature available concerning iit.
10 An excellent overview can be found in Neumeyer , F. (��), «Einleitung. Die Tra-
dition der Rezeption: Mies van der Rohe in der Geschichtsschreibung zur modernen
Architektur,» in Mies van der Rohe: Das Kunstlose Wort: Gedanken zur Baukunst (Berlin: Sied-
ler), pp. xi-xxii.
11 Regarding the periodic reexamination of his whole work, and “Mies's self-fashio-
ning” of his own “systematic revision of his career”, see O ckman , J., «The Mies Behind
the Myth», Architecture, � (��): �� (Aug., ��).
STAT E OF T H E A RT
1.6 View of the installation of ‘Mies

van der Rohe’ exhibition at moma,
New York (left); exhibition floor-plan

(above).
The design and installation of the exhi-
bition was carefully supervised by Mies.
It consisted of reproductions at different
Head of the Department of Architecture at moma, New York, he scales of works and projects by the archi-
organized the first individual exhibition on Mies, whose catalog tect, whose simultaneous display favored
[Fig. �.�] was also the first monograph on his work. Despite the their perception as a montage of images
inaccuracies it incurred,12 this publication set the basis and mod- in space. According to this approach,
el for all subsequent studies. The significance of this exhibition, the pictures taken to document the ex-
hibition were retouched to enhance this
backed by the great affluence of public and the audience echo
effect (left, compare the altered ceiling
which it obtained, depended to a great extent on its exhibition
with Fig. �.�, left).
design, personally coordinated by Mies himself [Fig. �.�], which
Despite occupying an entire wall of
received wide coverage in newspapers and other specialized pub-
the room, iit designs were placed in
lications.13 the background, behind the access,
Moreover, much of the impact of the exhibition lay in its cat- and no picture of their arrangement is
alog, which was conceived in an accessible format, without any preserved. According to the exhibition
critical approach or any conclusions, that would have been inop- floor-plan (top), a full-scale mock-up of
portune at a time in which Mies's career was expanding.14 the corner detail planned for iit Library
It was noticeable, however, the contrast between the portrait and Administration Building was dis-
played.
12 Today we know that some of the data included in the catalog, especially with
regard to the date of some projects, are inaccurate. In a conversation with Ludwig
Glaesner, added as an epilogue to the � rd edition, Johnson admitted that his intention
was never to offer a rigorous historical testimony, but “(…) to present Mies as the best
architect of the world [sic.],” in Op. cit. (��), p. ��.
13 Some of the most significant reviews of the catalog appeared in Architectural Forum
�� (�): �� (Nov., ��), in Art Bulletin �� (�): ��-�� ( Jun., ��), or in Werk �� (sup.): ��-��
(Oct., ��). Comments on the exhibition could be found, for instance, in Arts and Archi-
tecture ��: ��-�� (Dec., ��), or in Art News ��: ��-��, ��-�� (Sept., ��).
14 “(…) Mies's design reflected no chronological or thematic narrative. The viewer
would have had to glean any such references from the project titles, and from the ab-
breviated project descriptions discreetly placed next to the projects. The title of the
exhibition —simply ‘Mies van der Rohe’— had no bracketing dates or other modifiers, and
there were no extensive wall texts .... Mies's design was a visual experience ....” [empha-
sis added], as noted in R iley, T. (��), «Making History: Mies van der Rohe and The
Museum of Modern Art», in Mies in Berlin (New York: moma), pp. ��-��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.7 Photographic report of ‘Mies

van der Rohe’ exhibition at moma and
one of the captions describing the
images (right); detail of a picture of
the show (above).
The eminently visual discourse of the
exhibition was in tune with that of nu-
merous publications of the time, a fact
that favored its extensive media coverage
(right). On one hand, large photographic
prints virtually immersed the viewer into
the spaces built by the architect. On the
other hand, the exhibition placed at the
same level of importance large-scale and
small-scale objects —from buildings to
furniture (above)—, in consonance with
certain ideas, formulated by the Bau-
haus, about the role of the designer in an
industrialized society. All the displayed
pieces of furniture were property of Ph.
Johnson and E. Kaufmann, who tempo-
rarily lent them for the exhibition.
that one could get of Mies's work through such installation and the
one transmitted by the exhibition catalog. Indeed, the installation
made a special emphasis upon Mies's ability to address design
problems of any scale [Fig. �.�], suggesting the universal validity of
his working method.15
In contrast, the catalog was structured chronologically and it
offered the most systematic overview of Mies's career so far, even
though not free of an implicit interpretation.16 Particularly con-
cerning itt campus, the fact that only just a few of its buildings
15 As remarked in S peyer , J.A., «Mies van der Rohe: His First Large us Exhibition
Shows How He Helped to Create the Modern Style From Chairs to Skyscrapers», Art
News, ��: ��-�� (Sept., ��).
16 For an in-depth analysis of this aspect, see R iley, T. (��), «Making History:
Mies van der Rohe and The Museum of Modern Art», in Mies in Berlin (New York:
m o ma ), pp. ��-��.
1.8 moma exhibition catalog, dou-

ble-spreads dedicated to Mies's iit
campus Master Plan design (above,

left).
The final design was illustrated by a
perspective view of the only three build-
ings finished by the time the exhibition
took place (reproduced over these lines),
framed in such a way that they could give
an impression of the whole as it would
look when completed. This image de-
scribed precisely the relevance of the spa-
tial inter-relation between the different
buildings, and therefore had a decisive
importance to outlook some qualities of
had been completed when the catalog was published17, limited the the complex, in an attempt to promote its
possibility to illustrate any of its will of spatial dialogue with an future completion.
environment that did not exist yet [Fig. �.�].18
Similarly, such circumstance defined what would later be a
17 By the time the exhibition opened on Sept. �� th, ��, only the Minerals and Me-
tals Research Building and the Navy Building had been fully completed. The third
building in the image, the Chemistry Building, was only partially finished when the
photograph was taken.
18 “(…) The structures executed so far may strike the untrained eye as unnecessarily
barren since they are units of a larger design, the subtle beauty of which will emerge
only when the whole is completed (…),” in Ibid., p. ��.
I N TRODUCTION

ble-spreads dedicated to different iit
campus buildings (right).
Probably trying to avoid to make visible
the rigidity of the utilitarian programs
housed by the buildings, which forced
the architect to use fairly basic configu-
rations, a general floor-plan was not al-
ways shown. On the contrary, construc-
tion details of every building were always
included, which led to understand them
as explorations of the possible combina-
tions of its elements, in the shape of dif-
ferent variations for a generic problem.
In addition to that, such selective repre-
sentation without solution of continuity
at intermediate scales, appeared de-con-
textualized from the rest of the building,
and not always described clearly the type
of construction used —a load-bearing
steel frame structure, framed again with
steel rolled sections supporting an enclo-
sure made of exposed brick and glass.
major interpretation of the project: as a set of constructed objects,

elaborated basically on the basis of a limited repertoire of con-
structive solutions [Figs. �.�, �.��].
This situation motivated that its various individual buildings
finally acquired a great importance for the description of the proj-
ect, well ahead of its location —which was never displayed— or
the use of a grid to order it. Their facades, which had been orig-
inally conceived in a purity of lines to unify the different char-
acter of the various buildings in the design, as different pieces
at the service of a whole, were then interpreted as a choice of
austerity and rigor. The wide diffusion of the exhibition catalog,
which for many years was the only monograph available about
Mies's work, promoted that interpretation. This remained so to
the point where, in its successive editions, the pages dedicated to
iit campus Master Plan and its buildings were left unchanged and
without further additions, in spite of its progressive consolidation.

Although a variety of different photomontages were produced,
none of them ever came to include an overall view of the final

ble-spreads dedicated to different iit
campus buildings (above, left).
The profusion of details with which
Mies managed to define every one of
the buildings of iit promoted a kind of
representation that focused in describing
the constructive solution of the successive
structural knots of the building envelope.
Barely showing signs of the different con-
structive problems actually posed by this
kind of approach, —see the complexity
of the structural problems in their interi-
ors, for example, in Fig. �.��, p. ��— this
representation instead opted for giving
design of the complex, which was always illustrated with any of its them an appearance of simplicity, by de-
preliminary versions.19 Two new chapters showing his new work, scribing a generic solution, often far from
as well as some annexes with written documentation and his first adequate to solve them.
published interview, merely completed the content of the book

without any further storyline.
The book had such an impact that Johnson himself acquired
a name as a specialist in Mies's work. In fact, he participated as
19 A decision probably influenced by its description not only as “slick and lucid”,
but also “sickening”, in Ryckwert, J., «Mies van der Rohe», Burlington Magazine, ��: ��
(Sept., ��), where the “violent change in attitude” that had came upon him since the
��s was polemically condemned.
I N TRODUCTION
1.11 Hunstanton School, exterior

view (above); “School at Hunstanton,
Norfolk. Architects: Alison and Pe-
ter Smithson” (right).
Considered as one of the founding build-
ings of the New Brutalism, the Smith-
sons's Hunstanton School took Mies's
buildings for iit campus as an inspi-
ration. As their authors described, the
design was the result of a collaboration
between architects and engineers from
its very first conception. This resulted in
a building where all the elements were
linked in a ‘comprehensive’ generic solu-
tion, which justified the decision of the such in some of the most influential architecture journals of the
architects for leaving exposed all its tech- time, who closely followed the evolution of Mies's American work.
nical and constructive elements. Perhaps one of the most relevant influences of the book —
because of the subsequent impact that it reached— was on the
‘New Brutalism.’ This movement, which emerged at the United
Kingdom, had been set at iit campus buildings as an example of
the ideas it proposed. In particular, when Alison and Peter Smith-
son presented their school building at Hunstanton, Norfolk, some
years after [Fig. �.��], they openly recognized them as inspiration.
Significantly, when published, it was preceded by an introducto-
ry article signed by Johnson himself,20 quite revealing of how iit
campus and its buildings were understood then.
20 J ohnson , Ph., «School at Hunstanton, Norfolk. Comment by Philip Johnson as an
American follower of Mies van der Rohe», Architectural Review, ��: �� (Sept., ��).
In his article, Johnson distanced himself from the Smithsons,

as he made a critique of what he saw as a pretentious exploitation
of the findings made by Mies. Johnson remarked, with some suf-
ficiency, their debt to the constructive “grammar”21 founded by
Mies's American work.
This reference to the constructive system of iit buildings as a
common architectural language, universally available, had been made
recently by Giedion, albeit without further argument. Despite it
was never included in Johnson's book, such remark was entirely
consistent with the picture that he had offered about Mies's work,
while it perfectly suited his elitist spirit. According to this idea,
Johnson undervalued the Smithsons's building, which he de- 1.12 School at Hunstanton. View
scribed as a “game”22 developed from the language defined by of steel frame structure under con-
struction.
Mies.
The project included the key participa-
Although only suggested by a footnote in his article, it could
tion of R. Jenkins, an engineer from O.
be deduced that Johnson's criticism was rather aimed at the
Arup who was decisive in the finally
Smithsons's defense of the New Brutalism, which he saw as ‘not el-
adopted solution. Although its free span
egant’. His criticism focused on the building surface finish, much was the same as that of the iit campus
coarser than that of Mies's buildings for iit campus, which the buildings, the structural knots of its
Smithsons by then only knew through their publications. Even frames were welded, in an uncommon
if Johnson was familiar with the contradictions in Mies's work, solution at the time. This provided them
he seemed to assume that the differences between the two archi- an additional stiffness and, consequent-
tectures were insurmountable. At times, his comments verged on ly, their beams were built with more
the superficial, especially when he reproached an apparent lack slender sections. Contrary to what it may
of budget23 when, in fact, the situation was the opposite [Fig. �.��]. seem, it is likely that Mies's buildings for
Similarly, when he commented on the difficulty of operating iit campus had been more economical,
because the internal nodes of the struc-
in a compositional way with elements of technique —an essential
ture —as one can appreciate today in
aspect of iit campus buildings— Johnson was particularly severe,
the photographs documenting its execu-
and he highlighted some residual situations that called the ade-
tion— were riveted, taking advantage of
quacy of the whole structural solution adopted by the Smithsons
the fact that they were meant to remain
into question [Fig. �.��]. hidden. It is no accident that any repre-
While Johnson's criticism was fully accurate, it is fair to admit sentation of the constructive solution in
that the Smithsons were concern definitely by another issues. In iit campus buildings was always limited
fact, despite recognizing the influence of iit campus buildings in to their perimeter.
the description of their building, the Smithsons themselves an-
swered to Johnson's article with a critical reading of some con-
21 “ (…) Though the Smithsons may not agree, much of the excellence of their work
is a tribute not only to themselves but also to the genius of Mies van der Rohe. For it
is Mies who has codified the exposed steel-glass-and-brick-filled-frame grammar for the
rest of us to use if we wish” [emphasis added], in Op. cit., p. ��.
22 “The Mies vernacular is not good by chance for Mies's main thesis is that archi-
tects should seek to create generally applicable ideas, not ‘sports’ or exciting individual
buildings. He will create so that others may build well,” in Op. cit., p. ��.
23 “There are additional troubles inherent in any attempt to do Mies on the cheap.
One should remember the reproach often thrown to Mies: ‘As simple as possible, no
matter what the cost.’ It is correspondingly difficult to save money and keep the elegan-
ce.” In S mithson , A. and P., “Design principles”, in «School at Hunstanton, Norfolk»,
Architectural Review, ��: �� (Sept., ��).
I N TRODUCTION
structive conventions preserved in Mies's buildings —such as the

concealment of facilities— which they saw as incongruous with
the spirit of a contemporary Modernity, as they understood it.
The integrity of their commitment was such that they despised
any criticism on the “ruthlessness”24 of their architecture.
The Smithsons retrieved Mies's approach for iit campus
buildings to justify what they understood as a more consistent
application of his own architectural principles. Specifically, they
referred to an assessment of construction just ‘as it is’, which in-
volved both accepting the appearance of its own elements, as well
as the intrinsic beauty in the structural solutions that managed to
1.13 School at Hunstanton. Interior combine them in a natural way.25
view of the building under construc- Confident of their stance, the Smithsons described their
tion. building emphasizing the full incorporation of its technical as-
Contrary to iit campus buildings, the pects into the definition of the final result [Fig. �.��].26 Not in vain,
structure of this building was solved some of the criticism of Mies's American work had already point-
with a generic frame, designed to come
ed out repeatedly that, at iit campus buildings, these usually re-
to terms with all technical requirements
mained into a background, where not fully hidden. In conclusion,
in a comprehensive way. However, this
the Smithsons justified their position on the basis of what they
solution presented some problems when
understood as an “existential responsibility upon the architect”27
applied in some singular structural sit-
uations in the building —as in the en-
that seemed hardly refutable:
counter between perpendicular rib-and- “(…) There must be a new aesthetic of materials, which must
block slabs at the corners of the central be valued for the surfaces they have on delivery to the site
space (above)—, which were solved by (…) a valuation like that of the Dadaists, who accepted their
separating and juxtaposing several inde- materials ‘as found’, a valuation built into the Modern Move-
pendent frames [a scheme of such detail ment by Moholy-Nagy at the Bauhaus. (…) It does not in-
was included in the article, as it can be gratiate itself with cosmetic detailing, but, like it or dislike
appreciated in Fig. �.�� (top, left page)]. it, demands that we should make up our minds about it, and
This gave the building a schematic and examine our consciences in the light of that decision.”28
redundant appearance by which it was
later criticized.
Although Mies's architecture for iit campus buildings was
not mentioned here expressly, their argumentation clearly sum-
marized many of its contradictions. But, regardless their honesty,
24 “(…) It is here a radicalism, which owes nothing to precedent, and everything to
the inner mechanisms of the Modern Movement. It does not merely imply a special kind
of plan or structure, but a peculiar ruthlessness —overriding gentlemen's agreements
and routine solutions— which pervades the whole design from original conception to
finished details,” in Op. cit., ��.
25 “(…) That is why architects and engineer unite, as in all other matters, in asserting
that theirs is a traditional building, free from (…) the formalism of Mies van der Rohe.
This may seem a hard saying, since Mies is the obvious comparison, but at Hunstanton
every element is truly what it appears to be, serving as necessary structure and neces-
sary decoration,” Ibid.
26 “(…) They were conceived from the very first, as were all other elements, as per-
forming structurally, functionally and decoratively as parts of an integrated architectu-

re.” Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
1.14 School at Hunstanton. Struc-

tural schemes and details (top, left)
and detail of glazed facade (bottom,
right).
Just like Mies's buildings for iit campus
—which they knew about only through
publications by then— the Smithsons
emphasized the structure of their design,
which was included aside the building
program description (above, left), as well
as its constructive resolution (bottom,
right). As they explained, the construc-
tive system of the building consisted in
structural steel frames with an exposed
the Smithson's building seemed far from the refinement of the brick enclosure, all solved with stan-
sophisticated constructive and structural solutions in Mies's iit dard construction details, according to
buildings, and presented a less subtle appearance in its material their ideas about the ‘New Brutalism’,
execution. to which the publication was dedicated.
I N TRODUCTION
1.15 Giedion's 'space, Time, and b. Sigfried Giedion — Swiss Historian, Giedion acted
Architecture’, book jacket (above); il- as the theoretical director and main ideologist of Modern Ar-
lustration opening the chapter dedi- chitecture, and had a key role to define the reception of Mies's
cated to Mies's work (left); architecture, one of its prominent protagonists. However, Mies
The decision to open the chapter dedi-
deliberately turned his back to him, despite Giedion's persistent
cated to Mies, not with an illustration of
efforts to reach him over more than ten years.29 The reasons that
his architecture, but with a Dutch paint-
could have driven Mies to keep his distance unswervingly —apart
ing, as if to explain Mies as a result of the
from his proverbial silence— and just limit contact to a sparse
Dutch tradition on “the careful balance
of the plane surfaces” (right), was quite
correspondence,30 are only revealed when one takes account of
illuminating. In spite of the impact of how Giedion had described the architecture of Mies in his writ-
his early work, it appeared —with some ings, and how he had classified and evaluated it amidst the whole
exceptions— more or less underestimat- spectrum of Modernity. For decades, Mies had been practically
ed as cross-influenced by Schinkel and excluded from the orthodoxy of Modernity, that Gideon had con-
Behrens, or Wright and van Doesburg. tributed to define in his seminal book, Space, Time and Architecture.31
When his buildings were granted any The personal animosity between Gropius and Mies probably con-
significance, their description was fol- tributed to tense the relationship between Mies and Giedion to a
lowed by a reference to the contributions large extent.32
of its predecessors.
29 As summarized by the slight reproach of the resigned sentence that closed his
letter to Mies: “(…) As you can see, I do not even know your address”, dated Aug. � nd ,
��. Giedion complained for having to address it to “Professor Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, usa”, at a date when Mies actually had
already given up his charges at iit.
30 Preserved at the Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Papers, Manuscript Division, File: Misc.
«Late Correspondence Series, ��-��», box #�, ‘g’ (Washington d.c ., l o c). These are
dated from �� to ��.
31 G iedion , S. (��) Space, Time and Architecture. The Growth of a New Tradition (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University) (� st ed.) Although iit campus Master Plan was widely
published by the same year, Mies had not built anything in the u. s . yet by then.
32 Giedion made his book out of the prestigious Charles Eliot Norton Lectures he gave
at Harvard University between ��-��, invited by Gropius. Giedion, in turn, backed

Gropius since the late ��s as the sole “provider of the new architecture in the United
States”, in Op. cit. (��).
1.16 “Burnham and Co., Reliance

Building, Chicago, 1894” (left); “The
Unlike Gropius and Le Corbusier, who Giedion celebrated iron skeleton [Eisenskelettbau] as
as the heroes of the Modern movement, Mies did not appear as housing form, 1927” (above).
a pioneering architect, but the opposite. The way that Mies's ar- Mies's building at Weissenhof Siedlung,
chitecture appeared in the first edition was marginal —especially Stuttgart, had been used previously by
when compared with the prominent presence of Gropius— and Giedion to illustrate the possibilities
quite displaced to the background. In general terms, Giedion of the use of the skeleton frame —a “steel
“practiced a historiography of exclusion”, and the few references scaffolding backed in stone” [Stahlgerüst
und Backsteinen]— in building (above).
he included about Mies were tangential, and did not deserve fur-
The only view of complex was one the
ther comments33 [Fig. �.��].
building facade, that Giedion took care
But, even if Mies's architecture hardly fitted into the prin-
to show under construction, to illustrate
ciples outlined in the tradition developed by Giedion, or could
the independence between the structure
have derived from the strict logical argument that he had estab- and its filling. In his later review of the
lished for it [Fig. �.��], Giedion's disparaging attitude had changed historical precedents in the development
around the ��s. Probably because, by then, the interests of the of the skeleton structure —that Giedion
Modern Movement were already very different from those of the identified with the Chicago School of
��s, and Modern architecture was being widely criticized. The Architecture— he alluded to Mies's ��
ciam —where Giedion acted as main secretary— was undergoing project for a glass skyscraper as “a mod-
a deep critique from within, which questioned the legacy of the ern excursion into the realm of fantasy”
Bauhaus and the International Style. This review posed a threat (left).
to some of the paradigms of a modernity that had been erected on

an absolute fidelity to rationalism, to whose legitimacy, in terms
33 Initially, Mies appeared only briefly mentioned in Op. cit. (��), «Towards Pure
Forms», Part v: ‘American Development’, pp. ��, ��, ��, and ��.
Here, “(…) the idea of a ‘skin and bones’ building [Haut–und–Knochen–Baus], as it
appeared in Mies's innovative projects for glass skyscrapers, was a disoriented fantasy,
and had been realized decades ago and better elsewhere, namely in Chicago. With the
site plan of the project for a country house he achieved a clever variation, or imitation,
of Wright. The �� Barcelona Pavilion, one of Mies's key buildings, deserved no dis-
cussion. And the best contribution of Mies to the Weissenhof, Stuttgart, was having
offered an opportunity to the appropriate architects to build there (…),” as analyzed in
Neumeyer , Fritz, «Giedion en Mies van der Rohe: Een Paradox in de Historiografie van
Het Moderne», Archis �: ��-�� (Apr., ��).
I N TRODUCTION
of a normative tradition, Giedion had dedicated his life and work.

However, this situation seemed not to have affected Mies,
and when Giedion had the chance to publish a new edition of
his book, he decided to add a whole chapter on him.34 Whether
Gideon felt appropriate Mies's American work to hold the unit as
a rappel a l'ordre or as a return to discipline as he understood it was,
nonetheless, far from Mies's own intentions35. Somehow, Giedion
granted a “deep moral influence upon contemporary American
architecture” to the commitment of Mies's buildings, and ulti-
1.17 View of Mies's Housing Block
mately to Mies himself 36. Now presented as more or less exem-
at Weissenhof Housing Settlement, plary, Giedion granted Mies a recognition that he had already
Stuttgart, 1927, under construction. achieved without his support.37
It was in its construction process that Oddly, the general respect for Mies's American architecture,
Mies's Housing Development clearly il- though based on principles which were no longer strictly modern
lustrated the independence between its from a orthodox point of view, was then used by Giedion as a
continuous bearing structure and the reply to the pressure of the growing hostility to his ideas. Indeed,
non-bearing character of its filling. The Mies barely had ever defended or even embodied integrity,38 and
possibility to accommodate different even less to a point where he was assigned a strategic position in
functional requirements opened by this
the battle of Modern Architecture. An integrity that Giedion, on
approach —which implied an overall
the contrary, “sacrificed for the sake of defending his own cause as
design of the building structure, as well
the historian of Modernity”39 —to help it to achieve its progress,
of its erection process— was only lat-
and give it a historical legitimacy.
er recognized by Giedion as one of the
main accomplishments of the whole
In this new chapter, Giedion praised Mies especially because
complex. of the Weissenhof Housing Development, Stuttgart, on one hand,
However, this could only be described and because of his last buildings in Chicago on the other. iit
by means of representation as, once the campus design appeared among these, as if it would have helped
building was finished, its structure was to articulate the transition from one to another. By the time he
covered by a fixed facade for construc- published the third edition in the mid ��s, the change in Giedi-
tive reasons. This circumstance moti-
vated the fact that, when the building
was later described, any of the sparse
34 «Mies van der Rohe and the Integrity of Form,» in Op. cit. (��), Part vi : 'spa-
available images of the building under ce-Time in Art, Architecture and Construction’, pp. ��-��. Most probably, the success
construction were always included [see, of Johnson's book influenced Giedion's decision, as it was quoted repeatedly in Op. cit.
for instance, Fig. �.��]. (��), pp. ��-��, ��.
35 According to Neumeyer, “To make [Mies] feel something of that spirit of support,
he should have used «Mies van der Rohe and the Art of Building»” [for Baukunst], in
Neumeyer , F., Op. cit.
36 In Op. cit. (��), «On the Integrity of Form», ��. Regarding other works than iit,
see G iedion , S., «Der moralische Einfluss der Architektur Mies van der Rohes,» Werk,
Bauen + Wohnen, � (��): ��-�� (‘Mies van der Rohe, �� Jährig’, monographic issue, Jul.,
��).
37 As it can be appreciated in the fact that Mies's iit campus had already appeared
in a publication commissioned to him at the � th ciam Congress at Bridgewater. See G ie -

dion ,S. (ed.) (��) A Decade of New Architecture—Dix Ans d'Architecture Contemporaine—Ein
Jahrzehnt Moderner Architektur. Zurich: Editions H. Girsberger/Congrès Internationaux
d'Architecture Moderne (ciam), pp. ��, ��-��.
38 “(…) He was capable also of self-doubt, confusion, and deviation from principle,
(…) of actions, in short, that are perplexing and unconsistent only if we presume he was
as simple and fixed a character as his legend suggests,” as he was described in S chulze ,
F. (��), «Preface», Mies Van der Rohe: A Critical Biography (Chicago: uo c), p. xvi.
39 Neumeyer , F., Op cit.
1.18 Mies's Weissenhof Housing

Settlement, 1927, aerial view and
Master Plan (left); Mies's Housing
Block, view, floor-plan variations,
and view under construction (right).
Mies's Weissenhof Housing Develop-
ment was presented immediately before
iit campus in Giedion's book. Thereby,
it was understood as a precedent that in-
troduced iit, apparently in what was an
evolution of its then innovative structural
concept —the “steel skeleton” structure.
This had been submitted by Giedion in
earlier books as the great technical leap
that had allowed the emergence of the
Modern Movement.
But, by reasons that he never explained,
on's attitude regarding the Weissenhof Estate, now described as a Giedion never included barely any work-
landmark of Modern architecture, was particularly noticeable.40 ing drawings in the chapter on Mies
At first, the settlement was reviewed from the field of urban —and barely in the whole book—, in
planning, as “a living manifesto of rational planning and organi- spite of the relevance he bestowed to the
zation”.41 However, a spatial discourse was clearly highlighted by technical aspects of architecture. This
contradicted what was then a common
Giedion, when he concluded that “Mies van der Rohe's original
practice in Mies's Office, and in which he
plan was to interlock the houseplots so that a unified relationship
had placed special emphasis concerning
could be created and the green areas would flow into one anoth-
his buildings for iit campus.
er”,42 which strongly recalled to iit campus spatial concept.
This was completed with the section “Mies van der Rohe's
steel framed apartment house”, focusing specifically on Mies's
housing block. The building was given as an example of the pos-
sibilities offered by the steel frame structure to unfold the expres-
sive potential of the different construction elements through the
open floor plan [Figs. �.��, �.��]. Again, this shift towards technique,
characteristic of Giedion, was used to deepen into a spatial in-
terpretation. According to it, the free plan allowed all the archi-
tectural elements —including those fixed, such as the structural
ones— to open a space of mutual relations in all directions:
“Here is continuous energy at work: nothing in our life re-
mains an isolated experience; everything stands in a ma-
ny-sided interrelationship —with, without, above, below!”43
40 Giedion stated then that “No one who lived through these opening days will forget
the optimism and the moral support produced by this event (…)”, in Op. cit. (��), «Mies
van der Rohe and the Integrity of Form,», p. ��.
41 In Op. cit. (��), pp. ��-��. Trying to amend his review from the first edition,
Giedion even quoted himself in the same page, in extracts from a contemporary referen-
ce which had not been included originally.
42 In Op. cit. (��), p. ��.
43 In Op. cit. (��), p. ��. Note the closeness of Giedion's remark to the definition
of Modern space in «Der raum (architektur),» in Moholy-Nagy, L. ��. Von Material zu
I N TRODUCTION
1.19 Aerial view of iit campus Mas- But, despite the tight logic of his critical analysis of the val-
ter Plan and perspective rendering ues which, in his opinion, made the Weissenhof Housing Devel-
(left); view of Chemical Engineering opment adequate to introduce iit campus design [Fig. �.��], when
and Metallurgy Building (right).
Giedion described the former he offered a more piecemeal argu-
Giedion ambiguously characterized iit
mentation. This kind of approach, in which multiple issues were
buildings by their “pureness of form,
chained together without further correlation was, nonetheless,
juxtaposition of different structures,
quite usual in the book regarding projects yet to be built, with
sensitivity of proportion, and discipline
of outline, all previously indicated in
which Giedion used to adopt a more concessive tone. Of all these
his country house of ��.” A model of issues, perhaps the most remarkable of all might be the selection
iit campus seemed to try to suggest that itself of iit campus Master Plan as a noteworthy design in Mies's
he referred to the buildings as part of a career, as at iit campus,
broader scheme. This interpretation “(...) an all-embracing space is created though not visible at
was only later clarified in the text body, one glance —a space that can only be slowly perceived by
where these were described as “in a rec- including the dimension of time, that is, by movement.”44
tilinear relationship to one another like
that of the walls of the earlier project.” Its not hard to see that Giedion presumably found it perfectly
related to the thesis that articulated his whole book. Though Gie-
dion probably attributed more relevance to this approach than
the architect himself, this is probably the first impression when
one experiences the campus.45
Architektur. (Munich: A. Langen Verlag, Col. Neue Bauhausbücher No.��), pp. ��-��.
44 In Op. cit. (��), p. ��.
45 This interpretation has been the basis of significant studies. See, for instance,
1.20 “Mies van der Rohe. Minerals

and Metals Research Building, 1943.
South view.”
One might wonder why Mies's alleged
integrity —which Giedion never ex-
plained— was repeatedly attributed
again to iit campus design. Even if con-
sidering that it could be referred to the
use of “the module of twenty-four feet
as a basis for the planning of the whole
campus [together with a careful balance
of the plane surfaces]” as a means to
guarantee its unity, this was only men-
tioned tangentially in the text. Indeed,
such “network of squared coördinates”
might be the most far-reaching decision
to assure an integration between the
different buildings in the campus, here
envisaged always as a whole.
The unquestionable concern about pro-
portion in all of Mies’s architecture was
used to explain the refinement of iit
campus buildings against its purely in-

dustrial construction, as well as the clas-
sic connotations traditionally attributed
to them.
As a conclusion, the issue to which more attention is devoted

in the project description is the least technical —the use of pro-
portion. Giedion argued that Mies used proportion in the classical
manner, as a way to attribute “qualitative as well as quantitative
properties”46 to his buildings [Fig. �.��]. To sum up, Giedion inter-
preted this as the logic consequence of his European experience,
concluding that in iit campus “care in handling proportions is
allied with care in handling materials. (…) Proportion, structure,
and material are here related to one another with an even greater
finesse.”47
L ambert, Ph. (��), «Representation as a Mode of Study,» in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al.
Mies in America (Montreal/New York: cca /wma a), pp. ��-��.
46 “(…) Mies van der Rohe is among the very few architects who are again delibera-
tely cultivating proportional relationships in their work (…) in the Pythagorean sense
in which measurements are not merely measurements but possess qualitative as well as
quantitative properties,” in Op. cit. (��), p. ��.
47 Ibid..
I N TRODUCTION
1.21 ‘Mies van der Rohe’, 1956 c. Ludwig K. Hilberseimer — German architect and
monograph by Ludwig K. Hilber- urban planning specialist, Hilberseimer was a relevant person-
seimer; book jacket (above) and part ality in the development of the Modern Movement.48 A long-life
of its illustrations index (right).
personal friend and colleague of Mies's, he shared teaching as-
Contrary to usual practice, the book
signments with him at the Bauhaus, Berlin. He traveled to iit to
opened wiut any introduction or preface,
impart the urban planning and urban history classes by direct
but instead with a index of illustrations
invitation of Mies himself, where he was one of his closest collab-
four (!) pages long. The care in its design,
perfectly structured, gives an idea of the
orators. Particularly, he was deeply involved in the conception
approach given by Hilberseimer to his and development of iit campus Master Plan, in whose successive
book, which did not include either a bib- designs he had an active role.
liographical selection, or any of Mies's In the mid-��s, Hilberseimer published an exhaustive mono-
writings. graph49 that, despite the singularity of its approach and the gener-
osity of its previously unpublished artwork [Fig. �.��], did not reach
an impact in accordance with the specific contributions that it in-
corporated, especially in what it concerned to iit. Indeed, the fact
that it came to coincide with a unanimous recognition of Mies's
American work —who had reached by then an international con-
secration— meant a problem for the book.
Despite its novelty, the book was overshadowed by the imme-
diate coverage that each of Mies's new buildings already had in
specialized periodicals. Perhaps as a result of this circumstance,
Hilberseimer took the opportunity to raise a series of chapters
concerning various topics that, in a novel way, he assumed as spe-
cifically relevant to understand Mies's American work as a whole.
As an introduction, Hilberseimer described a conception of
architecture as based on “the bringing of material elements into
harmony”, while making clear that “it grows out and elaborates
48 “(…) He knew many of the protagonists in this drama, and is part of the drama
itself ”, as he was eloquently described in S paeth , D. A. (��) Ludwig Mies van der Rohe:
An Annotated Bibliography and Chronolog y (New York/London: Garland), p. ��.
49 H ilberseimer , L. (��) Mies van der Rohe (Chicago: P. Theobald).
structure, but attains a transcendence of the material into the

realm of the spiritual.” He expressed his appreciation to the cru-
cial role of engineering for the development of Modern architec-
ture, arguing that “(…) engineers built technical buildings that,
as technical objects, for which no prototypes existed, were most
impressive in their directness and in the new world of technical
forms that they revealed”.50
However, paradoxical as it may seem, this formal approach
to technique by means of structure was revealed as particularly
suitable for the interpretation of Mies's American work. Indeed,
Hilberseimer identified the development of a repertory of new
building types in the field of engineering, which he understood
that opened a range of unprecedented formal possibilities due
to their structural innovation. Consequently, the work of Mies
“is based on the conviction that no contradiction should exist
1.22 “J. Root, Monadnock Block,
between structure and architecture; that the two should be in
Chicago; Daniel H. Burnham, Reli-
harmony; that structure, while not in itself architecture, can be ance Building, Chicago.”
a means of architecture, if the builder understands the organic Ostensibly influenced by Giedion, Hil-
principle of order which relates every part of the building to the berseimer argued that the great contri-
whole, according to its importance and value.”51 bution of Mies would have been to un-
According to this approach, the great contribution of Mies derstand that a common order between
would have been to understand that a common order between the new structural types in modern en-
these new structural types and contemporary means of construc- gineering and contemporary means of
tion might be established, and that this could be the source of an construction might be established, and
unprecedented architecture. As a matter of fact, although here that this could be the source of an un-
precedented architecture. Significantly,
Hilberseimer often adopted an elegiac tone —and this finding
Hilberseimer did not use examples of
was often transformed into a “creation” and its result into an al-
such engineering works in his text, but
leged “objective architecture based on technology”52— he seemed
always referred instead to relevant ex-
quite right when, turning back to the specific realm of architec-
amples in History of Architecture. Curi-
ture, he stated that “the quality of his architecture lies not only in ously, he used buildings from the Chica-
the sure mastering of diversified elements but in the harmonious go School of Architecture, that Giedion
order that is established between them.”53 His conclusion was that had pointed previously —quite loosely,
“his architecture emerges from the nature of the material and is and unrespectfully to Mies (see Fig.
the embodiment of truth and harmony”,54 which he continuously �.��). History seemed to be here selected
recalled all along the book. again, in order to justify the coherence of
In line with the devotion then professed by Mies's disciples Mies's architecture a posteriori, by linking
at iit, the book characterized the contribution of his work with it to precedents about which the archi-
that of the great buildings of the History of Architecture, with tect never pronounced himself all along
his career.
whom it supposedly shared a concern for a creative exploration of
50 In Op. cit., ch. �: «Architecture,» pp. ��-�� [emphasis added].
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid. Note that Hilberseimer often uses ‘technique’ and ‘technology’ as synonyms.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid. Compare this with Mies's famous quoting of St. Augustine's “Beauty is the
splendor of truth.”
I N TRODUCTION
1.23 “Louis H. Sullivan, Carson Pi-

rie & Scott Building, Chicago” (left);
“Mies van der Rohe, Apartment
Building, Chicago” (right).
Trying to offer a common ground to
Mies's American work, Hilberseimer
made a peculiar defense of the great
potential of its architecture based on its
ability to incorporate the expressive pos-
sibilities offered by unprecedented works
of engineering. This was to be achieved
through a creative exploration of the so-
called “concept-form” of its structural
types, very close to that done by Giedion
some years before. Following this rea-
soning, the steel skeleton frame, as the
main structural contribution by the Chi- the “new structural possibilities” of his time [Fig. �.��]. According
cago School of Architecture, constituted to Hilberseimer, this had always led the successive replacement
the basis from which Mies would had de- of the inherited ‘concept-form’ by other “in harmony with the new
veloped his whole American work. structure.”55
Following this reasoning, Hilberseimer identified a new
change of structural concept that, “not less revolutionizing for ar-
chitecture, is taking place in our time [sic], with the development
of the skeleton structure.” Initially raised with the development
of structural typologies adequate for early high-rise construction,
these were nonetheless “for architectural reasons kept invisible,
neglected as a creative source of architecture and its innate possi-
bilities long remained undiscovered”, as architects “were “satisfied
with imitation” and “neglected the opportunity for creation.”56
But, oddly enough, when Hilberseimer proposed specific ex-
amples of an adequate attitude towards such “new problems” by
referring some examples that would had “tried to solve” them,
he highlighted their aesthetic and formal achievements. With-
out further explanation, he concluded that in Mies's American
work, “the disunity of architecture and engineering has been
overcomed”, as “faithfully his work carries onward the Chicago
School of Architecture, who aimed, as he does, at a structural
architecture”57 [Fig. �.��]. Whether if one can accept that Mies
could be aware of those technical improvements or he simply had
a great intuition to recognize them Hilberseimer offers no further
explanation to justify such an assertion.58
55 In Op. cit., ch. �: «New Structures,» p. �� [emphasis added].
56 In Op. cit., p. ��. Note that the time mentioned by Hilberseimer, was clearly diffe-
rent from that of the architecture to which he alluded.

57 Ibid.
58 Note the contrast between this approach and the statement that “(…) he never
paid serious attention to Chicago as the place where he lived and moved, and his own
1.24 “Minerals and Metals Re-

search Building, 1942. Vertical sec-
tion through outside wall” (top);
“Alumni Memorial Hall, 1945. Verti-
cal and horizontal sections through
outside wall” (bottom).
The different buildings in iit campus
were presented with a homogeneous
graphic treatment following the one ini-
tiated for the exhibition at moma.
Although a lot of the graphic documen-
tation was reworked for the occasion, no
general plans, elevations or sections of
the campus buildings erected in the first
time were added, and these appeared
unified by a merely constructive treat-
ment.
The book included drawings and images with numerous sec-

tions and construction details, redrawn for the occasion. These
apparently tried to show the different constructive solutions ad-
opted, although sometimes these appeared here disconnected
[Fig. �.��]. This circumstance contributed to a further review of
his work at iit as focused on the exploration of the ‘classic’ prob-
lem of the variations of the constructive solutions for the different
structural knots in a steel skeleton frame structure.
Jumping to a diametrically opposed subject, the book offered
then a most remarkable contribution. Laying aside the field of
engineering, Hilberseimer focused in what he understood as the
critical role of proportion in all of Mies's architecture. Although
this had been previously pointed by Giedion, it was Hilberseimer
who actually tried to elucidate its actual implications in iit build-
ings, in which he understood that this constituted a key issue.
disavowals of any influence from or even knowledge of Chicago's famed commercial

architecture are in keeping with this”, in S chulze , F. (��), Mies van der Rohe: A Critical
Biography (Chicago: uo c), ch. �: «Revival: Modernism Without Utopia, ��-��», p. ��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.25 Images of classic Greek tem-

ples illustrating the constructive
variations in the evolution of archi-
tectural typologies.
Hilberseimer presumed a conscious
continuity in all of Mies's Architecture
which allegedly would had allowed it to
last over time, in a sort of analogy with
the typological refinements performed
in the successive forms of classical archi-
tecture.
Whatever the case, Mies's exceptional
construction skills and sense of propor-
tion and scale, regardless of the material
resources available, was beyond doubt.
These provided his buildings with an in-
stitutional dignity that connected them According to Hilberseimer, it was due to proportion that his
to certain values, widely debated at the architecture had been able to take advantage of the expressive
time, around monumentality in modern possibilities of structure, as it allowed its clarification and, con-
architecture. sequently, its assimilation as another element available for archi-
tectural design. Such a point of view implied a whole working
method, because it was from its structure that the “characteristic
order” for the whole building was determined.59 The clarification
of structure implied the clarification of architecture.
This approach had implications throughout the building, in-
cluding its construction details, even if “(…) the background for
these details is always the building as a whole, which is in turn
reflected in every detail.” Not only it was unattainable to con-
sider the building as a whole —from its structure to its detail—
without the aesthetic dimension introduced by proportion but, as
a matter of fact, it implied a relevant role for it in architectural
design.60 His capability to judge how a building is perceived and
understood somehow restored the position of the architect as a
key figure at the top of the building process, just as that of the clas-
sical tradition. As a consequence, Hilberseimer continued trying
to elucidate the problem of proportion as it had been originally
posed by classical architecture. He advocated the compositional
problem to “ join a certain number of parts into a whole, by an
orderly and sure coherence and agreement of those parts.”61 Such
59 “(…) Clarity of structure presupposes not only understanding of structure but the
development of its characteristic order. There is freedom to choose a structure; but once
chosen, there is only freedom only within its limitations. To discover these limitations
and to develop the structure accordingly is the requisite of any architectural work”, in
Op. cit., ch. �: «Proportion,» p. ��.
60 “(…) The meaning of clarity of structure and perfection of work can be discussed
rationally and understood intellectually, but beauty cannot be so readily explained.

Reason can conceive it but not comprehend it. It cannot be realized in itself but only
expressed in works of art.” In Idem.
61 “(…) The architectural problem is ‘to join a certain number of parts into a whole,
1.26 “iit Architectural Building,

Model View.”
In a novel approach, Hilberseimer ex-
panded Mies's sense of proportion to
the construction details of his buildings,
which he described as “parts serving the
whole.” Hilberseimer suggested that, in
Mies's buildings, their final consisten-
cy was usually sacrificed for expressive
purposes and the sake of the experience
of the whole building, in which “(…) the
subtly, refinement, aesthetic value and
the imperturbable artistic balance of the
details reveal his great craftsmanship.”
Although Mies's s.r. Crown Hall build-
ing seemed to clearly exemplify this ap-
proach [see, for instance, the peculiar
detail of the edge beam in Fig. �.��], it
contradicted Hilberseimer's argumenta-
tion, as it did not follow any established
type, despite the classical image suggest-
ed by its axial representation.
an understanding of the whole as the balanced composition of

the parts is in fact identified in Hilberseimer's book as specifical-
ly characteristic of classical architecture, where “creativeness (…)
was not concerned with the invention of new building types but
with the perfecting of the established ones.”62 [Figs. �.��, �.��].
Just as “variations make all the difference, in harmony as in
perfection”,63 Mies's architecture is presented here as a set of vari-
ations exploring the right proportion in its elements. The aim of
by an orderly and sure coherence and agreement of those parts’. The whole must have
‘in itself something of the force and the spirit of all the parts of which it is united or
unified, otherwise they must jar and disagree with each other and by such discord des-
troy the unity or beauty of the whole’ .” In Op. cit., p. ��. Hilberseimer is here quoting
Alberti.
62 “(…) Different architectural elements formed the standard type (…), which beca-
me sacred and was never subject to change. Within these limitations, however, there re-
mained the possibility of variation in proportion, in details, and in certain refinements,
to satisfy the sensitiveness of the builders. The creativeness (…) was not concerned with
the invention of new building types but with the perfecting of the established ones.” In
Op. cit., p. ��. Hilberseimer exemplifies this with the typological evolution of the classi-
cal temple.
63 Op. cit., p. ��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.27 “Illinois [sic.] Institute of such working method would be to clarify a specific building struc-
Technology, Chicago, Illinois, 1939.” ture so it can, thereby, acquire an aesthetic expression of its own.
Preliminary plan (left) and view But that clarification lied in its ability to convey a specific
(right).
spatial experience, appropriate to the actual possibilities of such
Although Hilberseimer took care to
new structural types. In fact, Hilberseimer points that, in Mies,
point that “there are differences between
“the two-dimensional plans have an extraordinary and mysteri-
the two plans”, ait campus Master Plan
ous relation to their three-dimensional appearance in space, the
was presented as a preliminary stage for
that of iit, finally discarded due to the
mark of great architecture.”64 This circumstance, which truly
impossibility to change the streets layout catches the eye of anyone who experiences Mies's architecture,
—“Years later, the closing not only of gave cause to Hilberseimer for delving into what it is described
this street but also of others also would as his greatest achievement his contemporary sense of space. He
be allowed, an advantage that came, un- lucidly argued that
fortunately, too late”. Even if this might “(…) since architecture exists in space, it presents a space
have been perfectly possible, it does not problem. Optically we cannot perceive unlimited space; only
seem clear that it necessarily implied to objects in space make us aware of it. This relation of things in
change the whole plan. space to each other is the result of a space concept. This con-
cept has changed through the ages. The space concept of our age is
characterized by a tendency to openness (…) Architecture is placed
in space and at the same time encloses space. Therefore a
double problem arises—the handling of outer space, as well
as the inner space. These two kinds of space can be unrelated
to each other, or they can, by various means, be united. The
outer space can merge with the inner, the inner space with
64 Idem.
the outer. Or both can flow into one space.”65 1.28 “Illinois Institute of Technol-
ogy, Chicago, Illinois.” Final plan
In a radically new argumentation, Hilberseimer tried to illus- (left) and view (right).
iit final plan showed no building exten-
trate this concept with iit campus design, which later took a whole
sions of any kind. The auditoriums were
chapter in his book. Surprisingly, no sign of the lack of this flow
confined inside “rectangular, straight
in the buildings in the campus66 was mentioned. Seemingly, what
blocks; everything confined within four
Hilberseimer tried here to defend was, on the contrary, that this
walls” (Hilberseimer ��, ��). Follow-
openness was intrinsic to iit campus project as a whole, and not ing Giedion characterization of Mies's
strictly by each of its different buildings. Indeed, he attacked the American work, Hilberseimer stated
common parallel of such spatial concept with a neoplastic compo- that “the architectural simplification of
sition of the floor plan,67 arguing that “Mies van der Rohe's plans building types to rectangular blocks is
are only a notation of his space concept. They are a part only, a one of the characteristics of Mies van der
projection, a horizontal section of a three-dimensional whole.”68 Rohe's work in America (…) all reduced
However, he subtly changed his mind when claimed that to the simple stereometric form.”
“(…) to form this contained or enclosed space, as well as the
shell which encloses it, to relate it to outside space by placing it in
unformed, limitless space, is one of the basic architectural prob-
65 In Op. cit., ch. �: «Space Concept,» p. �� [emphasis added].
66 That is, a flow between the interior of the buildings and the open courts, as poin-
ted in Z evi , B. (��) Poetica dell'architettura neoplastica. Milan: Libreria Editrice Politecni-
ca, Studi monografici d'architettura, vol. �.
67 As argued in Rogers , E.N., «Problematica di Mies van der Rohe», Casabella, ��:
�-� (Feb.–Mar., ��).

68 In Op. cit., p. ��. Hilberseimer here is following an opinion frequently expressed
by Mies himself.
I N TRODUCTION
1.29 ‘Illinois Tech Engineer’ bulle-

tin, cover (above); Several “Building
Groups” at iit, as depicted in Hilber-
seimer's book (right).
As in the case of Johnson's catalog, Hil-
berseimer's book benefited from a series
of magnificent pictures commissioned
personally by Mies to Hedrich Blessing.
Some of these had become iconic, and
were recurrently used by iit as institu-
tional images of the campus (above), a
circumstance that facilitated a recovery
of the spatial flow that ordered Mies's
campus Master Plan design. Even
though Hilberseimer did not offer any
lems which Mies van der Rohe has solved in an unprecedent-
clear justification for it, such spatial sin-
ed manner”69 [Figs. �.��, �.��].
gularity definitely summarized the es-
sential character of Mies's Master Plan
for iit campus.
Despite the fact that iit campus site was not exactly ‘un-
formed’ or ‘limitless’ by the time the Master Plan was designed,
the photomontage included for its description seemed to try to
restore the urban dimension of the whole, which somehow came
to be understood again in its unity, as well as to set an spatial con-
text for all the different iit buildings, described individually until
then. Against all expectations, when Hilberseimer explained the
scheme behind the campus design, his initial emphasis in pro-
portion seemed quite far, when he used it to explain the modular
basis of the campus Master Plan.70 According to this, the unity
69 Idem [emphasis added]. Note this equally describes ait or iit Master Plan.
70 “(…) To make diversity possible and at the same time maintain unity, a module
had to be found (…) a space unit that could be divided in half, or combined with another
unit when large rooms were required. This modular network is not only maintained
for each building, with a few exceptions, but spread over the whole campus area, affec-
ting not only the buildings but also the spaces between them (…) It creates an optical
1.30 “Building Group, view from

Alumni Memorial Hall” (top, left);
“Building Group, in the background,
Alumni Memorial Hall” (top, right);
“Building Group” (bottom, left);
“Commons Bdg., 1953, front view”
(bottom, right).
Even though the problems of the lack of
context persisted in the later buildings by
the time the book was published, those
initially executed already presented the
first traces of Alfred Caldwell's land-
scaping project. Aware of this situation,
Hilberseimer included a series of photo-
graphs which carefully framed several
views of the most developed green areas
of the campus by then. These managed
to describe successfully how buildings
and nature were meant to complement
each other, in order to define the public
spaces and the transitions between them.
of the whole was not achieved by means of the proportion in its

parts, but assured by the homogeneity of their appearance.
The pragmatism in such decision seemed clearly intentioned,
when he followed that it prevented of “decisions to locate build-
ings under the pressure of certain needs, which might disadvan-
tageously affect the order of the whole.”71 But, nonetheless, such
layout was not understood by Hilberseimer as a limitation, as it
allowed to delimit the boundaries of
“(…) several open spaces, around which the buildings are
grouped. This creates a pattern of alternating open and
closed spaces, which results in an intimacy between the
buildings and the open spaces [Figs. �.��, �.��]. The spaces all
flow into one another and form part of a continuous space. The con-
rhythm, unity and freedom within its limits, as revealed in the finished group.” In Op.
cit., ch. ��: «Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago,» p. ��.
71 Idem. Note that no reference was made to the fact that the module had been alre-
ady adopted in ait campus Master Plan design. Contrary to Johnson's catalog —see Fig.
�.� (top, left), p. ��— no representation of the ‘modular network’ was included.
I N TRODUCTION
1.31 “iit Chapel, Horizontal and

Vertical Sections through outside
wall” (top); “iit Commons Building,
Horizontal and Vertical Sections
through outside wall” (bottom).
Following the sequence started for John-
son's book, Mies's Office re-elaborated
the working drawings of the new campus
buildings with occasion of the edition of
Hilberseimer's one. One might wonder
whether Mies was trying to prove his
mastery over the adopted constructive
solutions or something other than his
thoroughness in the detail. By restoring
their perimeter, which one can guess as
a whole, Mies seemed to refer rather to
the fact that construction was an inte-
gral part of the design of iit buildings.
If so, the purpose of these presentation
drawings would rather have been that of
emphasizing that the final building is the
result of a creative use of construction.
trast between the open and the closed is further accentuated

by the different heights of the buildings.”72
Hilberseimer appreciated another singularity in Mies's Amer-

ican work. This was again specifically related to iit, which would
have contributed to codify a natural architectural language made
out of industrial components, adequate to the structural types and
material resources of his epoch. This was the logical consequence
of a specific working method, based in the clarification of specific
structural types,73 by means of trying to define precisely its ele-
ments and the possible relations between them.
Notoriously, the compositional approach was here transmut-
72 In Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis and reference to figures added].
73 “Once a type of structure is selected, the limitations of the type must be respected.
A satisfactory solution is difficult to find, and an appearance of effortless is deceiving. A

building looks simple only because the problems involved have been solved with clarity,
because every part is in its right place, in agreement with its functions and in harmony
with other parts, as well as with the whole,” in Op. cit., ch. �: «A New Architectural
Language,» p. ��.
ed into a mere combination of already given and pre-established 1.32 iit Library and Administra-
elements. Certainly, “as the architecture of Mies van der Rohe tion Building, “Study of South Wall”
is based in structural elements and not in superimposed forms, (left, top); “Northeast Corner” (left,
bottom); “Study of North Wall”
each part, each detail, becomes important in itself, as well in rela-
(right, top); “Interior, View showing
tion to the whole (…)”, but just as ‘clarity’ appeared then replaced
relations of structure to ceiling”
by 'simplicity’, it seems that the difficulties of achieving a legible
(right, bottom).
synthesis with such antagonistic elements were eluded. The intri-
Hilberseimer's book incorporated detail
cacies of a truly creative design seemed severely constrained as views of its variations in different situa-
“the different members are joined together and connected with tions to demonstrate the versatility and
the other materials without a single arbitrary addition of anything consistency of the constructive language
superfluous”74 [Fig. �.��]. proposed by Mies. The systematic treat-
However, such restraints must be read with caution, in a text ment of their representation, generally in
that often included categorical statements —like those that a com- perspective view, was indicative of the
mon reader might expect regarding the work of a master— that importance that Mies gave not only to
Hilberseimer always took care to explain promptly. As a matter the simplicity of these details but, above
of fact, he then subtly pointed that “a maximum of effect, rich in all, to their perception as such.
architectural refinement, results from a seeming minimum of effort

(…)”,75 and that “in spite of being more complex in themselves,
our buildings are simpler in appearance” [Fig. �.��].76
Furthermore, in a controversial assertion and simultaneous
denial of his role in this decisive accomplishment, Hilberseimer
stated that “Mies van der Rohe's greatest achievement is the cre-
74 Ibid..
75 In Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis added].
76 In Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis added].
I N TRODUCTION
ation of steel architecture and the subsequent of the vocabulary for

a new architectural language. He developed steel architecture out
of the very nature of steel. (…).”
On the contrary, he later explained that “he has arrived at
structural clarity, the requisite of steel architecture, and found
a harmony between the material means and his spiritual aims.
He never intended to invent new forms, but has developed ideas,
structurally and architecturally.”77 Although Hilberseimer's ide-
alistic reasoning somehow obscured Mies's achievements, it reaf-
firmed his approach to the way the whole of his American work
was understood, here presented as an exploration around the way
contemporary architecture can provide higher construction stan-
dards. An idea that had been ideally exemplified by his design,
finally not built, for iit Library and Administration Building [Fig.
1.33 “Library and Administration �.��]. According to Hilberseimer, the experience of craftsmen had
Building, iit Chicago, 1944 Project, traditionally assured a successful completion of the whole build-
Southeast corner.” ing process, and
Repeatedly used to illustrate the type of “(…) the factor that made this accomplishment possible was
construction Mies proposed for iit cam- the existence of a common architectural language used by all archi-
pus buildings, this image was mistaken-
tects and builders. Work could never fall below a certain stan-
ly read after its inclusion in numerous
dard, while the man of genius could act creatively within this
magazines of the time. The reason for
tradition and produce works of art.”78
this misunderstanding was the asymme-
try of the corner, which apparently was
not consistent with the use of a single
Apparently, what Hilberseimer was here suggesting was that
constructive solution for the entire pe- this gap between standardized elements and the possibility of
rimeter. using them “creatively” could be filled by two ways: due to the
Although Hilberseimer tried to explain extraordinary technical skills of experienced craftsmanship, or
the reasons for the adopted solution just by handling ‘objectively’ its elements as available forms of
—which was a consequence of the di- a common language and, therefore, with a different intention to
rectionality of its structure—, he could that for which they were originally conceived. But whether to “act
not prevent it from being understood creatively” is easier for the former or the latter, is something that
in purely formal terms. This situation Hilberseimer did not dare to elucidate in his text. Ultimately, it
evidenced the implicit contradictions in
does not seem clear where did Hilberseimer placed Mies either.
Mies's ambiguous use of certain build-
Besides, Hilberseimer could not avoid falling in a contradic-
ing elements, in order to address other
tion when he followed that, even if “industry has produced new
architectural problems different from
building elements with which it will eventually be possible to as-
those for which these had been originally
conceived.
semble whole buildings. These elements, however, still need inte-
gration”, in order to make an architecture out of it.79 Even if the
clarification in Hilberseimer's notion of ‘integration’ against that
77 In Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis added]. Note the ambiguity in his argumentation.
78 Ibid [emphasis added].
79 “(…) An integration that can be accomplished only by originating a new architec-
tural language based on the technical achievements of our age, (…) which could bring
a new tradition into being and make it possible again, as it was before the Industrial Re-
volution, to base each building on generally accepted principles,” in Op. cit., pp. ��-��
[emphasis added].
1.34 “iit Architectural Building,

Vertical Sections through building.”
The peculiarity of many of the con-
structive solutions adopted in some of
iit buildings clearly indicated that these
were not just superimposed over a pre-
vious design, but developed with it from
the beginning. The representation of
these construction details often showed
traces of how the building was erected,
or how it was supported, as constructive
elements were often interlocked with
structural ones, even if these were not al-
ways visible in the finished building.
The purpose of these singular solutions
seemed to be to convey a specific spatial
concept within its structural scheme, by
means of its integration in the construc-
tive solution of the building.
of ‘integrity’ by Giedion80 is welcomed, it seemed to imply that

the production of architecture was only produced in the context,
extremely singular, in which a “man of genius” was allowed to
“act creatively.”
Although this opened a door for true significance [Fig. �.��]
he did not seem able to explain the motivation of Mies's neglect
of the urban scale, here merely a context. Moreover, it was clearly
inconsistent with his description of iit campus buildings as “parts
of a whole”, where creativity was exercised in its Master Plan.
In addition to this, such nostalgic longing for tradition,81
certainly contradicts the option for industrial components. Note
that, although Hilberseimer never mentioned it, this description
80 See note ��, p. ��.
81 “Such a new tradition would re-establish the standard and the framework for so
long lacking.” In Op. cit., p. ��.
I N TRODUCTION
—as well as that opposition between ‘builders’ and ‘the man of

genius’— resembled to the concept of Baukunst as Mies used it.
And here lies a paradox, as there is a natural difference between
standard industrial construction and craftsmanship because of
their very own nature. A paradox that Mies, most strikingly, was
able to assume with superb results.82
Whether Hilberseimer was aware of these issues or not, is
something that remains uncertain by his argumentation in the
book, where the whole discussion about the role of the architect
was displaced to the problem of communication and dissemina-
tion of the possibilities of the contemporary means of construc-
tion. He identified the significance of Mies's architecture by just
acknowledging that
“(…) he has succeeded in formulating a new architectural
vocabulary, out of which a new architectural language may
develop, a language understandable by anyone. This hope
rests in the fact that it is based on the technical means of our
age, in the objective use of these means, and in his own great
creative ability.”83
To sum up, these topics were completed —without any ex-

planation and somehow inconsistently— with a curious review
of all of Mies's work from a typological perspective, regardless of
any temporal consideration, on one hand, and with iit Campus
Master Plan on the other, then presented as a unifying design
around which the rest of his works revolved.84 As a result of this
opposition, iit campus design was read as a research on a type so
far unexampled —the contemporary American university cam-
pus. An interpretation that, even if not explicit here, would set an
important precedent for its subsequent revisions by several publi-
cations of the time.
82 The role of singular buildings at iit campus can be better understood when con-
sidered in the light of the ideas expressed in G iedion , S., S ert, J. L., and L éger , F.
(��), «Nine Points on Monumentality». Particularly, point No.� stated that “(...) sites
for monuments must be planned. This will be possible once replanning is undertaken
on a large scale which will create vast open spaces in the now decaying areas of our
cities. In these open spaces, monumental architecture will find its appropriate setting
which now does not exist. Monumental buildings will then be able to stand in space, for
(...) monumental buildings cannot be crowded in upon any odd lot in any district. Only
when this space is achieved can the new urban centers come to life” [emphasis added].
This essay had been widely discussed before it was later reissued in G iedion , S.
(��) Architektur und Gemeinschaft (Hamburg: Rowohlt), pp. ��-��, just by the time Mies
designed s . r . Crown Hall at iit campus.
83 Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis added]. Again, Schulze was referring here specifically to
Mies's creative ability, but never to the common architect.

84 It is noteworthy that, among the �� illustrations included in the book, �� of them
belonged to iit campus or its buildings.
d. Werner Blaser — Swiss architect, Blaser completed

his education with a Master degree at iit under Mies and Hilber-
seimer's direction. After developing a career as designer, he has
later focused on architectural publishing. Among others, Blaser
has edited various books on Mies, with a characteristic style based
in the development of a refined visual discourse by means of anal-
ogies between original documents and contemporary images of
the architect's work. While such approach has been often ques-
tioned by architectural criticism,85 Blaser's books have reached
a wide spread and are, still today, commonly used as reference
handbooks for undergraduate architecture students.86
However, Blaser's publications have had an specific impact
for the study of Mies's American work, to which Blaser has paid a
particular attention since the edition of The Art of Structure.87 As a
consequence of the documentation included —which Blaser ob-
tained directly from Mies's office [Fig. �.��]— the book became a
relevant reference for the particular understanding of iit campus
Master Plan design and buildings. In fact, Mies's receptiveness to
Blaser's intentions was supposed to be motivated by a publication
that he would have planned with a similar approach,88 which ap-
parently would had decided his collaboration with Blaser.
In fact, Blaser's book consecrated Mies American work as a
different period in his career with a coherence of its own, while
at the same time a natural consequence of his earlier works,
which he presented as an “absolute architecture pointing to the
85 “Yet if architecture is to be regarded as more than an excitement of the visual sen-
se, the critic must delve into the meaning of these principles and show how they reveal
themselves in the finished building,” as reviewed in C ondit, C., «Werner Blaser, Mies
van der Rohe: The Art of Structure», Technolog y and Culture, � (�): ��-�� (Fall, ��).
86 In this sense, his most successful book probably has been B laser , W. (��) Mies
van der Rohe (New York: Praeger). Other later books with a similar general approach, 1.35 ‘Mies van der Rohe. The Art of
specifically focused on iit, are B laser , W. (��) Mies van der Rohe, iit Campus: Illinois Structure’, book cover (top) and re-
Institute of Technolog y (Basel/Boston: Birkhäuser) or B laser , W. (��) Mies van der Rohe,
production of a letter by Mies autho-
s . r . Crown Hall: Illinois Institute of Technolog y, Chicago (Basel/Boston: Birkhäuser).
rizing Blaser's work (bottom).
87 B laser , W. (��) Die Kunst der Struktur—L'art de la structure (Stuttgart/Zurich: Ver-
Blaser claimed an alleged closeness be-
lag für Architektur).
tween his approach and what Mies un-
88 The only preserved reference to it, credited to Mies and which was to be entitled
derstood that his architecture was about
as Architecture: Structure and Expression, is an advertisement included in the dust jacket
overleaf of H ilberseimer , L. (��) The New City: Principles of Planning (Chicago: Paul by the time he contacted him. He attest-
Theobald & Co.), which announced it as “in preparation, ��,” though it finally never ed this by enclosing a signed letter by the
came to light.
latter in his book.
Noteworthy, it has been speculated whether such book was actually by Mies or
both Mies and Hilberseimer —see S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), «Architect
and Educator: ��-��,» in Mies van der Rohe: a Critical Biography. New and Revised Edition.
(Chicago: uo c), ch. �, p. ��— given the fact that Hilberseimer Estate includes a series
of homonymous manuscripts, never published [Hilberseimer Papers collection, series
�/�a, ‘unpublished book manuscripts’: box ff.�.�, «Architecture (Structure and Expres-
sion) Form», parts ii - ix (c.��-��); box ff.�.�a, «Architecture Structure/Expression,
Structure and Form» (��/��/��); and box ff.�.�b, «Architecture Structure/Expres-
sion, Structure and Form» (c.��) (Ryerson & Burnham Archives, aic)].
I N TRODUCTION
future”.89Attributing to Mies a full conscience and determination

1.36 Exercise by iit student, kept about his work since his early practice, Blaser reassessed his insis-
by Mies at his office (above); unrefer- tence in an architecture as Baukunst, portrayed here for the first
enced drawings by Blaser, included time in all the bibliography so far published about him:
to explain Mies's projects, some- “(...) Here the definition of architecture as ‘Baukunst’ carries
times reworking the original ones special conviction: ‘Bau’ (building) is the static and law-con-
(right). forming element based on a strict intellectual order, and
Blaser reworked some of Mies's earlier ‘Kunst’ (art) is the free and creative element which can operate
projects, adding a constructive dimen- within a clear structure”.90
sion that these did not include originally,
but in which Mies deepened thoroughly
Consequently, Blaser reworked some of Mies's projects, to
during his years at iit. Such rework con-
provide them of a constructive and structural dimensions that
troversially implied a slight change in
they originally lacked [Fig. �.��], to made them fit in the classifi-
their original proportions, to verify that
“the dimensions are calculated in terms
cation according to structural types that presumably would have
of the basic [structural] unit”. taken place in the clear chronology that ordered his book. Proba-
bly consented by Mies as a way to present his later work as a nat-
ural evolution of his previous projects, the court-house exercise
appeared here as articulating Mies's teaching at the Bauhaus and
iit, by means of a shared exploration of the constructive varia-
tions within the basic structural elements of a “brick construction

with steel columns”. Consequently, the court-house exercise gave
cause for the iit campus buildings, here structurally categorized
as “steel-frame” buildings, with a later mention to s.r. Crown
Hall as “truss construction [sic] with suspended roof”.91
While iit campus buildings received an extensive graphic
89 B laser , W. (��), «The approach to structure,» in Op. cit., p. ��.
The section introduced Blaser's peculiar selection of [what he understood as] the
most relevant of Mies's European projects, which significantly excluded the Wolf hou-
se at Guben or the Tugendhat house at Brno. Equally polemic, his selection of Mies's
American works excluded, among others, major works from iit campus as the Alumni
Memorial Hall (added in later editions), the Commons, or the Carr Chapel.
90 B laser , W. (��), «Court houses with steel columns,» in Op. cit., p. ��. Oddly,
Blaser included Mies's Barcelona Pavilion in this category.

91 B laser , W. (��), «Illinois Institute of Technology ( iit), Chicago,» and «Crown
Hall ( iit) Architecture and Design Building,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��, ��-��, respectively.
documentation [Fig. �.��], all reference to Mies's academic activity 1.37 Description of iit buildings in
was reduced to the inclusion of a brief explanation by Mies of his Blaser's book, by means of an aes-
educational principles. Maybe aiming to assert his architectural thetized presentation of their con-
structive and structural solutions.
and teaching activity at iit in a time he had just resigned, Mies
Blaser's account of iit campus buildings
gave access to Blaser to original documentation —carefully se-
was fragmentary and sometimes ran-
lected and extracted— which was here briefly reproduced, with-
dom, but these were always displayed in
out any further comment or criticism.92
an clear layout that effectively clarificat-
Apparently, Blaser later published the documentation gath- ed specific aspects of their design.
ered from Mies's office with other documents at iit Archives,
92 M ies van der Rohe , L. (��), «Principles of Architectural Education,» in B laser ,
W. (��), Op. cit., p. ��. Curiously, Mies did not take care to get published this text —or
nay similar one— during all the years he remained in charge as Head of the Depart-
ment of Architecture at iit.
I N TRODUCTION
1.38 Mies's project for a house with

three courts, as redrawn by Blaser
including a constructive detailing
absent in the original (above); court-
house exercise developed under
Mies's supervision at the Bauhaus,
redrawn by Blaser according to his which he later compiled in Mies van der Rohe: Principles and School.93
graphic language (right). The book appeared as a collection of independent papers that
Blaser effectively traced the origin of loosely reconstructed, in a fragmented and sometimes oversimpli-
Mies's acknowledged exercise of the fied way,94 the impact of Mies's educational program at iit. Edited
court house to his courses at the Bau- years after Mies's death, in a time in which his legacy was widely
haus. For such purpose, Blaser managed debated, Blaser's book was clearly divided in two sections.
to recover some examples —probably On one hand, Blaser offered ample evidence of the later de-
kept by Mies at his office since his early
velopment of Mies's ideas by his disciples at iit where, confusingly
days in America— that he drew again
intermingled in his book under the generic title of “the curricu-
for his publications.
lum at iit”,95 he somehow managed to attest the validity and con-
tinuity of Mies's educational method,96 traced here as a natural
extension of his earlier classes at the Bauhaus [Fig. �.��]. Docu-
ments by Mies were completely reworked and reissued [Fig. �.��],
inserted whenever Blaser felt that they gave support to the results
that he presented.97 But, again, this was done without describing
93 B laser , W. (��) Mies van der Rohe: Lehre und Schule—Principles and School (Basel/
Stuttgart: Institute for the History & Theory of Architecture at the Swiss Federal Insti-
tute of Technology, Zurich/Birkhäuser), later republished as B laser , W. (��) Mies van
der Rohe, Continuing the Chicago School of Architecture (Basel/Boston: Birkhäuser).
94 Blaser argues that “(...) the purpose of my work is to crystallize the educational
work of Mies and more particularly the essential ideas that permeate his school and
have found many adherents, and to present an account of what the school does in words
and pictures with a clarity and simplicity that would be consistent with Mies' own atti-
tude,” in B laser , W. (��), «Introduction,» in Op. cit., p. �.
95 B laser , W. (��), «The curriculum at iit, ��-��,» Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
96 See, for instance, Danforth , G., «Architecture and Planning at iit, ��-��,»
and «City and Regional Planning ( iit Bulletin, ��-��),» in B laser , W. (��), Op. cit.
pp. ��-��, ��, both describing the curriculum at iit when Mies had already resigned.
97 See, for instance, the forced description of Mies's «Diagram for Architectural
Education, ��,» in B laser , W. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-�� [see Fig. �.�� above]. Notably,
no description of any academic sequence other than Visual Training was considered in
1.39 Mies's Program for architec-

tural education developed for ait, as
reworked by Blaser.
Blaser's book allowed the recovery and
difussion of documents that had re-
mained lost for a long time. This was
the case of Mies's educational program,
originally developed for ait. Most prob-
ably reworked from drafts preserved by
the latter at his office, the chart was here
published for the first time.
However, its presentation in Blaser's
book was far from objective, jumping
forth and back in time. The document
was introduced by a later text by his dis-
ciple W. Priestley [«Mies' Program for
Architectural Education,»] and followed
by early institutional documents [«The
Architectural Curriculum (ait Bulletin
��-��),» and «Architecture: Synopsis
of the �-year curriculum (iit Bulletin
��-��)»]. This was concluded with a
contemporary text by Mies on the work
of a colleague on one of the academic
sequences of his educational program
[«Peterhans' Visual Training Course
at the Architectural Department of iit
(Chicago, Feb. �th, ��)»], and the orig-

why this happened, or why such aspects, and not others, were inal description by its responsible [«Wal-
developed by Mies's disciples. ter Peterhans: Visual Training»].
On the other hand, the book was completed a section where
Blaser paid tribute to Mies's works in Chicago, where iit campus
buildings predominated. As a demonstration of its objectivity and
rationality in architecture,98 Blaser included some of the architec-
ture later developed by his disciples at iit, in clear support of what
was denominated the ‘Second School of Chicago’.99
the whole book.

98 See, for instance, when Blaser quoted: “I feel —Mies once said— that the influen-
ce of my works have on another people rests on their rationality. Everyone can work on
it without becoming an imitator. Because it is absolutely objective, I would make use of
it. Who comes it from is a matter of no importance,” in B laser , W. (��) Op. cit., p. ��.
However, such testimonies seemed not to be literal, as one can appreciate when these
appeared repeated with slight —but relevant— variations in later editions.
99 The term had just been coined in the exhibition �� Years of Architecture in Chicago:
Continuity of Structure and Form, which expressly quoted Blaser for his characterization of
iit campus buildings. Not exempted from polemic, the impact of the legacy of Mies's
disciples has been widely debated. On this regard see, for instance, C ondit, C. (��)
Chicago: Building, Planning, and Urban Technolog y (Chicago: uo c), vol. ii : «��-��».
I N TRODUCTION
e. Phyllis Lambert — Canadian architect and philan-

thropist, Lambert moved to the u.s. in ��4 to work in the project
of the Seagram Building, developed at New York by her family.
Under the suggestion of the architect Ph. Johnson, she used her
influence to bring Mies onto the project design, which he success-
fully leaded. During their collaboration between ��-��, Lam-
bert had the occasion to visit Mies's iit campus buildings, still
under construction. Once the project was completed —and just
after Mies's resignation at iit— Lambert enrolled in architecture
studies, which she completed with Master degree at iit, under the
direction of Mies's disciples, which she finished in ��. After re-
turning to Canada, she started her own career as a practicing
architect with the development of the Toronto-Dominion Centre
at Montreal. As a consultant in the project, she managed to rec-
1.40 Mies van der Rohe, in a photo- ommend Mies for its design and development, in which he was
graph from cca Archives, Canada. involved until his death in ��.
As founder of the Centre Canadien In addition to this, Lambert founded the Centre Canadien
d'Architecture (cca) in Montreal, a mu-
d'Architecture (cca), whose collection benefited from her years of
seum and research centre dedicated to
close collaboration with Mies [Fig. �.��]. As a result of Lambert's
the study of contemporary architecture,
continuous interest on the American work of Mies and his col-
Lambert had privileged access to funds
laborators,100 she curated in �� the exhibition Mies in America,
especifically concerning Mies's Ameri-
can career. These include unpublished
organized jointly with the Whitney Museum of American Art
photographs and graphic documents (wmaa), New York [Fig. �.��], and parallel to the exhibition Mies in
(above), as well as testimonies by Mies's Berlin, displayed at the moma, New York. The exhibition and its
disciples and collaborators, never studied catalog101 have become a reference for the study of Mies's Ameri-
before by the time she did her research. can work, and particularly of iit campus Master Plan design and
buildings, to which it was widely dedicated.102
In fact, the catalog was developed not as an account of the ex-
hibited works, but as a complement to it. The book presented not
100 See, for instance, her previous support to studies concerning cca collections, such
as L ambert, Ph. (��), «Preface,» in B laser , W. Architecture and Nature. The Work of Alfred
Caldwell (Basel/Boston/Stuttgart: Birkhäuser Verlag), pp. �-��; or her personal studies
on Mies's American work, such as L ambert, Ph., «Mies's Student Union», Any, ��: ��-��
(��, ‘Design after Mies’, special issue).
101 L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��) Mies in America (New York/Montreal: wma a /cca ),
edited simultaneously to R iley, T., B ergdoll , B. (eds.) et al. (��) Mies in Berlin (New
York: m oma).
Despite “these books are not intended as a cohesive pairing that provides an over-
view of Mies’s career. Instead, they seek to view Mies by halves”, yet, “the impression
conveyed is of an architect whose achievements were rich because his interests ran deep,
not because those achievements evolved in several environments. These volumes unin-
tentionally discover more links across his ‘two’ careers than distinctions,” as reviewed
in O tt, R. «Mies in Berlin/Mies in America,» Journal of Architectural Education, �� (�):
��-�� (Mar., ��).
Notably, both volumes are among the few referenced by Schulze in his exclusive
bibliographical selection on Mies, in S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), «Appendix
b : Mies's Career in Publications and Exhibitions,» in Mies van der Rohe: a Critical Biogra-
phy. New and Revised Edition (Chicago: uo c), pp. ��-��.

102 “General readers could only assume that iit represents Mies's consummate Ame-
rican achievement,” as noted in O tt, R. (��), Op. cit.
only general studies on Mies by scholars, but also a new approach 1.41 ‘Mies in America’, catalog of
to the beginnings and evolution of his American career, exhaus- the exhibition, 2001.
tively developed here by Lambert herself.103 As a novelty, the re- Accordingly with its contents —that
gave extensive coverage to Mies's iit
search was specifically supported by testimonies drawn from a
campus Master Plan design and build-
series of interviews to Mies's American disciples,104 unpublished
ings as the origin of an unprecedented
to date. Such approach somehow restored the relevance of pro-
work method in his career— the catalog
fessional collaboration in Mies's American practice.105 Its main
of the exhibition, curated by Lambert,
focus on iit —when these remained submitted to him— showed emphasized the decisive role played by
Mies as an unavoidable figure for the later evolution of Chicago's his disciples and collaborators all along
Modern Architecture,106 where other buildings unrelated to iit Mies's professional practice in America.
103 L ambert, Ph. (��), «Mies Immersion,» in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. Mies in America
(New York/Montreal: wma a /cca), p. ��-��. This extensive essay has been described
as “(...) a book-within-a-book,” in the words of O tt, R. (��), Op. cit.
104 Mainly, the series of interviews Mies van der Rohe and his American Colleagues Oral
History Project, conducted by K. Harrington between ��-��, at the cca , Montreal, fo-
llowing the Chicago Architects Oral History Project initiated in �� —by K. Harrington, B.
Blum and P. Saliga, among others— at the aic , Chicago.
This was completed by documentation from the cca collections Fonds Peter Carter
(��-��), George Danforth Collection (��-��), Joseph Fujikawa drawings (��), Fonds Myron
Goldsmith (��-��), Fonds David Haid (��-��), Fonds Phyllis Lambert (�� to present),
Fonds Reginald Malcomson (��-��), Fonds John C. Parkin (��-��), and Fonds Gene Summers
(��-��), all of them covering the period of the development of iit campus Master Plan
design and buildings [not accessed by the author]. A general account of their contents
can be found in «Mies van der Rohe and his Colleagues, Archives and Collections at the
cca » in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
105 However, the book only included a brief appendix on Mies's disciples in America
in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��) «Biographical Notes on Mies's American Colleagues,»
in Op. cit., pp. ��-��, following the only precedent to the date Zukowsky, J., Dal C o, F.
(eds.) et al. (��) «Appendix i : Disciples of Modernism—Biographical sketches,» in Mies
Reconsidered: His Career, Legacy, and Disciples (New York/Chicago: Rizzoli/aic), pp ��-��.
This approach has been more recently assumed by other authors, that have ela-
borated their own research on the field, more specifically expanded to their built work,
as in S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), «Protégés,» in Mies van der Rohe: a Critical
Biography. New and Revised Edition (Chicago: uo c), pp. ��-��.
106 See, for instance Tigerman , S., «Chicago Architects. Genealogy and Exegesis,»
in Zukowsky, J. (ed.) et al. (��) Chicago Architecture and Design, ��-��: Reconfi-
I N TRODUCTION
1.42 I-beam and railroad segments

as analogous to natural structures
(top); comparision between the fa-
cades of P. Behrens's aeg Turbine
Factory and Mies's iit campus build-
ings (bottom).
Lambert took Mies's well-known inter-
est in the work of R.H. Francé since his
early days at the Bauhaus (above) as a
possible inspiration for his use of simple,
clearly structured, forms and elements
from industrial construction at iit cam-
appeared, unfairly, as minor. However, Mies's teaching activity or
pus buildings. Following this approach, educational program at iit, where many of these collaborative re-
she later compared the use of suspended lationships were indeed conformed, appeared curiously ignored,
mullions in the glazed facade of Beh- and only peripherally addressed in the context of his courthous-
rens’s aeg Turbine Factory —in which es.107
he had work personally— with Mies's In a way, Lambert's approach to the development of Mies's
solution at iit (left). However, such paral- early American career reiterated other recent approaches to it.
lelisms in the constructive solutions from These referred to an structural and constructive opposition be-
industrial architecture and iit campus tween the entire campus and s.r. Crown Hall,108 or to its reflec-
buildings would not find an expression of
tion of a tectonic discourse.109 Lambert used these to historically
their own until its late buildings.
reconstruct the development of the structural and constructive
aspects of iit campus buildings from Mies's early concern about
the role of industrialization of architecture [Fig. �.��], identified
guration of an American Metropolis (Munich/Chicago: Prestel/aic), pp. ��-��,

107 A circumstance probably caused by the fact that both exhibitions and their ca-
talogs were planned as separated projects. In fact, “these books are not intended as a
cohesive pairing that provides an overview of Mies's career. Instead, they seek to view
Mies by halves,” amidst a “context of cross-continental tension” as expressed in O tt, R.
(��), Op. cit. Yet, certain links across his ‘two’ careers could be appreciated, although
probably not intended, such as Mies's interest in subtly discomposed axial schemes.
108 Particularly, to the typological scheme previously set by C arter , P. (��),
«Low-rise Skeleton Frame Buildings,» and «Clear Span Buildings,» in Mies van der Rohe
at Work (New York: Praeger) ch. �, pp. ��-��, and pp. ��-��, respectively.
109 Suggested by several authors, but only fully characterized in F r ampton , K., and
C ava , J. (ed.) (��), «Mies van der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity,» in Studies in Tec-
tonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in �� th and �� th Century Architecture (Chicago: Graham
Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts), ch. �, pp. ��-��.
here as key to understand his later works in America. 1.43 Sequence of Mies's iit Min-
But these were reworked here by means of a totally new in- erals & Metals Research Building,
sight: Lambert justly presented Mies's Metallurgy and Chemical 1943 (top), with sketch of transversal
section of Mies's iit Minerals & Met-
Engineering Building —Mies's first building for iit campus, and,
als Research Building (bottom, left),
for a long time, his only completed building in America— as the
1943, compared with P. Behrens's
project in which the architect first performed a constructive test
aeg Turbine Factory, 1909-10.
for his later development of both cellular and clear-span structural
typologies [Fig. �.��].110 Consequently, the latter is presented as the
result of a distilled evolution of the former, that Lambert attested
in an analysis of the parallel evolution of Mies's famous solutions
for the corners of the diverse iit campus buildings,111 extended
110 L ambert, Ph. (��), «Forging a Language,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
111 Ibid.
I N TRODUCTION
1.44 Perspective sketches studying to all his subsequent practice in the u.s. This was explained in
the spaces at ait campus design (top), an evolutionary way, from ‘Gothic’ to ‘Classic’ structure,112 quot-
located in its final scheme (bottom). ing Mies's famous opposition, that effectively gave an satisfactory
After a thoughtful analysis of Mies's
meaning to the architecture of a period undervalued until then,
original working drawings where she
commonly characterized by an alleged “ossification of space.”113
was able to identify their content, Lam-
However, Lambert's interpretation of the campus Master
bert came to the conclusion that he used
Plan design seems to remain open to debate. While she appar-
a simulated “cinematographic” tour as
a way to test the experience of his pro-
ently did not give ait campus Master Plan all the relevance it de-
posed buildings. served,114 in a thoughtful analysis of Mies's very early sketches —
112 Ibid., pp. ��-��.
113 As famously expressed in Rowe , C., «Neo-“Classicism” and Modern Architecture
ii », in Oppositions, �: ��-�� (Sept., ��).

114 “(...) Lambert fails to acknowledge that for the first plan Mies was inventing a
campus, without a detailed program or budget (...). Heald sought to reinvent the school,
to which she added a selection from cca collections, unpublished 1.45 Sequence of drafts for per-
until then115— she was able to locate, amidst the whole ait cam- spective views studying different
pus plan, a series of rough sketches made by Mies [Fig. �.��, top]. configurations for ait campus final
scheme, c.1939, in Lambert's book.
Lambert argued that these were produced in a sequence that was
Although Lambert attempted to recon-
intended to explore “the relationships of buildings to one another
struct a sequence in the elaboration of
cinematographically,”116 in a sort of simulation of a displacement
ait campus final scheme, she seemed
among its buildings.
to omit the simultaneous work in the
But, while the undated sketches effectively resembled the lay- designs of its different buildings. In ad-
out described of the plan, testimonies confirm that these were, in dition to this, the use of the same point of
fact, arranged by means of the use of a scale model.117 Further- view in their representation would attest
more, no reason is given to avoid thinking that these could actual- an approach by variations on a more or
ly be part of a comparative study of views, in order to select those less settled theme —at least, in its general
that better described the campus, as some of them were later de- terms— not necessarily developed in a
veloped in more precise perspective drawings [Fig. �.��, bottom]. linear way.
Whatever the case, the spatial discourse traditionally at-
tributed to the campus as a whole seemed corroborated, as Lam-
bert here delved into the design process of the final scheme for
iit campus [Fig. �.��], to conjecture a general —but new— de-
and he turned to Mies both for ideas and for their convincing expression. Real buil-
ding—and reality—would come later,” as critizied at S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E.
(��), «Architect and Educator,» in Op. cit., p. ��.
115 L ambert, Ph. (��), «Conceptual Sketches for the ait Scheme,» in Op. cit., pp.
��-��.
116 L ambert, Ph. (��), «Presentation Drawings for the ait Scheme,» in Op. cit., p.
��.
117 “(...) We made wood blocks of the volume of the building, and on a plot of the who-
le site I drew up, [Mies] would work those out in some arrangement within the spaces of
the buildings, having had that plot (...) drawn up in a modular system that he had found
workable for the contents of the program,” as described in Danforth , G. E., Saliga , P.
and H arrington , K. (interviewers) (��) Oral History of George Edson Danforth (Chicago/
Montreal: aic/cca), tape �, side � [cca Archives, Montreal].
I N TRODUCTION
1.46 Illustrations from books by scription of the sequence on the basis of the available sketches
R.H. Francé, 1919-20, reproduced preserved.118
by Mertins to present Mies's under- In addition to this, Lambert's first-hand study of the work at
standing of structure according to
Mies's Office was completed by some essays by a younger gen-
organic principles.
eration of scholars, that suggested original and unprecedented
Mertins explained Mies's early early
approaches to it. Among these, two of them stood out for their
texts for iit, in which he had tried to de-
implications on iit campus Master Plan design.
scribe his intentions for it, recalling the
organicist theories by Francé, which he
On one hand, the essay by D. Mertins119 proposed an un-
had followed all along his European ca- explored approach to Mies's American work, and specifically to
reer. Francé had argued that the entire his ideas about urban planning and intervention: his familiarity
forms of the natural world, ranging all with the architectural theories of Organicism, and particularly
scales, could be reduced to a few funda- to the interpretation made of these at the Bauhaus, by means of
mental structures. As the basis of an ef- the writings of r.h. Francé [Fig. �.��]. Mertins made an account
ficient constructive method, common to of Francé's approach to key concepts of Organicism —as those of
all organisms, these structures allowed ‘form’ or ‘development’, among others— supported with the fact
a naturally free development in them. that Mies not only was aware of, but carefully studied them120 to
In fact, his argumentation by means of
the point of using them as an explanation of his educational pro-
the use of visual analogies (above), had
gram develop for ait.121
granted his theories of a wide recogni-
tion at the Bauhaus and other artistic cir-
cles, where his texts were widely studied.
118 L ambert, Ph. (��), «Evolution of the iit Scheme,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
119 M ertins , D. (��), «Living in a Jungle: Mies, Organic Architecture, and the
Art of City Building,» in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. Mies in America (New York/Montreal:
wma a /cca ), pp. ��-��.
Notoriously, Mertins was the only author that also contributed in Mies in Berlin,
with the essay M ertins , D. (��), «Architectures of Becoming: Mies van der Rohe and
the Avant-Garde,» in R iley, T., B ergdoll , B. (eds.) et al., Op. cit, pp. ��-��.
120 Mies had a whole collection of his books, which he brought with him when he
emigrated to the u. s . See Appendix.

121 “(...) The goal of an architecture school is to train men who can create organic
architecture”, as stated in M ies van der Rohe , L. (��), «Planning of the Educational
Program,» draft attached to Letter to Henry T. Heald, Dec. �� th , �� [Personal Papers of
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, ��-��, Manuscript Division, box �, ‘ iit ’ (Washington
1.47 Illustrations included in Mer-

tins's essay from a book by D'Arcy
W. Thompson, 1942 (above), and ur-
ban projects contemporary to Mies's
iit Master Plan by F. Ll. Wright, 1935,
and L. Hilberseimer, 1942 (left).

Noting that “although he did not project
a comprehensive urban vision (...) Mies's
urban precincts are hadly lacking in
vision,” Mertins pointed to Wright and
Hilberseimer as the main sources where
Moreover, Mertins historically contextualized such theories, he could had recognized an approach to
identifying its manifestations contemporary to Mies's early Amer- city planning in similar terms to his un-
derstanding of organicist theories (left).
ican career, to trace precisely their relation and impact on it [Fig.
At the same time, Mertins identified oth-
�.��]. Thus, the figure of F. Ll. Wright was presented by Mertins as
er contemporary theories by the time,
a main influence, who “cast [the American architectural context]
such as those developed by Thompson
in terms consistent with German aesthetics and the philosophy of
(above), that understood form as an in-
technology developed in the circles of the German Werkbund”,122 tegral system of structurally interrelated
which Mies became acquainted with in his formative years. parts. Open to evolution, form should
Wright's organic architecture, advanced since his Wasmuth pub- be considered in time as a function of
lications, was “the distinctive opportunity of America”,123 that growth, unfolded from within by means
certainly echoed behind Mies's early statements at iit. of its own laws. All these ideas certainly
Mertins pertinently noted that, like many architects of his fitted in Mies's conception about the role
generation,124 Mies invoked the figure of the ‘organism’ to refer of architecture in the construction of the
city, and particularly to his assigment for
iit campus Master Plan.
d . c ., l o c)].
Seemingly, “such embracing of the organic cause (...) most surely have been
inspired by meeting Wright earlier that year,” as noted by M ertins , D. (��), Op. cit., p.
��.
122 M ertins , D. (��), Op. cit., p. ��. Mertins later identifies B ehrendt, W.C. (��)
Modern Architecture: Its Nature, Problems and Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.) as
the responsible for the recovery of the figure of Wright among European architects.
123 Ibid.
124 “(...) From Schinkel's natural development to Gottfried Semper's constructional
elementarism [and] Berlage's well-proportioned economy”, and, later on, “the elemen-
tarist discourse of the Berlin avant-garde,” as promptly referred by M ertins , D. (��),
Op. cit., pp. ��, and ��, respectively.
I N TRODUCTION
1.48 Chicago South Side by the time

iit campus Master Plan design was
first proposed (above), and rede-
velopment study for Chicago Near
South Side, including iit campus
(left), in Whiting's essay.
Mies's iit campus Master Plan design —
although not its slow-paced implemen-
tation— set a standard for urban inter-
vention in the deteriorated urban fabric
of Chicago South Side, later adopted
by other institutions in the area for their precisely to a “holistic and unified relational structure.”125 Based
own private expansion plans. Together, on the principle of a “proportional relationship among parts to
these institutions managed to coordinate the whole, as well as among parts of a whole to one another.”126
their influence to obtain legal support Mertins speculates with Mies's understanding of Organicism as
from authorities for slum cleareance at “a new language for self-regulated growth and development,
a scale beyond the possibilities of public an architecture system capable of producing (...) a ‘new form
initiative, while their plans were later im- of beauty’ bound to law but ‘free from [any] dogmatic inhi-
plemented in a comprehensive way.
bitions’.”127
Mertins observed that, while such approach gave an answer

to the requirements for iit campus Master Plan, this portrait of
Organicism also fitted with Mies's own “drive to clarity of form
and structure,”128 of his early career. From this background, he
boldly proposed that, once in America, Mies would have devel-
oped an urban discourse equidistant from Hilberseimer's theo-
ries.129
125 Ibid.. Mertins notes the closeness of this approach to theories by R. Guardini.
126 M ertins , D. (��), Op. cit., p. ��, where he quotes a description made informally
by Mies himself to Ph. Lambert, according to the testimony of the latter.

127 Ibid. Mertins is here partially quoting B ehrendt, W.C. (��) Op. cit., p. ��.
128 M ertins , D. (��), «Expression of Structure,» in Op. cit., p. ��.
129 M ertins , D. (��), «City Landscape,» in Op. cit., p. ��-��, where Mertins enu-
merates striking similitudes between Mies's pronouncements and Hilberseimer's urban

theories. However, no books of Hilberseimer were found in his personal library, as noted
by Mertins.
On the other hand, the essay by S. Whiting130 made a defin- 1.49 Presentation of some of the
itive contribution, approaching to the implementation process of different planning projects devel-
iit campus design from a radically new point of view. Whiting oped at Chicago South Side, just a
few years after Mies proposed his iit
inquired into the effects of the ongoing urban policies in Chicago
campus Master Plan, in Whiting's
South Side, and the new urban planning frame set by these after
essay.
the war, under which iit —and other institutions operating in the
As precisely reconstructed by Whiting,
area— had to develop [Fig. �.��]. As a novelty, Whiting's incisive
Mies's iit campus Master Plan design set
discussion of the urban issues, necessarily addressed by iit cam- a pioneering model for urban interven-
pus, situates Mies in the social and political context of Chicago, tion at Chicago South Side urban fabric.
where, most relevantly, it never ceased to be. It was its efficiency which promoted its
Furthermore, while she “adroitly uses the metaphor of the later instrumentalization by urban poli-
bas-relief to set a new standard for discussing space and mass in cies, in order to achieve an urban renew-
Mies's American work,”131 Whiting made an interpretation of al of the entire neighbourhood, where
the impact of Mies's planning on a consolidated urban fabric by most of the original intentions in Mies's
means of the particular figure-ground relation specifically proposed design were left aside.
by iit campus Master Plan, that set a model for contemporary

urban intervention in the whole Chicago South Side [Fig. �.��], as
“(...) by reintroducing urban difference into modernism's ur-
ban field, this alternative planning strategy redefined metro-
politan order (...). First, the formal terms of this plan's order
were more field-than object-derived. Unlike modernism's
field, however, this postwar field was not homogeneous, but
variegated (...). Second, what could be called its foreground or
monumental buildings were devoted (...) to private and semi-
private institutional ones, that nevertheless actively engaged
130 Whiting , S. (��), «Bas-Relief Urbanism: Chicago's Figured Field,» in L ambert,
Ph. (ed.) et al., Op. cit., pp. ��-��.

131 Ibid.
I N TRODUCTION
1.50 Aerial view describing iit cam- and redefined the postwar public realm”.132
pus and vicinity by the year 1962, as
seen from East. While Whiting made no mention to Mies's ait campus Mas-
By the early ��s, Chicago Near South
ter Plan design, which indeed set the spatial standards of later
Side was already transformed by the
planning in the area, she managed to reconstruct the later con-
execution of several ongoing plans of ur-
text —urban, social and economical— in which subsequent plans
ban renewal, and the construction of in-
were developed until the early ��s [Fig. �.��]. This way, she made
frastructures —as the new expressways
system, here to the east of iit— at such
patent the way iit indeed faced it, in a way that successfully ex-
an unprecedented scale that it would had plains many of the decisions later adopted for its completion, as
an impact far beyond than Mies or Hil- well as to what extent these were limited in their actual effect.133
berseimer could have predicted.
132 Whiting , S. (��), Op. cit., p. ��. Whiting arguably establishes here a parallelism
between the classical figure-ground opposition —here described as foreground-background—
and what she interprets as its modernist equivalent of object-field —later developed in her
essay as point-field— in Whiting , S. (��), «Points and Fields: Chicago's Urban Orders»,
Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
133 Whiting has later contextualized these amidst the emergence of the notion of
‘Superblock’, as the urban consequence of “the enormous reserves of capital that exist in
the modern economy, which enable either private or public agencies, or a combination
of both, to gain control over, and make a profit from, ever larger areas of urban land,”
as first described in C olquhoun , A. (��), «The Superblock,» in Essays in Architectural
Criticism: Modern Architecture and Historical Change (Cambridge: mit), pp. ��-��.
1.2.2 Authors that did not deal personally with Mies 1.51 “How iit Has Grown.”
Aerial view of iit campus as seen from
As it has happened with many of Mies's buildings, the inter- South, which extended to ��th St. The
image was part of a series of press releas-
pretation of iit campus changed significantly since his death in
es by iit, published in several Chicago
the late ��s. This circumstance probably could be caused by the
local newspapers just a few years after
fact that, used to let his buildings speak for himself, the person-
Mies's resignation. Although these arti-
al explanations that Mies sparsely offered about his architecture
cles tried to highlight how the building
have commonly not been contextualized in his particular working process of iit campus continued, empha-
process. Both —his ideas and his buildings— have been often sizing that “it now comprises almost ��
subjected to interpretations that have commonly instrumental- buildings on �� acres (�� city blocks),”
ized it [Fig. �.��], in order to justify positions with which, paradoxi- they obviated the fact that this was done
cally, the architect never expressed explicitly any concern.134 by means of transferring to Skidmore,
This situation worsened once Mies died, when the impact of Owings & Merrill all the commissions
his legacy —especially at iit135— was evident. Perhaps as a reac- originally assigned to Mies.
tion, his work has been commonplace for architectural criticism
134 A detailed account of the changes in the interpretation of Mies's architecture can
be found in Neumeyer , F. (��), «Einleitung. Die Tradition der Rezeption: Mies van
der Rohe in der Geschichtsschreibung zur modernen Architektur,» in Neumeyer , F.
Mies van der Rohe: Das Kunstlose Wort: Gedanken zur Baukunst (Berlin: Siedler), pp. xi-xxii.
135 The institutional support of iit to Mies's legacy has always been constant. See, for
instance, Daruszk a , D., «Mies Dies; Memory Lives», Technolog y News, vol. �� (�): � (Sept.
� th, ��) [University Archives (Paul V. Galvin Library, iit)].
since then, which has turn to his legacy with varying degrees of 1.52 iit campus by 1969, year of
depth. In the successive and changing architectural debate since Mies's death, in its urban context
then, iit campus has ranged from rejection to canonization. (opposite page).
After building five residence halls and
Often reduced to a minor or transitional architecture by ob-
nine fraternity houses between �� and
viating its particular “inner contradictions and mutations”,136 the
��, iit changed its character as a com-
interpretation of iit generally dropped to a critical appraisal of its
muter school, and with the addition of a
most singular buildings, as a way to articulate a continuity and
new Student Union Building in ��6�, and
coherence in Mies's architecture of his American period which, in a gymnasium in ��, it become a ma-
most cases, did not exist while it was under development [Fig. �.��]. ture residential university. However, the
poor state of the campus site, segregated
in disintegrated pieces by several strips of
parking lots, and burdened by its incon-
clusiveness and the missing landscaping
project with which it was originally de-
136 Often experienced by his disciples and collaborators, as reported in Padovan , R., signed, was long considered a secondary
«Mies van der Rohe Reinterpreted», uia International Architect, �: ��-�� (��). work, until its later review decades after.
Key
IIT Buildings* Research Building) 34 Tennis Courts

1 iit Main Building 17 igt Central Building 35 Bailey Hall
2 iit Buildings & Grounds Stor- 18 Institute of Gas Technology 36 Cunningham Hall Apartments
age Building (igt) Laboratories North Bdg. 37 Gunsaulus Hall
3 iit Machinery Hall 19 John Crerar Library [& James 38 Carman Hall Apartments
4 iit Facilities Garage S. Kemper Library] 39 Commons Building
5 Parking Lot 20 Siegel Hall 40 St. Saviour Chapel (/Robert F.
6 Physics Hall 21 iitri Laboratories Carr Memorial)
7 Chapin Hall 22 iit s.r. Crown Hall [& Institute 41 iitri Electrical Engineering
8 iitri Materials & Technology of Design] Research Building

Building 23 iit Economics–Mechanics 42 Gas Station
9 iit Transformer Vault Building (Temp. Bdg. No. �) 43 McCormick Student Village (/
(/Central Electrical Vault) 24 Hermann Union Building Residence Hall)
10 iit Boiler Plant (Sections �, � & (/‘The hub’) 44 iit Information Science Bdg.
Steam Generating Plant) 25 Alumni Memorial Hall 45 Farr Hall

11 iitri Test Cell 26 Perlstein Hall 46 iitri Administration Offices (/
12 iitri Mechanical Engineer 27 Whisnick Hall Chemical Research Building �)

Research Building (Units �, � & 28 Vandercook College of Music 47 Fraternity Houses (/‘The
�) [& Storage Sheds] 29 Association of American Quad’)
13 iitri Engineering Research Railroads (aar) Mechanical
Bdg. (/’Incubator’) Engineering Other Relevant Structures
14 iitri Chemical Research Bdg. 30 aar Laboratory Building � [& in the Area
15 iitri Offices Tower (/‘iit aar Lab Building Addition] 48 Chicago Housing Authority
Tower’) 31 Gymnasium (Temp. Bdg. No. �) (cha) Dearborn Homes
16 igt South Building (/iit Physics 32 Athletic Field 49 cha Stateway Gardens
& Electrical Engineering 33 Keating Sports Center
I N TRODUCTION
1.53 “The Titanic”, photomontage

with Mies's s.r. Crown Hall.
Generally motivated by a formal ap-
proach, that understood form as a
means to convey meaning, postmod-
ern critizism critizied Mies's educated
inquiry to building, arguing that such
approach disparaged —where not di-
rectly ignored— wider issues, such as
the urban or social context, where it was
established.
a. Postmodern Criticism — As a rule, postmodern criti-

cism focused on iit for what Mies's American work later implied
in subsequent architectural practice. Particularly, iit was consi-
dered as an notorious example —commonly extended to Mies's
architecture in general— of the ravages of the proliferation of
Modernism since the late ��s [Fig. �.��].
Academic disquisitions assessed by Mies at iit campus build-
ings, concerning the development of a constructive language from
industrial components, were denied as focused on the disciplinar-
ian issues of building. Moreover, these were generally considered
sterile from the point of view of institutional representation, that
they allegedly failed to embody. Accordingly, discussions “wheth-
er the [iit] corner symbolized ‘endlessness’, or ‘closedness’,” were
dismissed, considering that “the fact is that it could symbolize
both or neither, depending on the code of the viewer, or the fact
that larger questions of factory symbolism of semantic confusion
were at stake —such questions were never raised”.137 As a con-
sequence, the different buildings at iit campus were ironically
dispatched as an “architectural conundrum, designed in Mies's
universal language of confusion (...)”,138 that, by to their denial to
the forms of tradition, would allegedly have simultaneously re-
nounced to their meaning [Fig. �.��].
This was interpreted to be a natural consequence of what was
understood as Mies's concern about a “pure form”,139 in a simpli-
137 Jenks , Ch. A. (��), «Univalent Form,» in The Language of Post-Modern Architecture
(London: Academy), Part i : «The death of Modern Architecture», pp. ��-��.
138 Ibid.
139 Jenks , Ch. A. (��), «Farce and the Belief in Essence,» in Modern Movements in
Architecture (New York: Anchor Press), ch. �: «The problem of Mies», pp. ��-��.
1.54 “The infamous iit corner”, “iit

cathedral / Boiler house”, “iit Boiler
house / Church”, “iit President's
temple / School of Architecture”
(above); ‘pastiche’ of iit Chapel, re-
working the type of the ware-house,
and “random uniformity (=fake
simplicity)” of modern universities
(bottom).
Postmodern criticism claimed against
the modernist refusal —here embodied
by iit buildings— of a tradition that was
not only reduced to forms, but also sub-
jected to types that would have allegued-
ly guaranteed its social relevance.
fication that would result against the basic requirements of com-

mon daily use, or even of well-established constructive practices.
Apparently, all of these clashed with the permanence and
durability for which iit campus buildings were projected, whose
presence has later meant, paradoxically, and activation of both its
context and meaning,140 in a generally favorable judgment. This
140 As argued in F r ampton K. (��), «Modernism and Tradition in the Work of Mies
van der Rohe, ��-��,» in Zukowsky, J., Dal C o, F. (eds.) et al. Mies Reconsidered: His
Career, Legacy, and Disciples (New York/Chicago: Rizzoli/aic), pp. ��-��.
1.55 iit campus by 1986, year of

the celebration of the centennial of
Mies's birth, in its urban context (op-
posite page); aerial photograph of iit
campus as seen from sw, c.1980.
Although a continuity in its buildings
was finally reached, iit campus has re-
mained divided by the elevated train
tracks for decades.
This circumstance, added to the im-
matureness of the various landscaping
projects —later implanted for most of
the expanded areas of the campus, only
after the final closing of Dearborn St.
and Wabash Ave. (opposite page)— has
conditioned most of the later unfavorable
revisions of Mies's project.
circumstance has been motivated, to a certain point, by the suc-
cesive urbanization efforts assumed by iit, by subscribing a series
of landscaping projects that have tried to restore its continuity and
ameliorate the impact of city infrastructures [Fig. �.��].
Key
IIT Buildings* ics & Electrical Engineering 32 Bailey Hall

1 iit Main Building Research Building) 33 Cunningham Hall Apartments
2 iit Buildings & Grounds Stor- 15 igt Central Building 34 Gunsaulus Hall
age Building 16 Leadership School 35 Carman Hall Apartments
3 iit Machinery Hall 17 Paul V. Galvin Library 36 Commons Building
4 iit Facilities Garage 18 Siegel Hall 37 St. Saviour Chapel (/Robert F.
5 Parking Lot 19 iit s.r. Crown Hall [& Institute Carr Memorial)
6 iitri Materials & Technology of Design] 38 Gas Station
Building 20 Hermann Union Building 39 McCormick Student Village (/
7 iit Transformer Vault (/Central (/‘The hub’) Residence Hall)
Electrical Vault) 21 Alumni Memorial Hall 40 Military Science Building (Air
8 iit Heating Plant 22 Perlstein Hall Force/ntroc programs)
9 iitri Test Cell 23 Whisnick Hall 41 Farr Hall
10 iitri Mechanical Engineer Re- 24 Vandercook College of Music 42 Fraternity Houses (/‘The
search (/iitri Research Center) 25 Association of American Rail- Quad’)
11 iitri Engineering Research roads (aar) Lab Building �
Building (/’Incubator’) 26 aar Laboratory Building � Other Relevant Structures
12 iitri Chemical Research Bdg. 27 Stuart Building in the Area
13 iitri Offices Tower (/‘iit 28 iit Life Science Building 43 Chicago Housing Authority
Tower’) 29 iit Engineering Building � (cha) Dearborn Homes
14 Institute of Gas Technology 30 Keating Sports Center
(igt) South Building (/iit Phys- 31 Tennis Courts
I N TRODUCTION
b. David A. Spaeth — Spaeth was an architecture stu-

dent at iit just after Mies resigned, at a time when his figure was
nonetheless respected and admired there. He personally experi-
enced the evolution of Mies's career, which he knew at a time
when its best results were just built. Spaeth combined his later
academic career with professional practice, a circumstance that
probably influenced his own vision of Mies's work, far from bal-
anced.
Despite his thoughtfully documented early studies on Mies,141
widely acknowledged, Spaeth's later essays did not follow a strict
historical method. Edited in a time in which Mies's work was
starting to be reconsidered, this is the case of his most successful
1.56 ‘Mies van der Rohe’, table of monograph Mies van der Rohe [Fig. �.��].142 Edited as a lavishly illus-
contents (above); “iit, Chicago. Ae- trated volume, in tune with other standard architectural publica-
rial perspective of the preliminary tions, it was usually referenced as the most common comprehen-
proposal for the campus, 1939”, and
sive monograph on Mies for general collections by then.
“iit. Model of preliminary propos-
Indeed, while Mies's work was here chronologically struc-
al for the campus” (opposite page,
tured, Spaeth made little attempt to place Mies in his time, or
above); “iit. Final campus plan”,
relate him to ��th-century architecture in general.143 Particularly,
and “iit. Perspective of the proposed
campus” (opposite page, middle).
Spaeth gave a broad complimentary overview of Mies's long and
The book was supported by a preface by influential career, discussing his seminal unbuilt projects and ma-
K. Frampton (above), defending Spaeth's jor buildings from pre-World War i Germany, to his later world-
unusual approach to Mies's work as Bauen wide practice of the ��s. But while Mies's later works were treat-
—rather than Baukunst— that the former ed more cursorily, the book was best on his American work.144
used to give a clear description of Mies's Spaeth's text offered a study where references from period-
American work and, especifically, of his ical publications or testimonies —undervalued by scholar stud-
iit campus Master Plan design. Pollem- ies until then— were reproduced among a clear and concise, but
ically, Spaeth's reasoning was paralleled commonly acritical, argumentation. In fact, more than a half of
by illustrations arranged not acording to
the space dedicated to iit is occupied by a complete transcrip-
their actual chronology —deliberatedly
tion of Mies's Inaugural Speech at ait [Fig. �.��, top and middle].145
ommitted when necessary— but instead
Furthermore, no explanation at all was given of his educational
in a particular order that he understood
program, but a mystified account of his achievements there.146
as better to communicate Mies's ideas
as he understood them. This eventually
appeared in clear contradiction with the
141 See, for instance, S paeth , D. (��) Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: An Annotated
bold chronological structure of his book
Bibliography and Chronology (New York/London: Garland). The book included some
(above), or even with the explanation giv- dating errors —such as in the glass skyscraper projects, or the sequence for the country
en of the development of many of Mies's houses— unfortunately perpetuated in following texts.
projects, and particularly to his iit cam- 142 S paeth , D. (��). Mies van der Rohe (New York: Rizzoli).
pus (opposite page). 143 Notoriously, Spaeth tried to link Mies with the tradition of Chicago School, whi-
le admitting that Mies himself repeatedly denied such influence, in S paeth , D. (��),
«��-��,» Op. Cit., ch. iv, p. ��.
144 S paeth , D. (��), «��-��,» Op. Cit., ch. iv, pp. ��-��. Although it also inclu-
ded other designs than iit, the section notably extended to more than a third of the
book.
145 Ibid. The transcript extends over six (!) pages, quoting its first edition in M ies van
der Rohe , L., «Inaugural Address as Director of Architecture at ait, Nov. �� th, ��,»
Johnson , Ph. (��) Mies van der Rohe (New York: Braziller/moma), pp. ��-��.
146 According to Spaeth, “[Mies] and his faculty transmitted not a ‘Miesian Style’,
but a way of solving problems, or rather an ‘Order of Work’ which began with the stern
On the contrary, the book included abundant and gener- 1.57 iit campus design sequence as
ous graphical documentation —presumably complementing his presented in Spaeth's book.
argumentation— although not referenced to the text nor always

clearly laid out in relation to it, or even to the actual chronolo-
gy of the works described. Instead, these were set in a fictitious
sequence [Fig. �.��, bottom] that presumably facilitated an under-
standing of the ideas behind Mies's designs, in order to establish
certain analogies, often forced [Fig. �.��, top].
Attesting the acknowledged favorable aging of Mies œvre,
Spaeth intended to “make the buildings speak for themselves,” by
injunction: ‘Draw the known facts’,” in Op. cit., p. ��. Spaeth was quoting here “[his
own]notes of Alfred Caldwell's second year construction class at iit,” in Ibid., note ��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.58 “First floor plans of Alum- means of an study of “Mies's approach to the realization of an ar-
ni Memorial Hall, Wishnick Hall, chitecture worthy the name,” presented as “carefully considered
and Perlstein Hall, iit, 1945-46” and and rational.”147 According to this approach, images of some of
“Classroom buildings and research
the most representative buildings of iit under construction were
facitlities at iit” (above); “s.r. Crown
included [Fig. �.��, bottom].
Hall under construction” and “s.r.
Noteworthy, Spaeth is also responsible for later, less known,
Crown Hall. Interior” (bottom),
essays, outlining the link between Mies and Hilberseimer ideas in
from Spaeth's book.
the works they developed together in Chicago.148
147 S paeth , D. (��), «Introduction,» in Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis in the original]. This
constructive approach was vigorously supported by Frampton in his preface to the book.
148 See, for instance, S paeth , D. (��), «Ludwig Hilberseimer's Settlement Unit. Ori-
gins and Applications,» in P ommer , R., S paeth , D., and H arrington , K. In the Shadow
c. Franz Schulze — American Historian, he was respon-

sible for the classification of the large amount of drawings includ-
ed in Mies's personal files and personal papers —later known as
the Mies van der Rohe Archive— when these were acquired by the
Museum of Modern Art, New York, in ��.149 As a result of it,
Schulze worked in full cooperation with moma's Department of
Architecture and Design staff, a circumstance that allowed him
to do an extensive research and interviews with Mies's contem-
poraries, students, and intimates. All this material came to light
in the shape of a biography,150 which described the man and his
personal circumstances in a detailed and balanced text, but gave
a secondary emphasis on the buildings or his ideas [Fig. �.��].
Much of the success of the book151 lay in its defense of the
modernity of Mies's figure, but in postmodern terms: understand- 1.59 ‘Mies van der Rohe. A Critical
ing his persona seemed to offer ‘objective’ data for a historically Biography’, cover.
rigorous interpretation of his intentions,152 while it defended the The book cover showed a severe and ab-
relevance of his singular character to understand his answer to sent bust of Mies, integrated into one of
the crucial moments in which he had to live. Being a biography, the disciplined drawings for his designs.
the book was structured in a strictly chronological order around All this gave an idea of the perception
his life, paralleled by much of the personal motivations behind his of Mies's work when the contents of his
personal archive —catalogued by Schul-
work. Its brief theoretical incursions often appeared quite odd,
ze— were released, on the occasion of
as they usually broke the narrative tone of the book. As a rule,
his centennial. Although as a biography
Schulze anticipated a general frame that he explained a priori, so
it was focused on Mies's life, the book as-
its subsequent conclusions generally seemed somehow contrived.
sumed a broad scope, thanks to its nar-
Concerning to the iit campus, the book provided hitherto rative style, and, above all, to Schulze's
unpublished information about the circumstances of the emigra- vast scholarship. Graphically, the book
tion of Mies to the United States, here documented for the first did not include technical documents,
time. Punctually, Schulze inserted fragments in which he assessed except for some sparse floorplans of
the notorious change experienced by Mies's architecture during prominent works and, very occasionally,
his American period. In particular, he mentioned the transfor- a few perspective views. All the rest were
mation of his spatial sense, which he described as “not only con- photographs.
tained but packaged” and that, since then, “space rests rather than
flows, reflecting a state of being rather than becoming.”153
of Mies: Ludwig Hilberseimer—Architect, Educator and Urban Planner (New York: Rizzoli), pp.
��-��, or the later S paeth , D., «Teaching Methods of Mies and Hilberseimer», Inland
Architect, �� (�): ��-�� ( July–Aug., ��).
149 Schulze had only occasional contact with Mies when he was appointed to ela-
borate the moma's Archive. While his research was developed in parallel to this work,
which only came to light years after Mies's death, it facilitated him later access to Mies's
relatives and their personal testimonies and archives.
150 S chulze , F. (��) Mies van der Rohe: A Critical Biography (Chicago: uo c).
151 “For Mies enthusiasts, this is all heady stuff (...) ,” as reviewed in Huxtable , Ada
L., «The Making of a Master», The New York Times Book Review (Dec. � st , ��).
152 It is noteworthy that Schulze's book brought to light many contradictions in all
the existing literature on Mies, even in that accepted as ‘canonical’ until then. See, for
instance, notes �� (p. ��), and �� (p. ��).
153 In Op. cit., ch. �, «Departure and Flight, ��-��», p. �� [emphasis added]. Ac-
I N TRODUCTION
1.60 E. Mendelsohn's boiler plant In a new focus, Schulze linked the origins of Mies's Ameri-
for Mosler Publishing Co., Berlin, can work to his designs during the entire decade of the ��s [Fig.
1927, and Th. Merrill's Königsgrube �.��], amidst a convulsive Europe that anticipated the war years.
works in Bochum, 1930.
According to this approach, this experience would have led him
In his book, Schulze pointed examples
to internalize a need for the construction of a new order in cul-
of German factories of the late ��s
tural terms,154 which Mies would have identified as “a spirit in-
and early ��s as possible sources for
ternationally endemic to the decade.”155 This would have led to
the unusual constructive solution that
Mies adopted for iit campus buildings,
which he assumed that Mies knew about,
according to his own recent experience cording to Schulze, this approach was “(…) kin to other works Mies did in the ��s”, in
in designing the Krefeld Verseidag fac- Idem.
tory. Several examples of these factories 154 “In contrast to the extraordinary order [ grossartigen Sicherheit] apparent in [to-
recalled by Schulze had appeared in day's] technical and economic realms, the cultural sphere, moved by no necessity and
possessed of no genuine tradition, is a chaos of directions, opinions (…) It should be
Johnson and Hitchcock's book The In-
the natural responsibility of the university to bring clarity to this situation (…) Things
ternational Style —featuring some build- by themselves create no order. Order as the definition of the meaning and measure of being is missing
ings by Mies—, and had been reviewed today; it must be worked toward, anew,” in Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis added]. Schulze's quote
is extracted from M ies van der Rohe , L. (��), letter to “Mr. Carl O. Schniewind, cu-
in American journals for the quality of
rator of prints and drawings, aic ” ( Jan., �� st) [Mies van der Rohe Archive (moma , New York)].
their construction. On Mies's concern about a ‘cultural’ approach to order, see the excellent essays
O eschlin , W., «‘Not From an Aestheticizing, but from a General Cultural Point of
View’. Mies's Steady Resistance to Formalism and Determinism: a Plea for Value-cri-
teria in Architecture,» in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��) Mies in America (Montreal/New
York: cca /wma a ; Harry N. Abrams), ��-��; and «Vom Zufall in die Ordnung: Der Weg
zum Bauen» in Neumeyer , F. (��) Mies van der Rohe: Das Kunstlose Wort: Gedanken zur
Baukunst (Berlin: Siedler), Part ii , ch. �, pp. ��-��.
155 According to Schulze, “to a greater or lesser degree democracy everywhere gave
ground to totalitarianism. Germany represented the aggressive extreme of this, but the
u. s .
itself collectivized as it sought to resist and defeat Germany, indeed as both nations
had earlier strained to lift themselves from the depths of the Depression. Correspondin-
1.61 F. Schupp's Zollverein Col-
an “inclination toward axiality and stasis”, materialized some 156 liery, Essen, 1932 (above); construc-
tion details of the facade (left).
years later in his work at the United States, and particularly at iit.
Several constructive solutions on the ba-
Schulze made a reference to the adopted general constructive
sis of an exposed steel structure, analo-
solution, presented as Mies's option for a “generalized building”157
gous to those used by Mies in iit campus
applied to American steel industry.158 He rigorously traced the
buildings, had been tested previously in
historical antecedents of the exposed steel framework system159 in different German industrial buildings.
the German tradition of Baukunst, as mentioned by Mies. Paral- But, although these had dealt with the
leling Spaeth, Schulze identified the construction at iit with the problems of providing a secondary struc-
building tradition of industrial architecture, described as ture for the building envelope, or the way
“(...) a characteristically German way of industrializing the to give a proper solution for the facade
time-honored vernacular of the half-timbered house a medi- openings made out of standarized com-
ponents (left), their functional require-
ments were much more limited than
those of regular buildings.
Still, many of these solutions were peri-
gly Mies saw the danger in cultural terms and correspondingly invoked an authoritarian
system of thought in his efforts to subdue it,” in Op. cit., p. ��. odically studied in specialized journals,
156 Ibid. as their economy had allowed an ap-
plication according to the highest con-
157 “Mies's concept of generalized building was being put to work as it never had been
struction standards at a scale never met
in Germany”, Op. cit., ch. �: «Revival: Modernism Without Utopia, ��-��», p. ��.
before.
158 “(…) Modularity made for uniform, thus cheaper, building components which
could be organized in a variety of ways (…)”, in Op. cit., p. ��. Schulze was apparently
unaware of the cost of steel in war times, when iit campus Master Plan was designed,
although he later stated that “it was not the disillusionment of a beaten nation that so-
bered his architecture now, but rather a wartime economy and the complex pragmatics
of the iit commission”, in Op. cit., p. ��.
159 For this, Schulze pointed a review of the Zollverein Colliery at Germany [«The
Zollverein Colliery in Essen: Schupp and Kremmer, Architects,» in The Architectural

Forum �� (�): �� (Feb., ��)]: “ [This system] promised even with buildings which vary
in form and size and purpose throughout the whole complex a general impression of uni-
formity.” Although he offered no evidence that Mies could have seen it, Schulze believed
that “that prose might have been written by Mies himself, who must have appreciated
how an impersonal architecture of industrial implication could serve as a model for a technolo-
gical institution of considerable size, variety of purpose (yet budgetary restriction), and
potential growth” [emphasis added], in Op. cit., p. ��. Schulze did not explain why he
thought that Mies appreciated any architecture for being impersonal.
Singularly, the same reference had been noted in F r ampton , K., «The Unknown
Mies van der Rohe,» in S paeth , D. (��) Mies van der Rohe (New York: Rizzoli), pp. �-��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.62 “Early preliminary plan of eval form of skeletal construction” [Fig. �.��].160
the iit [sic.] campus, Chicago, 1939”
(left page); “montage showing a later Schulze brought up the evolution of Mies's American career
preliminary plan of the iit campus,
to later justify it on the basis of the reality of American indus-
1941” (right page).
try,161 as if it had been previously planned, and Mies would just
After a brief description of the “prelimi-
have needed an opportunity to test it.162 Undervaluing the overall
nary” design of ait campus Master Plan,
exploration developed by Mies, Schulze assumed that it was his
Schulze did not offer any explanation in
his book for the change in its layout, or
new environment that allowed him to express himself.163 All this,
the shape of the buildings. The defini- by justifying Mies's architecture with a series of generalizations164
tion and evolution of iit campus Master before he even described it, attributing him a consciousness about
Plan design was summed up in a rather his work which seemed to be inevitably called to be realized.165
simple formal approach.
160 Ibid.
161 Schulze stated that “he used it to bring to concretion his vision of an architecture
of structure,” in Op. cit., p. ��.

162 “(…) The United States welcomed him as a great artist at a time when it was es-
pecially prepared for the art he had to offer, and it provided all the physical means he
needed to pursue his ideational ends,” in Ibid. Schulze attributed Mies an idealism that
seemed more his own, as he omitted the restrictions imposed by the war, or the plight of
exiles to rebuild their lives and get integrated into a country still wary of foreigners in
senior positions.
163 “Having spent most of the ��s in a homeless frame of mind, he responded to the
freedom and security of his new environment (…),” in Ibid.

164 As, for instance, when he argued that “the Americans had a special fondness for
technology, believing, especially in view of their spectacular victory in w wii , that they
were the people most advanced in it. Thus in their eyes, any artist who elevated it to
architecture could only add meaning and merit to American and world culture,” in Ibid.
165 “It seemed to Mies, as he made it seem to America, that construction in steel and
In addition to this, when Schulze addressed the evolution of 1.63 Different views showing iit
the spatial concept in Mies's architecture, this was introduced in campus inner courts.
a deterministic way, where Schulze simply outlined its results.166 In line with an approach previously
adopted by Hilberseimer, Schulze high-
From here on, he offered the common explanation of the
lighted the spatial experience when one
campus layout as composed by independent buildings [Fig. �.��],
wandered through the open spaces of
tending “to slide freely past each other”.167 As a novelty, Schulze
the campus. This was described with
linked this to a spatial idea that he never contemplated again: the
vintage photos by Joseph J. Lucas Jr., an
fact that the facades of the buildings acted “defining rather than alumnus of iit, in which the role of the
enclosing spaces” [Fig. �.��].168 This gave him foot to expand this landscape, fully integrated into the cam-
previously suggested idea of open spaces in continuous flow, calling pus inner courts, stood out.
attention to the rich, ever-transforming perception of their spa- However, Schulze did not consider that
tial experience, despite the disciplined order of its plan or their such landscaping project was incorporat-
buildings.169 ed actually a few years after the Master
Plan had acquired a more or less definite
outline. It was continously reworked ac-
glass stood most authentically for modern technology. Technology for Mies, in turn, cording to the reality of the development
was an entity of spiritual as well as physical significance. It was the Zeitgeist manifest,” of the campus Master Plan, presumably
in Ibid.
as an instrument to correct deficiencies
166 “Nor did Mies's embrace of structure in America preclude his continued explora-
in its implementation, mainly because of
tion of space. On the contrary, the dematerialization of structure freed him to create a
the scale of the intervention.
space of supersensible implications. The space that earlier had flowed among walls and
columns gave way to the single large emptied-out clear-span area, extending implicitly
in all directions and bounded only by columns and glass conceived in a rigorously sym-
metrical order”, in Idem. Whatever Schulze meant by “dematerialization of structure,”
he did not explain.
167 In Op. cit., p. ��.
168 Ibid.
169 “At ground level, to a moving pedestrian, such a composition produced the shif-
ting sense of blocks appearing and disappearing, not overruling the symmetry but qua-
I N TRODUCTION
1.64 “Minerals and Metals Re-

search Building, iit, 1942-43” (top,
left page); “corner detail of Alumni
Memorial Hall, iit, 1945” (top, right
page); “Crown Hall, iit, 1950-56”
(left).
When describing the campus buildings,
Schulze obviated the changing circum-
stances of the various specific buildings
of the campus. In contrast, he extracted
a common characterization from those
buildings that had obtained a wider im-
pact in the publications, even when their
final presence on the campus was very
different. Generally speaking, Schulze Once he came to describe the early buildings in the campus,
described the campus buildings in tech- he stated that none of these were “neither a masterpiece nor an
nical terms, even if the contradictions of exemplar of the iit building type he perfected later”,170 which he
the solutions adopted by Mies —particu- characterized as ranging from “candid” to “simple prosaic”, to
larly, of the corner detail at Alumni Me- conclude that “Mies seemed to be seeking to adjust, none too eas-
morial Hall (top)— did not offer more
ily, to new ground and new ground rules” [Fig. �.��].171
than a generic explanation of them. As a
novelty, Crown Hall was analyzed inde-
pendently (left). lifying it (…),” in Op. cit., p. ��. Note the similarity of this approach to that of the later
research developed in L ambert, Ph. (��) «Learning a Language,» in L ambert, Ph.
(ed.) et al. Mies in America (Montreal/New York: cca /wma a), pp. ��-��.
170 Op. cit., p. ��. See, for instance, his remark about the Minerals and Metals Re-
search Building, described as “an uncomfortable reminder of how glum the Sachlichkeit
could be which he had briefly if theoretically espoused in the early ��s,” in Ibid.
171 Ibid.
On the contrary, Schulze made a detailed analysis of the con-

structive detail of the corner of the Alumni Hall building, whose
design had been finally adopted by Mies as a generic solution in
the other buildings of iit campus. According to Schulze, his ap-
proach transcended the strictly constructive and structural dis-
course, and deepened in the realm of representation, very close to
some architectural ideas related to tectonic theory.172
Schulze later reworked his book in a new edition [Fig. �.��]
that certainly completed several deficiencies of the original.173
The new edition now incorporated a co-authorship by the archi-
tect E. Windhorst, to compensate the poor treatment of techni-
cal issues in the original one. Presumably in charge for the more
specialized approach to Mies's architecture, Windhorst offered a
collection of drawings of plans and construction details from his
buildings expressly conceived for the text, therefore now illustrat-
ing its ideas in a clearer way. As a result, the book abandoned 1.65 ‘Mies van der Rohe. A Critical
the strict genre of the biography, to become closer to a reference Biography, New and Revised Edi-
monograph for specialists. tion’, cover.

Attesting the radically different assess-
Concerning iit, the book reworked the chapters describing
ment of Mies's work from the days when
Mies's Arrival to Chicago and his teaching activity into two new
the book was originally issued, its cover
extended versions,174 in order to incorporate a broader approach
was now occupied by a picture of a smil-
to Mies's architectural ideas and designs for iit campus, now sup-
ing (!) Mies, casually relaxed in his apart-
ported by new documents and testimonies,175 although not fully ment at Chicago. Already consacrated
successfully. As a matter of fact, Schulze ignored reference stud- as a reference monograph in the studies
ies,176 and insisted in the alleged deficiencies on Mies's inaugural about Mies, the book adopted an overall
address, that now he used to explain his professional develop- more scholar approach. The new edi-
ment in America. Surprisingly, this was done by assuming that tion added technical drawings, several
Mies's ideas could be “revealed by what is not in the inaugural appendixes, a restrictive bibliographic
address”.177 Focusing on the concepts [that Schulze understood] selection, and a thematic index, all of
that historiography had traditionally attributed to Mies's Amer- them thoughtfully elaborated and con-
ican work, Schulze's tortuous approach effectively showed early veniently referenced.
signs of some of the ideas later developed, although it inevitably

ignored the reality of Mies's thought by the time he arrived to
the u.s. In the end, Schulze seemed to underestimate Mies's edu-
172 Although never characterized that way in the book.
173 S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��) Mies van der Rohe: a Critical Biography. New and
Revised Edition (Chicago: uo c).

174 The original sixth chapter was reworked into «America Beckons: ��-��», and
the seventh, into «Architect and Educator: ��-��», in S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E.
(��), Op. cit., ch. �, pp. ��-��, and ch. �, pp. ��-��, respectively.
175 Schulze incorporates documents from cca archives, not present in the original
version of his text, as well as several citations to L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��) Op. cit.
Schulze also included the book is in his selection of recommended bibliography.
176 Its main study to date, A chilles , R., H arrington , K., Myhrum , C. (eds.) et al.
(��) Mies van der Rohe, Architect as Educator (Chicago: uo c), was now excluded from the
recommended bibliography.
177 S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis in the original].
I N TRODUCTION
1.66 “Mies's initial campus plan

(1939-40) for ait, Chicago (later iit)”
(top); “Second (revised) campus plan

for iit, montage (1941)” (bottom).
In a novel approach, the relevance of
the collaborations of his students in the
sucessful development of Mies's iit cam-
pus Master Plan was acknowledged by
describing the design in parallel to his
educational activity.
The lack of precision of the original edi-
tion —particularly concerning graphic
documentation— was now amended, to
the point that its detail sometimes went
further than those of the text. This al-
lowed a reading of the latter from diverse
backgrounds. In any case, text still pre-
vailed, and plenty of the numerous ex-
isting documents, which nowadays have
became a standard for the description
of Mies's architecture —often express-
ly elaborated or commissioned by the
architect himself, to better illustrate his
intentions—, were not included.
cational program, here portrayed as what “would be likened by

some critics to nothing more than ‘trade school’ training”.178
Regarding the campus Master Plan design [Fig. �.��], Schul-
ze completed his analysis by assuming the approach set by Lam-
bert,179 adding recent testimonies of his disciples, but using them
to support his tight reading of Mies's authoritative academic ac-
tivity, in a way that allowed him to elaborate a personal interpre-
tation of his writings. Nonetheless, Schulze justly criticizes Lam-
bert for her dismissal of ait campus Master Plan, pointing that
178 Ibid. Schulze's statement is based in a description by Mies himself, extracted from
B lake P. (��) «A Conversation with Mies van der Rohe,» Verbatim Record of a Sym-
posium Held at the School of Architecture, Columbia University, March–May, ��, la-
ter issued in B lake P. (��) Four Great Makers of Modern Architecture (New York: Da Capo),
p. ��. Schulze ironically states that Mies “made it sound perfectly reasonable”.
179 Exceptionally in Schulze, Lambert's study on iit is often quoted directly in the
text body, to suggest some corrections for it, while he, oddly, used sources from the
latter.
“(...) [Lambert] argues that the first plan (...) is ‘extraordi- 1.67 “The infamous [sic] Mondrian
narily agitated and complicated,’ and asserts that ‘in order to wall” from the iit Minerals and Met-
arrive at the final iit campus scheme of ��,’ Mies ‘[sought] als Research Bdg., 1942 (above); “Li-
brary and Administration Bdg. proj-
simplification, to eliminate the frippery and excessive [num-
ect, iit, Chicago, 1944”, and “corner
ber of ] building types’. (...) Lambert fails to acknowledge that
detail, plan section (right).
(...) Mies was inventing a campus, without a detailed program
Contrary to the original edition, Schulze
or budget, for a university just then formed (...) Mies also sure-
now higlighted Mies's denial of such in-
ly understood that a technologically progressive image was the fluence at the North fachade of the build-
chief aim of the exercise he had been assigned (...) both for ing (above), of which he now stated that
ideas and for their convincing expression. Real building — “critics claimed was based in composi-
and reality— would come later.”180 tions of the Dutch artist”. Schulze now
used the building to introduce Mies's in-
While Mies's work was probably more than produce an im- quire into a steel-and-brick construction,
age, Schulze assumed Lambert's approach to the campus design which would finally reach its highest
as a collaborative work, although it was here presented as the log- point at the Library and Administra-
ical result of the extension of Mies's working method to his classes, tion Building project. Consequently, this
building was summarized by a construc-
in which his command came first in all circumstances.181
tive detail of its corner —reworked from
Similarly, when it came to the campus buildings, Schulze
a working drawing by Mies (right)— in-
seemed also influenced by Lambert. In a new chapter originally
stead of the famous perspective view of
not included,182 he proposed a new understanding of Mies's work
its exterior, that the architect explicitly
for iit. Although he acknowledged the relevance of the Minerals elaborated for such purpose.
and Metals Building, it nonetheless appeared here submitted to
180 S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis in the original].
Schulze is here quoting L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. (��) Op. cit., pp. ��, ��, respectively.
181 He states that “with iit as his base, Mies had multiple professional advantages,”
in S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., p. ��.

182 S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��) «A New Architectural Language: ��-��,»
in Op. cit., ch. �, pp. ��-��. Note that the dates chosen by Schulze did not reflect either
the first designs for the campus buildings, nor the beginning of their construction, or the
earlier projects of the Concert Hall (��) and the Museum for a Small City (��) that he
used to introduce it. Instead, these were referred to the Farnsworth House, despite the
fact that it had a chapter of its own.
I N TRODUCTION
1.68 “The famous corner of the the Library and Administration Building project [Fig. �.��], which
Navy Building, iit, Chicago, 1946” he saw as the culmination of Mies's progression in his efforts to
(left); “details of the corner of the elaborate a steel skeleton and steel-to-brick detailing. Here conve-
Navy Building”, and “exploded view
niently analyzed [Fig. �.��], Schulze fairly noted that
of the standard rolled-steel shapes,
“(...) even if one sensed arbitrariness in his characterization of
brought together by welding” (right).
what is ‘rational,’ it was difficult to argue the point in the sight
Schulze now made an illuminating
of those walls at iit, which looked so incontrovertible in their
graphic description of the generic solu-
tion adopted by Mies for the campus
tectonic logic. Paradoxically, though, they looked that way
buildings. Here, he conveniently noted because they were given form by an unimpeachable artistic
that its components were welded, and sensibility”.183
that the “wide-flange section encased in
concrete ‘behind’ the corner is one of the Schulze argued that this was later to be summarized in the
‘real’ columns.” Nonetheless, no men- “heroically scaled” buildings assuming a “representative” func-
tion was made to the constructive solution in the campus.184 In this line of argumentation, he contra-
tion adopted to compatibilize facade and dictorily stated that iit campus Master Plan “gave only modest
structure, for whose description —bril- hints of his imminent reinvention as a champion of structural
liantly summarized in a single and clear
expression”,185 anticipating Mies's later interests. While, indeed,
detail— the corner was indeed famed.
both were simultaneously developed —Mies continued working
on most buildings not erected, and their latest version was always
183 S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis in the original].
184 S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., p. ��.
185 Meaning the “column-free and nearly column-free interiors that are the lodesto-
nes of Mies's American œvre,” subsequently referred in Ibid.
1.69 “The original Institute of Gas

Technology Building, iit, Chicago,
1951”.
After preservationist studies of the late
��s had questioned the way Mies's
s.r. Crown Hall —and, by extension,
the whole iit campus— was inserted at
Chicago South Side, Schulze added an
urban dimension to his account of the
development of Mies's campus design.
Attesting the degradated condition of the
area in which it was planned, where “the
dilapidated surroundings are evident,”
Schulze associated these interventions to
a period of “institutional” responsability
in Mies's American practice, which ap-
preared paradoxically associated to his
mature, late work at iit. However, Mies
had collaborated in the institutional
definition of iit since its very foundation
in the early ��s, despite the fact that
“the order and location in which new
buildings were actually built turned out
to be a function of available funding, iit
bureaucratic infighting, a world war, and
after the war the complex dynamics of a
rapidly growing technical university.”
incorporated into it— Schulze, paradoxically, seemed conscious

of the extension of iit campus design process, when he noted that:
“It is easy to forget that Mies's iit campus plan depicts an
imagined, completed institution. In ��, and for years to come,
much of the campus was a patchwork of dilapidated commer-
cial and residential buildings [Fig. �.��]. Old Armour build-
ings were also present, but Mies consistently omitted them
from models and aerial perspectives”.186
Raising an absolutely unprecedented vision of iit campus,

Schulze, nonetheless, continued with a traditional explanation of
the project by means of its more representative buildings. After
contextualizing the personal circumstances in which Mies's first
American projects came to light,187 Schulze opened a new period
186 S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis in the original].
187 Schulze suppressed the excerpt about American Art in the mid ��s of the origi-
I N TRODUCTION
1.70 “s.r. Crown Hall, iit, Chicago, in Mies's American work, set by the design and construction at iit
1956”, (left) and “plan section at a campus of the “architecture design and planning building,” s.r.
corner of the exterior wall” (right). Crown Hall [Fig. �.��].188 Now elaborated on the description of its
Schulze justly attested s.r. Crown Hall
technical problems, or on an unprecedented analysis of its struc-
as Mies's first large clear-span struc-
tural particularities and achievements, the text enthusiastically
ture, while he conveniently pointed that
described it as “a spiritual ideal made real”.189
“the technology is essentially that of the
As an end, Mies's later designs for iit, as the Robert F. Carr
Fransworth House, developed five years
earlier”. Consequently, s.r. Crown Hall
Chapel or the Commons Building, received a routine account,
was placed into an overall historical just briefly described,190 with the persistent absence of any refer-
sequence, where Mies would have de- ence to iit residential apartments towers —Bailey Hall, Cunnin-
veloped a tipological research around gham Hall and Carman Hall— of the original text.
the expressive possibilities of the use of
rolled-steel sections as constructive el-
ements of a building. In this historical nal edition, to briefly state the then favorable artistic conditions for emigrés at America,
in S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��. From here, he opened a
sequence, achievements from previous
new chapter mainly dedicated to his personal relations, where historical sequence was
buildings would allegedly had been used altered in S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��) «The ��s», in Op. cit., ch. �, pp. ��-
by Mies as support of new, and unprece- ��. Here, numerous new personal testimonies were incorporated, among which, cu-
riously, were now described the [personal] circumstances of Mies's exhibition at moma .
dented challenges in subsequent designs.
188 S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), «American Apogee: Commercial and Ins-
titutional Work: ��-��,» in Op. cit., ch. ��, pp. ��-��.

189 S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��. Schulze took care to
point that s . r . Crown Hall broke the campus modulation, although for the sake of “new
freedoms in pursuit of what he believed were great goals,” in Ibid.
Given its technical precision, the excellent account of the structural scheme and
behavior of s . r . Crown Hall now included was, most probably, by Windhorst.
190 S chulze , F., and Windhorst, E. (��), Op. cit., ch. ��, pp. ��-��, and ��-��
respectively.
d. Detlef Mertins — Canadian architect, he developed

a successful career as architectural historian and professor. His
areas of academic expertise focused on the history and theory
of modern architecture, as one of the foremost scholars on the
interpretation of Mies's work and cultural context, on which he
got progressively specialized.191
Mertins's approach was characterized by the simultaneous
study of the impact in Mies's architecture of the cultural context
in which it developed,192 and the cultural motivations of his archi-
tectural practice.193 Such background guided him in his posthu-
mous monograph Mies,194 where he inquired about the cultural
foundations of his American career through the study of his intel-
lectual concerns [Fig. �.��], here reconstructed as developing from
his European career, in an approach so far omitted by scholars.195
As an example, his study about Mies's early American work 1.71 Critical assessment of the cul-
opened under the generic denomination of ‘organic architecture.’ tural concerns of Mies's architectur-
Thus, Mertins suggested a transitional period between Mies's Eu- al practice, in Mertins's monograph
‘Mies’, 2014.
ropean and American practice, where he would have performed
Oscillating between historiographical
an appropriation of what he understood as “a modern vernacular
analysis and theorethical criticism, the
that would be the immanent fulfillment of modern industry, tech-
book exposed the ambiguities inherent
nology, science and art,” interpreting that, for Mies, “the modern
in the Miesian projects as they mani-
city too was to achieve the status of an organism, and serve as a fested in the historical contingencies in
figure of organic unity once its form became the direct and undis- which they arose, illuminating its contra-
torted result of its dynamic shaping forces”.196 dictions instead of attempting to resolve
While Mertins initially pointed to F. Ll. Wright, it was Hil- them.
berseimer “who informed [Mies's] approach to organic urban Particularly, Mertins understood Mies's
form and architectural autonomy”,197 despite the fact that the de- architecture as the successive manifesta-
tion of the broader phenomenon of the
Gestaltung —here portrayed as a broader
191 As reflected in his earlier works, as M ertins , D. (��), «New Mies,» in M ertins ,
process of formation, both on a physical
D. (ed.) et al. The Presence of Mies (New York: Princeton Architectural Press), pp. ��-��. and intellectual level, by means of a visual
192 See, for instance, his essays M ertins , D. (��), «Architectures of Becoming: Mies
apprehension of its principles— that the
van der Rohe and the Avant-Garde,» in R iley, T., B ergdoll , B. (eds.) et al. Mies in Ber- architect would have consciously recog-
lin (New York: moma), pp. ��-��, or M ertins , D. (��), «Architecture, Worldview, and nized in organicist theories contempo-
World Image in g ,» in M ertins , D. and Jennings , M. (eds.) G: An Avant-Garde Journal of rary to his avant-garde practice. Pres-
Art, Architecture, Design and Film. ��-�� (London/Los Angeles: Tate/Getty Research
Institute), pp. ��-��.
ent all along his career, Mies allegedly
would have succesively interpreted them
193 See M ertins , D., «Design After Mies», Any, ��: ��-�� (��, ‘Design after Mies’,
special issue). according to the varying circumstances
194 M ertins , D. (��) Mies (London: Phaidon).

in which his architecture actually devel-
oped, including his later American work.
195 Mertins noted how this approach —originally initiated by F. dal Co, and later
brilliantly developed by F. Neumeyer for his German period— had been recurrently
eluded, stating that “if it turns that his œuvre was more formally disparate than previous-
ly acknowledged, it nevertheless holds together (...) as a sustained quest: a lifelong effort
to forge a new architecture that would be adequate to the evolving history of moderni-
zation and the philosophical and cultural challenges it raised,” in M ertins , D. (��),
«Introduction», Op. cit., p. �.
196 M ertins , D. (��) «Organic Architecture,» in Op. cit, pp. ��-��.
197 Ibid., p. �. Mertins included a summary of his earlier essay M ertins , D. (��),
«Living in a Jungle: Mies, Organic Architecture, and the Art of City Building,» in
L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. Op. cit., pp. ��-��. This was inserted in the beginning of the
I N TRODUCTION
1.72 Critical assessment of Mies's tails of how this specific aspect transferred to his early American
ait/iit campus Master Plan design, work were not specifically addressed. In his book, Mertins made a
after its historical descripition, in particular assessment of ait/iit campus in different parts.
Mertins's monograph ‘Mies’, 2014.
A first part gave a routine account of the historical develop-
ment of the design.198 From here, Mertins made a critical analysis
of the collaboration between Mies and Hilberseimer, suggest-
ing points of common interest in their previous European work,
particularly on their use of the grid,199 and of the insertion of
free-standing buildings into the city, using a
“(...) ‘pavilion system’ to create a field condition in which
building and landscape were integrated, organized in part
around a geometric point, but also spreading into the larger
territory” [Fig. �.��].200
Moreover, Mertins emphasized that “making his buildings

slide past one another served to produce an open, flowing and
section ‘Organic Architecture,’ in M ertins , D. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��, brought up regar-
ding Mies's preparation of his Educational Program, prior to his appointment at ait.
198 M ertins , D. (��), « ait/iit : Open Campus,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
199 Mertins made an excerpt about the common use of the grid by Hilberseimer, as a
mean for the development of an urbanism based on organic principles, in, Ibid., p. ��.
200 Ibid., p. ��. Mertins referred to Schinkel's urban interventions at Berlin. Para-
llely, he made an analogy with Cl-N. Ledoux's Salt Works at Chaux, a monograph of
whom can be found at Mies's personal Library [see Appendix], noting that “at an urban
scale, Hilberseimer linked the ‘tendency towards autonomy’ with the ‘tendecy toward
openness,’ which he traced back (...) to Ledoux's Ideal City [at Chaux],” in his theoreti-
cal studies, in Ibid. [see Fig. �.��].
perceptually active field of spatial experience in which views 1.73 Evicted tenants from Mecca
could change cinematically”. Consequently with his approach, Building, 1950, and groundbreaking
Mertins saw this as a consequence of the fact that “Mies's organic ceremony for the erection of Mies's
s.r. Crown Hall Building in the site
architecture was also an open architecture, providing an open in-
of the former, 1954.
frastructure and backdrop for life to unfold.”201
For the first time in a major monograph
Given this interpretation of iit as an infrastructure open to
about Mies, Mertins attested the disloca-
change, its later reduction when adopted as an model for urban
tion of low-income residents at Chicago
intervention by other institutions was precisely documented by South Side implied in his superblock
Mertins, who discussed the extent of its social impact [Fig. �.��], scheme. However, he specified that
while nonetheless arguing that its effects only would became man- this was caused by the extensive imple-
ifest “well after the fact,” and that “there is no evidence that Mies mentation in the area of urban renewal
even recognized this blindness [of urban renewal policies]”.202 practices based in a “tabula rasa clearance
A second part delved into to constructive issues that emerged and redevelopment with free-standing
from Mies's work on iit campus buildings,203 which Mertins ad- buildings on a green plane.” Mertins
dressed graphically in a hefty and lavishly illustrated chapter justly argued that these were promoted
[Figs. �.��-�.��]. Ambitiously comprehensive in content, Mertins in an undifferentiated way, institution-

ally encouraged by the different orga-
recalled historical testimonies in a particular unhistorical se-
nizations operating in the neighbour-
hood that lacked —where not directly
dissmissed— the care of the slow-paced
development of Mies's project.
201 Mertins was recalling here Mies's contacts with H. Richter during his early ca-
reer, to later develop this line of interpretation in M ertins , D. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��,
��, respectively [emphasis added], in line with other of his previous essays.
202 M ertins , D. (��), Op. cit., p. ��. Mertins concludes that “too quickly dismissing
the reformist ambitions of such projects as naive and racist ignores the complexities,
ambiguities, and uncertainties of the historical situation,” in Ibid.
203 M ertins , D. (��) « iit : Clear Construction,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.74 Documentation of Mies's Met- quence204 that allowed him to elaborate an alleged consciousness
allurgical and Chemical Engineer- in Mies's exploration of the expressive possibilities of structure.
ing Building, 1946-47. On the contrary, Mertins justly contemplated the develop-
Mertins noted that the Metallurgical
ment of campus buildings from a strict historical point of view,
and Chemical Engineering Building was
[Fig. �.��]. Here, Mertins saw Mies's struggle to find a generic solu-
developed —although not concluded—
tion for the basic compositive problems that he addressed at iit
before the Navy Building. Consequenly,
campus buildings —the conjunction of linear and square struc-
he used it to explain the generic solutions
defined here by Mies for his iit campus
tural systems, the expression of the linear system on the elevation,
buildings as a transition between those and the turning of the corner in the square bay.
of his pioneering design for the Minerals As commonly recalled —although never in detail— Mertins
and Metals Research Building, to the pointed to Schinkel neoclassical principles [Fig. �.��], where “the
later, refined solution elaborated for the autonomous parts form a unity of absolute and relative order”,205
Library and Administration Building. as Mies's reference to solve these problems. Seeing this as evi-
dence of the understanding of construction as ‘language,’ ordi-
narily adopted by Mies himself to describe his early American
work, Mertins documented brilliantly the origins of such meta-
phor in the avant-garde circles of his early European practice.206
204 Mertins points to M ies van der Rohe , L. (n.d., early ��s), «Entfaltung der
Struktur,» typescript [Mies van der Rohe Prints and Drawings collection, Manuscripts
and Rare Books Department, folder � (Richard J. Daley Library, uic)], and testimonies
by P. Carter, who collaborated in Mies's office in ��-��, once he had resigned from iit,
in Ibid., pp. ��-��.
205 Ibid., p. ��. Mertins is using here the previous description from Neumeyer , F.,
«Space for Reflection: Block versus Pavilion,» in S chulze , F. (ed.) et al. (��) Mies van
der Rohe: Critical Essays (New York: moma), pp. ��-��.
206 Mertins recalled the concern about an ‘elementarist language’ in G: Material zur
As a conclusion, Mertins close the chapter with an inquiry 1.75 Mertins's interpretation of the
about the origins of Mies's adoption of the notion of Baukunst, constructive solution of Mies's iit
solved in its “potential of transformation” by means of “elevating campus buildings, by means of the
corner of the Navy Building, 1946-47.
fundamental construction to structure”.207 Mertins traced a cul-
Mertins made a formal analysis of the
tural resemblance of how the emergence of new forms based on
famous design made by Mies for the cor-
elemental geometry from the “natural” historical development of
ner of his iit campus buildings, noting
engineering techniques in industrial construction, were consid-
how its discrete parts were assembled
ered as an example of “coherence, integration and transparency”. by means of establishing a separation
Interpreting that Mies sought to rework the technical forms between each of them. This allowed a
of industrial structures with a tectonic technique208, taking advan- “logic of combinatorial relationships of
tage of its expressive concern to, thereby, make their principles part to part and part to whole” among its
clearer —that is, explicit and sensibly manifest— Mertins con- members as autonomous forms —even
cluded that if sometimes irrespective to their orig-
“by making structure and envelope coplanar, Mies's build- inal constructive roles— for the sake of
ings at iit (...), operationalized this mode of visual cognition in an overall effectiveness in conveying its
the taut surface of the building envelope”.209 structural principles in a clear, unitarian
way.
elementare Gestaltung, and the characterization of his work —together with that of F. Ll.
Wright— in the same terms of ‘formal language’ in B ehrendt, W.C. (��) Modern Archi-
tecture: Its Nature, Problems and Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.)
207 M ertins , D. (��) « iit : Clear Construction,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
208 Ibid. Mertins noted that a copy of the classical treatise B ötticher , K. (��) Die
Tektonik der Hellenen (Potsdam: Verlag von F. Riegel) was found in Mies's apartment at
Chicago. Mertins here linked it to Mies's common account of the influence of Berlage's
architecture in his work, pointing certain connections in their common commitment
with the clarification of vernacular construction techniques.
209 Ibid. p. �� [emphasis added].
I N TRODUCTION
1.76 Mies's s.r. Crown Hall Build- To sum up, a third part described Mies's design for s.r.
ing, 1950-56, as presented in Mertin's Crown Hall, 210 which Mertins identified with Mies's later inter-
book. est for clear span structures. Now adopting a typological scheme,
Clear span structures were used by Mer-
Mertins interpreted it as allegedly driven by the progressive “un-
tins as the sanctioning evidence of Mies's
folding” of the structural possibilities of steel construction, as
careful tectonic depuration of the use of
Mies would have experienced all along the process of bringing to
industrial construction, in order to in-
reality his designs for the different iit campus buildings.
corporate it to an architectural language
that could make its own principles clear-
Accordingly, for Mertins clear span buildings appeared dif-
er. By means of its extreme expression of ferentiated as “not only integral or autonomous in themselves, but
the “articulated assembly and seriated also self-reflexive”,211 in their tectonic expression of their structur-
repetition of structural elements,” the al principles [Fig. �.��]. Despite breaking all conditions set by the
contemporary “principle of tension,” im- campus master plan, Mertins understood that s.r. Crown Hall
plicit in modern steel construction, found epitomized the expression of a clear construction out of industrial
here its proper expression by “allowing components attempted in the campus buildings, as this
roof structures to take precedence over “(...) requires that an uncompromised, integrated and unified
the columns”. This was clearly evi- form be achieved, one that reveals itself not only as an ab-
denced by the building erection process,
stract geometry but also in its dependence upon a material
here included, despite Mertins's formal
system of construction (...) [and] implies the articulation of
interpretation that the latter “serve more
every element of a construction type or system, both in itself
to frame the space and neutralize the
(as an individuated and separated element) and in its relation-
skin than to express their role in carrying
the load of the roof.”
ship to other elements (as part of a larger whole)”.212
210 ‘Unfolding Structure,’ and particularly the chapter M ertins , D. (��) «Farnsworth
to Crown Hall: Clear Span,» in Op. cit., pp. ��-��.

211 Ibid., p. ��.
212 Ibid., p. ��.
STA RT I NG H Y POT H E SIS
1.3 Starting Hypothesis
This dissertation formulates the hypothesis that the consider-

ation for the immediate environment as part of the architectural design process
that can be found in Mies van der Rohe's European work,213 is still present
and develops throughout his later American period. Consequently, it has
been assumed that the specific case study of the development of
iit campus Master Plan design —considered as articulating the
transition between these two stages— can offer clues to a more

balanced interpretation of much of his later work in the u.s.
Such hypothesis is based on a double assumption. On one
hand, Mies apparently would have conceived the project of iit
campus relying upon the urban theories developed by Ludwig
Hilberseimer. Elaborated in parallel and amidst a close profes-
sional collaboration, the approach to urban scale in the design
of iit campus Master Plan seems to have taken advantage of a
reconceptualization of principles such as ‘order’ or ‘structure’ 1.77 “Illinois Institute of Technol-
analogous to those used by Hilberseimer in his writings and the- ogy of Chicago”, promotional bro-
oretical designs. On the other, Mies would have internalized the chure.
theories of Moholy-Nagy about the characteristics of Modern This characterization of the Master Plan
architecture and the particularities of the perceptual experience design as a complete, finished design,
of Modern space, as well as about the role of technology in its imposed over the existing buildings did
not correspond with the reality of its lat-
contemporary expression, in a way that allowed him to find an
er development, or with that of its final
adequate formalization for the buildings of the campus.
implementation. Notwithstanding, this
Given the fact that they all were deeply engaged in theoreti-
image was commonly used by iit itself
cal debates at the Bauhaus, as well as the subsequent professional
to explain its future expansion plans in a
practice in the American context that they all experienced, this simple, understandable way.
213 This aspect has been already studied specifically for his European residential
work in Tegethoff, W. (��) Mies van der Rohe. Die Villen und Landhausprojekte (Bonn: Kai-
ser Wilhelm Museum der Stadt Krefeld), and a further development of this analysis can
be found in Gastón Guir ao, C. (��) Mies: el proyecto como revelación del lugar. Barcelona:
Fundación Caja de Arquitectos.
A similar approach has been raised by recent studies interpreting Mies's debate
between Rationalism and Organicism spanning from the mid-��s to the early ��s,
in a line of research brought up by H arrington , K., «Order, Space, Proportion — Mies
curriculum at iit,» in A chilles , R., H arrington , K., Myhrum , Ch. (eds.) et al. (��)
Mies van der Rohe, Architect as Educator (Chicago: uo c), and later fully developed in studies
as M ertins , D. (��) «Living in a Jungle: Mies, Organic Architecture, and the Art of
City Building,» in L ambert, Ph. (ed.), Op. cit., pp. ��-��. For an examination of Mies's
early American work during the ��s according to this approach, see M ertins , D.
(��), «Organic Architecture,» in Mies (London: Phaidon), pp. ��-��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.78 Presentation photomontage
showing iit campus Master Plan
design in its urban context (top); di-
agram of iit campus Master Plan as
commonly explained by historiogra-
phy (bottom).
Because of the way that iit campus Mas-
ter Plan was originally represented (top),
historiography has traditionally offered
a simplified description of it that has con-
ditioned the way Mies's design has been
understood.
According to this, iit campus was con-
sidered as an autonomous design, strictly
based on the formal logic of its own pro-
gram and spatial concept (�). Designed
as an isolated portion of the city, over an
extension of the urban fabric which was
assumed to be previously cleared (�), the
complex was meant to be implanted as a 1
compact whole, regardless of any exist-
ing urban context (�).
influences are seen as a natural consequence of the overall debate

between organicism and rationalism that took place those years.
Consequently, it is assumed that it was only by embracing these
ideas in his own, personal interpretation, that Mies was able to
develop his iit campus Master Plan design, and specifically the
design and construction of its different buildings, in a continuous
research that would determine the evolution of his later architec-
ture in the u.s.
STA RT I NG H Y POT H E SIS
According to this, behind the rational scheme of his design,

Mies would have been able to be successfully develop his ideas
about iit campus by assuming an organicist approach for its con-
struction, which would be appreciated in the continuous combi-
nation of its progressively executed parts in an articulated whole.
When considered from such point of view, one of the main
consequences of looking at iit from such a standpoint is that,
when historically contextualized, one can appreciate that, due to
the urban scale of the implementation process, the design had to face a complex
reality very different to that initially planned by the architect, often far from
his actual possibilities of intervention.214 Such approach is in contra-
diction with the common description of the design as a ‘tabula
rasa’,215 that allegedly would have been formulated on the basis of
a rational scheme that contrasted with its context [Figs. �.��-�.��].
On the contrary, the ever-changing circumstances of the design
motivated a necessary re-interpretation of the relation between its executed
fragments, in order to keep the original identity of the whole in an ever-chang-
ing context.216 This situation implied a continuous transformation of the
design by means of a steady re-composition as its number of elements in-
creased, according to the site-specific context of its successive stages,217 in a
very particular process that these lines try to delineate.
To sum up, it is assumed that a proper assessment of Modern
architectural heritage goes through an appraisal not only of the
historical context of its conception, but also of the development
over time of its intentions in its specific context, and not just the
reality of the built work as we receive it.
1.79 iit campus Master Plan design
214 This situation, common to most American campuses at the time, is analyzed in interpreted as a single, integral de-
Turner , P.V. (��4), «Campus Planning as Process,» in Campus: An American Planning sign (top), mounted over Chicago
Tradition (New York/Cambridge, Mass.: The Architectural History Foundation/mit), South Side (bottom).
ch. �: «Dynamism, Change and Renewal,» pp. ��-��. Turner concludes that
While criticism has commonly con-
“(...) the complexity of the modern educational institution, in a state of constant change,
thus required an equally complex and fluid process of planning. The physical results sidered Mies's original Master Plan
of this process were inevitably different from earlier campus designs, with their strong project as a unified design, the reality
formal clarity. To have such clarity would have falsified the nature of the American uni- of its implementation process implied
versity of the postwar period —an institution complex, dynamic, and unpredictable.”
an interaction, even if critical, with its
215 As an example, Blaser simplistically states that “A slum area had to be cleared to
immediate urban context. This circum-
make way for the buildings of the new iit campus,” in B laser , W. (��), « iit Campus
Buildings, ��-��,» in Op. cit, p. ��. On this regard, Whiting explains that “(...) even stance has motivated later contemporary
fans of Mies van der Rohe's campus for the iit can be heard to describe the project as interpretations, suggesting that its actual
an autonomous island, a tabula rasa that disregards its physical and social context. Such relevance lies in the the spatial concept
an interpretation is only reinforced by Mies's presentation collages, which ruthlessly
that it operated with, that allowed a fully
eliminate one hundred acres of the city's dense urban fabric in order to make way for
the expansive, low-density campus,” in Whiting , S. (��), «Bas-Relief Urbanism: Chi- modern intervention in the contempo-
cago's Figured Field», in L ambert, Ph. (ed.), Op. cit., p. ��. rary American city.
216 “(...) The true crisis of iit is not its relative neglect but the disappearance of the
city around it, Chicago. This brutal cancellation has turned the campus into a metapho-
rical tabula rasa surrounded by a real tabula rasa; the disappearance of the city has pulled
the rug out from underneath Mies”, as argued in Koolha as , R. (��), «Mies-takes,» in
L ambert, Ph. (ed.), Op. cit., p. �� [see Fig. �.�� above].
217 “(...) It is a mistake to read Mies as a master of the freestanding, or the autono-
mous. Mies without context is like a fish out of water”, as stated in Idem., p. ��.
I N TRODUCTION
1.4 Aims
1.4.1 Contribuiton to Knowledge
Paradoxically, the extensive documentation available about

the architect's design, dispersed among several documentary
collections, has not been yet subject of complete classification
[Fig. �.��].218 One of the main reasons for this situation lies in the
heterogeneity of graphic information preserved of Mies's work
during this period. Generally, Mies did not keep sketches; his for-
mer colleagues in Chicago recall the amount of drawings discard-
ed, often not signed or dated, even those relating his most relevant
projects.219 On the contrary, he exercised tight control over the
material he lent for exhibitions and publications to the point that,
of some of his key projects, only the few images that the architect
wanted to show —aware of the importance of giving them a pow-
1.80 “Unidentified Drawings”, last erful image— are known today.
volume of the Mies van der Rohe Ar- The few attempts to classify this information in a rigorous
chive catalog. way have been made on the basis of this situation, a circumstance
The last volume of the complete Mies van that has often involved partial interpretation, more or less im-
der Rohe Archive series, cataloging Mies's plicitly. Its identification, albeit partial due to the lack of more
estate at moma , New York, is dedicated information, would already constitute itself a contribution to the
to drawings that have not been identified knowledge of Mies's work. Furthermore, it would enable to appre-
yet. Although our knowledge about his ciate the project from its intentions, and to assess its findings and
work today is certainly wider, there have
actual achievements in a more balanced way.
been no further attempts to extend this
classification since then.
218 The basic and most complete reference in the study of the totality of Mies's
drawings is D rexler , A., and S chulze , F. (eds.) (��, ��) The Mies van der Rohe Archive.
An illustrated catalogue of the Mies van der Rohe drawings in the Museum of Modern Art (New
York: Garland).
Still, Schulze narrates in its introduction the difficulties encountered during the
classifying process, when determining the actual chronological order of the drawings,
or even their belonging to one or another project. Thus, “(…) the chronological order of
Mies's drawings cannot always be reliably fixed. Moreover, on those occasions when a
project has been lengthy in duration or has called for later revisions, some drawings of it
will have been executed later than the year on the file would indicate (…),” as described
in «Introduction to Unidentified Drawings» and «User's Guide», in Ibid, Part ii : ��-
��. The American Work, vol. ��, pp. xiii-xv.
219 Additionally, iit students copied his drawings as a teaching exercise, a fact that
increases the confusion about the actual date and authorship of many of them, as des-
cribed in A chilles , R., H arrington , K. and Myhrum , Ch. (eds.) (��) Mies van der
Rohe, Architect as Educator (Chicago: uo c).
AIMS
1.81 Sequence of drawings illus-

trating the evolution of iit campus,
spanning from 1940 to 1967.
Drawing sequences have been occasion-
ally used by iit in institutional commu-
nications, to describe its complex history
in a simple, comprehensive way. How-
ever, these have often eluded to describe
its relation with the context in which it
emerged.
1.4.2 Basis for Interpretation
Based on the premise of the possibility to outline the evolu-

tion of the design through the study of the available documen-
tation —most probably incomplete— about the campus Master
Plan and its different buildings, it is assumed that restoring the work-
ing drawings sequence in the project from a comparative study of its different
intermediate stages [Fig. �.��] can lead to recreate some of the decisions un-
derlying in the design process, which eventually led to the final layout
as we know it today.220
Such an approach does not seek to assess the results of the
design but, instead, to analyze the approaches to achieve it, with
all the assumptions and rejections that it implied. The aim is to
attempt to clarify the compositive ideas that gave the project its final form, by
highlighting the decisions taken by the architect and evaluating
the impact that these had in the final result, as well as by contrast-
ing to what extent these were operative in the actual context in
which the project had to develop. As a conclusion, this study tries
to evaluate the implications of such operative method for the ac-
tual development of iit campus, under the assumption that it can
shed a new light for the assessment of Mies's subsequent American
works.
220 Schulze himself acknowledged the misinterpretation of the first part of his work
in regard to this usual approach to it, quite different from his own, when he stated that
“(…) For these and kindred reasons the drawings are cataloged not to reflect any chronological
development—often indeterminable—of Mies's thinking about a work, but rather to order them
within a specific file according to their type (…)” [emphasis added], as described in
«User's Guide», in S chulze , F. (ed.) (��) The Mies van der Rohe Archive. An illustrated
catalogue of the Mies van der Rohe drawings in the Museum of Modern Art. Part ii : ��-��. The
American Work (New York: Garland), vol. �, p. xiv.
I N TRODUCTION
1.5 Methodology
1.5.1 Approach
This research proposes to face all the available documenta-

tion about iit, deposited in different legacies, as a whole. Such
approach tries to highlight the presence of the many analogies
in its numerous documents, and particularly in its intermediate
stages, mostly merely utilitarian and for study purposes. By means
of the consideration of such information corpus available today
in its most comprehensive way, a possibility —even if limited to
the preserved documents, and their availability for research— to
reconstruct a broader view of the genesis and development of iit
Master Plan is postulated [Fig. �.��].
As a necessary part of this study, the various institutions
housed by the different buildings have been identified, as their
constant transformation and relocation over time —parallel to
the evolution experienced by the campus Master Plan itself— has
traditionally hindered any proper understanding of the develop-
ment of the whole campus. From here on, a general planimetry,
covering the entire studied time span, has been restored. The aim
of this graphic documentation is to offer a summary of all avail-
able information on the different buildings of iit campus, as well
as the status of the entire campus Master Plan design at each par-
ticular moment in its history.
This graphic sequence has been produced with a dual pur-
pose. On the one hand, it reintegrates the context in which each
proposal was conceived, which, although usually present in the
architect's working drawings, was often overlooked in his final
presentation drawings. Such restitution is intended to serve as a
thread to the historical development of the campus surroundings,
and allow the identification of the huge amount of historical doc-
umentation available, often undated. On the other hand, by re-
storing a continuity between its successive states, this planimetry
makes evident the different transformations experienced by the
design over time, and provides evidence for other further studies
based in its analysis and interpretation.
METHODOLOGY
1.82 Conceptual model for restor-

ing iit campus Master Plan design
sequence.
In order to be able to make a difference
1 between the architect's design and the
1
existing reality that he necessarily had to
cope with, a de-montage of the various
presentation images he produced has
been made.
The buildings that were finally approved
in each of the various versions of the
campus Master Plan can be identified
in their different representations (left, (�),
(�)) when these are compared with built
reality. By recomposing such fragments
(left, (�’), (�’)), a sequence between these
different representations can be estab-
lished comparatively. This sequence
1’
1’ gives an idea of the evolution of the de-
sign, and allows a precise dating of some
of the photomontages of which no histor-
ical records have been preserved.
2
2
2’
2’
I N TRODUCTION
1.5.2 Analytical Method
Consequently, an analytical method based in three lines of

research has been adopted:
a. The first one is the recreation of the different intermediate stag-
es in the design through an analysis of the content of the different graphic
documents preserved [Fig. �.��, top, Nos. �-�]. Although the horizon-
tal spread of the project immediately suggests a study through
its floor plan, it is notorious the extensive use of perspective in
its preliminary sketches to verify the actual effect of many deci-
sions. Due to the constant reference to the modulation of the grid,
which orders the entire site, it is possible to reverse this process
and promptly identify the project status at the time such drawing
was produced. Once that the grid is linked to the existing urban
fabric, it can be established a correlation between these drawings
and other existing documentations.
b. The second one is the location of some of its specific drawings
in the general sequence of the project, in order to date them in the most accurate
way possible [Fig. �.��, bottom, Nos. �-�]. By matching the preserved
documentation about the campus Master Plan, a detailed analy-
sis of what was drafted and what was omitted allows us today to
recognize what persisted against what was dismissed in its succes-
sive versions. This way, the range of possibilities and exclusions
that defined the evolution of the project, determining which parts
were consolidated and which ones remained open, could be nar-
rowed, and the date when critical decisions were taken could be
identified. Additionally, a comparison with the large amount of
published documentation may prove significant to verify the dif-
ferences in all the considered possibilities.
c. The third one is a specific analysis of the series of spatial
operations used [Fig. �.��, bottom, Nos. �-�]. All information avail-
able on each project can be combined in a computer database
and, therefore, the sequence according to which each project was
developed can be reconstructed in a comprehensive way. Once
their progression is outlined, the analysis of different alternatives
in each line of evolution of the design —some of which eventual-
ly came together— would allow to reconstruct the way in which
each of these solved their own particular configuration according
to their specific context.
METHODOLOGY
1.83 Diagrams showing the meth-

The Museum of Modern Art Illinois Institute of Art Institu
The Mies van der Rohe Archive od for comparativeTechnology"
analysis of the Ryerson
evolution of theUniversity Archives
design (above), and Arc
Part II — 1938-1968 the process of graphic

Aerial" reconstruc-
Internal
Part I — 1910-1937 Hedric
Photographs
tion of the project Bulletins
sequence (below). Phot
European Works American Works Unidentiﬁed Drawings A comparative study of the content of the
3 4
different working drawings of the design
Vols. 1-7 Vols. 8-12 Vols. 13-19 Vol. 20 and other contemporary maps preserved
allows to establish references to place
2
precisely their location (above). 1938 1939
1 2 3 9 10 … Once a planimetry is completed, a se-

quence can be elucidated by combining
it with contemporary information from …
2 4 5 6 1 7
other sources, such as aerial photographs
or presentation drawings (below).
7 8 … 8 1 6
Database 7
Chicago History Museum
1 1938 1939 …
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
2 8
Art Illinois Institute of Art Institute of Chicago Periodicals &

ive Technology" Ryerson & Burham" Publications
University Archives Archives
8-1968 Aerial" Internal Hedrich-Blessing" Presentation"

Photographs Bulletins Photographs Drawings
Unidentiﬁed Drawings
3 4 5 6
Vol. 20
2
1938 1939 1940 1941
10 …
5
…
1 7
4 …
8 1 6
10
Database 7
1939 …
3
2 8
I N TRODUCTION
1.5.3 Sources of Information
a. Written Documents — A significant part of the his-

toric research is mainly based in a survey of the available histor-
ical records of iit internal documentation, most of which remain
preserved at the University Archives, iit. These include internal
newspapers, bulletins and/or reports which describe the activities
and events in the campus on a daily basis, and give today a precise
account of all its enterprises and projects of its recent history [Figs.
�.��, �.��]. Although other city institutions have kept record of their
own activities, these have been considered as secondary for the
research, and have been accessed only for specific contents. In ad-
dition to these, other documents preserved from Mies's Office, his
colleagues and disciples or their legacies, have been considered
when relevant. The main collections consulted for this research
are:
University A rchives at Paul V. Galvin Library, iit (Chicago, Il.),

particularly its collections:
-- Mies Study collection, deposited at Graham Resource Center, s.r.
Crown Hall Library.
-- Ludwig Mies van der Rohe collection.
-- Armour Engineer collection
-- Armour Engineer and Alumnus collection
-- Illinois Tech Engineer and Alumnus collection
-- Illinois Tech Engineer collection
-- iit Department of Public Relations News Releases
-- iit Technology News collection
1.84 Examples of different iit inter-
-- iit News Releases collection
nal publications and bulletins.
The great amount of internal publica-
-- Institutional Chronologies collection
tions and ephimera edited by iit offer
-- University History collection
today first-hand information about dif-
ferent issues concerning campus life, as Ryerson and Burnham A rchives at the Ernest R. Graham Study
well as about the impact of Mies's archi- Center, aic (Chicago, Il.), particularly its collections:
tecture on it. -- Ludwig Mies van der Rohe collection.
-- Ludwig Karl Hilberseimer Papers collection.
-- The Chicago Architects Oral History Project, deposited at
the aic Department of Architecture.
Special Collections and University A rchives at Richard J. Da-

ley Library, uic (Chicago, Il.), particularly its collection:
-- Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Prints and Drawings collection,
at the Manuscripts and Rare Books Department.221
-- Metropolitan Planning Council (mpc) Records.
221 This collection keeps all the preserved books from Mies's personal library. See
Appendix for a complete list of its contents.
METHODOLOGY
1.85 Examples of different iit inter-

nal publications and bulletins (top);
index of the collections at iit ar-
chives including written documents
related to Mies's iit campus Master
Plan and its different buildings (bot-
tom).
The different collections preserved at
iit University Archives keep record of
almost every relevant event concerning
iit history.
iit University Archives — Written Documents

Collection Date Range Acc. No.
Armour Engineer (��-��) [��.��]
Armour Engineer
and Alumnus } (��-��) [��.��]
Illinois Tech Engineer

and Alumnus } (��-��) [��.��]
Illinois Tech Engineer (��-��) [��.��]

iit News Releases (��-��) [��.��]
iit Technology News (��-) [��.��]
Slides (c.��-c.��) [��.��]
Microfilms (��-��) [��.��]
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe { (��-��)

(��)
[��.��]
[��.��]
Institutional Chronologies (c.��-��) [��.��]
University History (c.��-��) n.a.
I N TRODUCTION
A rchives and M anuscripts at the Chicago History Museum (former-

ly Chicago Historical Society) Research Center, Chicago History Muse-
um (chm) (Chicago, Il.), particularly:
-- Chicago Housing Authority (cha) Development Records.
b. G raphic Documents — The main source of graphic

information used for the analysis are the original design drawings
and plans of the Campus Master Plan and its buildings. In addi-
tion to this, other available graphic documents, such as historic
photographs, brochures or published illustrations from internal
publications, have been considered when they describe the differ-
ent stages of the development of iit campus [Fig. �.��]. The main
collections accessed for this research are:
1.86 Example of iit internal publi- University A rchives at the Paul V. Galvin Library, iit (Chicago,
cation including graphic documen- Il.), particularly [Fig. �.��]:
tation about Mies's designs for iit -- iit Buildings and Grounds collection.
campus and its buildings. -- iit Campus Maps collection.
A great deal of internal information was -- iit Campus Models and Plans collection.
presented graphically, in order to reach -- iit Campus Building Blueprints collection.
a wider public and impulse its dissemi- -- iit Campus Aerial Views collection.
nation.
-- iit Alschuler Campus Plan collection.
-- Alfred Caldwell collection.
-- Ludwig Mies van der Rohe collection.
-- ��s Fund Raising Brochures collection.
-- East Map Case Materials collection.
-- South Side Redevelopment collection.
Ryerson and Burnham A rchives at the Architectural Department of

the Art Institute (aic) (Chicago, Il.), particularly:
-- Archival Image collection.
-- Historic Architecture and Landscape Image collection
A rchives at the Collection Centre Canadien d'Architecture, Centre Ca-

nadien d'Architecture (cca) (Montreal), particularly:
-- Illinois Institute of Technology collection.
P rints and P hotographs Collection, deposited at the Chica-

go History Museum Research Center, Chicago History Museum (chm)
(Chicago, Il.), particularly:
-- Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps collection.222
-- Hedrich Blessing Architectural Photography collection.
222 Although most of the cited institutions provide digital access on-site, original co-
pies of the collection are here available for consultation, under restricted access.
METHODOLOGY
1.87 Brochures of different urban

initiatives in Chicago Near South
Side around the 1940s (left, above);
index of the collections at iit Ar-
chives including graphic documents
related to Mies's iit campus Master
Plan and its different buildings (left,
below).
Numerous brochures were published by
several institutions with diverse interests
in the area, in some of which iit was
actively involved. Today, they describe
promptly the reality of the urban context
in which iit campus was developed.
In addition to this, most of the plans and
iit University Archives — Graphic Documents working drawings used in the successive
stages of the Campus development and
Collection Date Range* Acc. No. its different buildings are preserved.
iit Buildings and Grounds (��-��) [��.��] These provide an accurate description
Buildings and Grounds (��-��) [��.��] of different moments in its historical evo-
lution.
Construction Files (��-��) [��.��]
Building Alteration Files (��-��) [��.��]
iit Campus Maps (��-��) [��.��]

iit Campus Models & Plans (��-c.��) [��.��]
iit Campus Buildings
Blueprints
(��-��)
(��-��) } [��.��]
iit
iit
Campus Aerial Photos
Campus Development
(��-��)
(��) } [��.��]
iit Alschuler Campus Plan (��) [��.��]

Alfred Caldwell Papers (��) [��.��]
{
(c.��) [��.��]
(c.��) [��.��]
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
(��) [��.��]
Papers
(��) [��.��]
(��-��) n.a.
��s Fund Raising Brochures (��-��) [��.��]

South Side Redevelopment (c.��) [��.��]
East Map Case Materials various [��.��]
* Date range as indicated in the documents, when included
P rints and P hotographs Division, at the Center for Architecture,

Design and Engineering, The Library of Congress (Washington
d.c.)., particularly:
-- War Information Photograph collection.
I N TRODUCTION
1.88 Index of the location of Mies's

drawings related to iit campus Mas- The Mies van der Rohe Archive — Volume No. 8
ter Plan and Buildings in The Mies Project Date* Acc. No.
van der Rohe Archive, as catalogued
iit Preliminary Studies (��-��) [��]
by Franz Schulze for The Museum
of Modern Art, New York (right and iit Master Plan, General Studies n.d. [��]
opposite page). iit Speculative Designs (��-) [��]
The different volumes of the complete
Mies van der Rohe Archive series, catalog-
ing Mies's legacy, include all of those
iitri Minerals & Metals Research Bdg.
iitri Addition to Metals Research Bdg.
(��-��)
(��-��) } [��]
produced for iit Master Plan design, as iitri Engineering Research Building (��-��) [��]
well as for its particular buildings. While
iit Central (Electrical) Vault (��) [��]
the successive reworkings of the campus
Master Plan are not specifically studied Institute of Gas Technology Complex (��-��) [��]
—see «iit Master Plan, General Stud-
iitri Life Sciences Research Building
ies» (Part ii, vol. �, �nd section)—, one can
(/arf Mechanical Engineering (��-��) [��]
find them when reviewing the site plans
Research Building)
of each of its different buildings. As their
chronology is approximately indicated, it aar Complex (��-��) [��]
is possible to recompose the evolution of
iitri Chemistry Research Building (��-��) [��]
the whole through the development of its
different parts.
The Mies van der Rohe Archive — Volume No. 9
Project Date* Acc. No.

iit Library & Administration Building (��-��) [��]

iit Alumni Memorial Hall (��-��) [��]
iit Lithographic Foundation Building (��) [��]
iit Boiler Plant (��-��) [��]
iit Field House Building, Gymnasium,
(��) [��]
Natatorium
The M ies van der Rohe A rchive, deposited at The Lily Auchin-
closs Study Center for Architecture and Design of The Museum of Mod-
ern Art (New York).
Donated by the architect in the late ��s, this legacy consti-
tutes the most exhaustive collection of graphic documentation
related to his architectural career, including working draw-
ings and presentation boards of most of his projects, both in
Europe and the United States. The drawings of iit Campus
Master Plan design and its various buildings are itemized in
volumes �-�� of Schulze's publication [Figs. �.��, �.��].
METHODOLOGY

iit Metallurgical & Chemical
(��-��) [��]
Engineering Bdg. (/Perlstein Hall)
iit Chemistry Building
(��-��) [��]
(/Wishnick Hall)
iit Electrical Engineering & Physics

(��-��) [��]
Building (/Siegel Hall)
iit Lewis Institute Building (��) [��]

1.89 ‘The Mies van der Rohe Ar-
chive,’ reference catalog.
iit Materials Testing Shop (��) [��] The whole reference catalog of Mies van
iit Watchman's Station (��) [��] der Rohe's drawings kept in the Mies van
der Rohe Archive at moma , New York, is
iit Landscape Studies (��) [��]
fully referenced in its printed edition. iit
iit Student Union Building (��-��) [��] campus Master Plan and its buildings
iit Civil Eng. & Mechanics Building (��) [��] are included in a second part —Part ii:
��-��. The American Work, thirteen
iit Robert F. Carr Memorial
(��-��) [��] vols.— later published and co-edited by
(/Chapel of Saint Savior)
F. Schulze and G. Danforth.
iitri Engineering Research Storage
(��) [��]
Sheds
iit Minerals & Metals Research
(��) [��]
Storage Shed
iit s.r. Crown Hall (��-��) [��]
iit Gas Booster & Metering Plant (��) [��]
iitri (/arf) Test Cell (��) [��]
iit Flagpole (��) [��]
iit General Housing:
}
Carman Hall Apartments (��-��)
Bailey Hall Apartments (��-��) [��]
Cunningham Hall Apartments (��-��)
iit
iit
Student Housing
Fraternity Housing
(��)
(��) } [��]
iit Lettering (��s-) [��]

iit Television Station (��) [��]
iit Commons Building (��-��) [��]
* Date range as indicated in the drawings by Mies's Office, as noted by Schulze
part i – Historical Survey and Compositive Analysis
2. URBAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
CONTEXT PRIOR TO 1938
Make big plans.
Aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram
once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living
thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency.
Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would
stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.
Think big.1
1 Daniel H. Burham, as quoted in Moore , Ch. (��) Daniel H. Burnham, Architect,

Planner of Cities (Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.) vol. �., chapter xxv, p. ��.

URBAN AND ARCHITECTUR AL CONTEXT PRIOR TO 1938
2.1 Blanchard's Guide Map of Chicago, 1868 (original Armour & Co. proper-
ties highlighted in red).
Incorporated as a city as late as ��, by the second half of the nineteenth century Chi-
cago was already a metropolis. The city was a symbol of America's economic might
and an example of ‘land of opportunity’ that atracted business from all over the coun-
try. Founded in ��, Armour and Company was established in Chicago South Side
stockyards as a meatpacking company, in a time when the city was the rail, livestock,
grain and lumber capital of the world.
U R BA N T R A NSFOR M AT IONS AT CH IC AG O SOU T H SI DE
2.1 Urban Transformations at Chicago South Side
Accordingly to its dominant economic position in the Mid-

west [Fig. �.�], when the city of Chicago suffered the Great Fire of
��, what initially was a disaster of unknown proportions, soon
was seen as a great opportunity. The need for reconstruction of
the affected areas —mainly, the ‘Loop’ and the Near North Side
[Fig. �.�]— attracted much of the investments in the city, which
found the possibility to reconsider its infrastructures.
Indeed, by the time the city celebrated the World's Columbi-
an Exposition of ��, Chicago already leaded the debate about
the problems of the metropolitan city, against which its City Beau-
tiful ‘White City’ tried to formulate an alternative. While such
model inspired plenty of the early twentieth-century American
urbanism, it was until the year �� that it found its most elabo-
rated materialization, when Daniel Burnham proposed his Plan
of Chicago. The Plan envisioned a comprehensive transformation
of Chicago's urban grid according to the principles of the ‘City
2.2 ‘Burnt District’ after the Great
Beautiful’, to provide it with a center and unify its street system. Chicago Fire, 1871 (Armour & Co.
What lied behind this scheme was a deliberate effort to ame- properties and city grid highlighted
liorate the effects of what was understood as an speculative pre- in red).
disposition of the gridiron layout, over which the city had been The regenerating impulse of the recon-
originally founded.2 The grid undoubtedly facilitated a burst struction left apart most of the areas that
of real-estate speculation paralleling the reconstruction and, had remained undamaged by the fire, as
although it actually set a basis for new architectural solutions it was the case of all of Chicago South
that soon restored density in the downtown again,3 the Fire had Side. The whole district —here pale red
brought the idea that a large-scale vision and global coordination coloured— remained constrained by the
existing gridded urban fabric, that soon
was necessary.
revealed obsolete.
2 “For land speculation [the grid] was, of course, the ideal pattern. The mania for
buying and selling town lots that spread across the country was nowhere wilder than at
Chicago”, as argued in R eps , J. W. (��) The Making of Urban America: A History of City
Planning in the United States (New York: Princeton University), ch. ��: «Gridiron Cities and
Checkerboard Plans», p. ��.
3 “Most of them exhibited great originality in coping with the unfamiliar architec-
tural problem of the design of tall office blocks on rather restricted sites. The result of
this twenty years of building and expansion was a collection of buildings that expressed
not only the new structural methods of the steel frame but the vigor and energy of a thriving
commercial city” [emphasis added], as noted in Op. cit., ch. ��: «Chicago Birth and Fair:
The Rebirth of American Urban Planning», p. ��.

2.3 Reconstruction of Chicago
South Side ‘Township Section’ in-
cluding AIT properties.
According to the agrarian inspiration
of General Land Office scheme, each unit
or ‘section’ was � square mile of surface
—equivalent to �� acres. This deter-
mined the layout on which most cities in
the Midwest, and particularly the city of
Chicago, were originally platted.
*
See Appendix for the lotting variations in the blocks of the studied area.
2.4 Diagram showing the land divi-

sion and numbering methods used
in Township sections of the Western
Territory cities, including Chicago.
Platted in ��, Chicago was squarely set
within the gridiron scheme established
by the Northwest Land Ordinance, promul-
gated by Th. Jefferson and adopted by
the cities in the Western Territories. The
Ordinance set a common Plan for land
division into ‘townships’ or municipali-
ties of thirty-six square miles each one.
The plot numbering in each of these
divisions was based on groups of � units
wide, so-called ‘sections’ (lower left cor-
ner).
But, besides the intrinsic commercial utility of the grid —that

commodifies landscape into regular and homogeneous lots, there-
by facilitating property management4 — it seems evident that, as
the original device to order the territory in the States of the Mid-
west [Figs. �.�, �.�], it remains present in the shape of the cityscape,
to whom it inevitably has bestowed a particular character.
However, while bottom-line economics has commonly over-
shadowed any purposeful urban design more often than desir-
able, the rationality of the grid layout has always been looser5
than it might initially appear: despite providing an abiding struc-
turing principle to understand the city as a whole, the grid remains
as an abstraction, as it persists fixed over the evolution of the uses
developed inside it.6 To sum up, it may guarantee an overall pri-
mary urban order, but it barely offers any guarantee of further
architectural quality.
4 “The redundant, repetitive exchange of plots depended upon the assumption

that the city's platted rectangles were both easily identifiable and interchangeable”, in
Whiting , S. (��), «Superblockism: Chicago's Elastic Grid,» in E l -K houry, R. and
Robbins , E. (eds.), Shaping the City: Studies in History, Theory and Urban Design (New York:
Routledge), pp. ��-��. See also R eps , J. W. (��), «Cities For Sale, Land Speculation in
American Planning,» in Op. cit., ch. ��, pp. ��-��.
5 “Despite the geometric connotations of the word, grids do not necessarily lead
to a rational organization of land or functional approach to building”, as argued by
S chwarzer , M. (��), «Forms of the Grid,» in Waldheim , Ch. and R ay, K. R. (eds.) et
al. Chicago Architecture. Histories Revisions, Alternatives (Chicago/London: uo c), p. ��.
6 “The grid's most important characteristic is its staying power, its perseverance
beyond the lifespan of people, economies, technologies, and buildings”, in Idem., p. ��.

2.5 Chicago Near South Side vicin-

ity around Armour & Co. properties
(left, with area of study highlighted);
Armour Mission by the year 1886, in
its urban context (opposite page).
After the Great Fire took place, various
surveying plannimetries of the city —
driven at the behest of insurance com-
panies— were developed to describe dif-
This was clearly exemplified by the unrelenting decay expe- ferent aspects of its buildings and urban
rienced in the activity at other residential areas of the city, like the fabric in a comprehensive way. Their
once privileged Chicago Near South Side. Despite it had tradi- high level of detail allows today a precise
tionally constituted Chicago's ‘Gold Coast’, with the advent of the location of the land where Armour Mis-
sion later settled down, as well as of its
automobile it was no longer a particular advantage to live so close
original surroundings.
to the downtown, and after the Fire its attractive was displaced
by that of the newly reconstructed districts. As a consequence,
the area was abandoned by its wealthier families, which began
to move to other parts of the city, and it became progressively
occupied by industries7 which, due to the railroad infrastructure,
found there a perfect location for their operations [Fig. �.�].
7 According to a later description by Ada Luise Huxtable, “(...) scattered through-

out this residential squalor are dingy industrial areas”, as quoted in Whiting , S. (��),
«Flatland: The Impenetrable Density of Chicago's Near South Side,» in L ambert, Ph.
(ed.) et al. ��. Op. cit., p. ��, note �.

2.2 Origins of Armour Institute of Technology
Developed from the philanthropic activities of the Armour

Mission, founded in �� by Chicago wealthy entrepreneur Philip
D. Armour, the Armour Institute of Technology (ait) was origi-
nally conceived as a manual training school with an eminently
business orientation.8 While initially planned to offer practical
training on the technician level to the workers from the South
Side, the scope of its founder was soon enlarged with the impulse
of Frank W. Gunsaulus,9 who had the vision to equal European
technical institutions. Sharing a concern for education and val-
ues, together they leaded ait to a connection between industrial
progress and professional-level college in engineering [Fig. �.�].
Their first decision was that the heart of the school would
be Armour Scientific Academy, a technical college housed at
the Armour Institute building. It offered professional courses in
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, archi-
tecture,10 and library science. In addition to this, the activities
2.6 “The Armour Institute” of Armour Mission were continued in an Associate Department.
Although the Institute had oriented its Not by chance, the location for ait campus was chosen beside the
curriculum eminently in a practical way, Armour Mission original site, considering that Near South Side
it tried to offer a wider approach to edu- was largely a residential neighborhood, occupied by families who
cation, on the basis that “any who meets would attend Armour Mission and, eventually, the Institute [Fig.
with engineers (…) and architects as a
�.�].
class will recognize in many of them the
By the time all ait facilities were completed in the year ��,
want of a general culture. Skillful in their
they already benefited from several infrastructures in the area,
particular professions, intelligent in these
finished the year before with occasion of the celebration of the
various lines of thought, they are often
woefully deficient in general acquire-
ments and polite learning. It is to remedy
this defect the course of studies at the Ar-
8 In words of Ph. D. Armour, “the religion of Armour Institute will be �� ounces to
mour Institute has been arranged.” the pound, but undenominational; and it makes no difference to me whether its converts
are baptized in a soup bowl, a pond, or the Chicago River”, as quoted in P eebles , J.C.
(��) A History of Armour Institute of Technolog y, ��-��. Chicago: n.p.
9 A noted Chicago pastor, they both famously met in his so-called ‘Million-Dollar
Sermon’, where he emphasized the role of the technician for the development of a nation
transformed by industry at a scale never met before. “He was ready to answer the call
to a new frontier”, as described in M acauley, I. (��) The Heritage of Illinois Institute of
Technolog y. Chicago: iit), ch. iii : «The Sermon and the Institute», p. ��.
10 In ��, Art Institute of Chicago and ait trustees agreed to run the architectural
branches of the two institutions together. The new school was to be known the Chicago
School of Architecture of the Armour Institute.
ORIGINS OF ARMOUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
2.7 “Old zinc etching showing Ar-

mour Mission as it appeared in
1886” (top); “The Armour Institute of
Technology: Armour Institute, Mis-
sion and Flats” (bottom).
All representative activities of ait were
housed in the Armour Mission building
(left), which had preceded the Institute in
the neighborhood as a manual training
school. It became the institution's public
face towards ��rd St., then the main com-
mercial street in the neighborhood due
to its elevated train station. The rest of
the perimeter of the block was completed
with Armour Flats —formerly built for
officials and upper-level employees of
Armour & Co.— where the faculty re-
sided once the Armour Institute building
was erected in ��.
Developing all along Armour Avenue
(below), ait focused most of its educa-
tional activities on Armour Institute,
where classes and practice spreaded all
over its building, from its basement to
the attics.
World's Columbian Exposition. Particularly, the construction of

the South Side Rapid Transit Elevated Train connecting its lo-
cation in the South with the downtown, made ait accessible to
a wider public from other neighborhoods, while new residential
facilities, as the ‘Mecca Flats’, were erected in the area [Fig. �.�].
Exceeding all expectations, the demand of ait courses in-
creased and implied a need for larger classroom space. As a result,
co-education at Armour Mission came to an end and, by the year
��, it became integrated into the Institute, housing ait Student
Union and library. Encouraged by its own success, ait temporary
discarded any plan to relocate the campus or merge with other
universities, and decided instead to enlarge its student body, fol-
lowed by a parallel expansion of the resources of the Institute.

ORIGINS OF ARMOUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
By the late ��s, attendance to ait courses reached a peak, 2.8 ait as founded in 1893, in its
hoisted up by the support of several scholarships promoted by urban context (opposite page);
different civil associations, who saw an opportunity to instruct “Armour Institute of Technology,
looking across Ogden Field” (left);
qualified professionals for their own specific fields. Eventually,
Armour Mission and vicinity be-
ait started to assume limited scientific research programs, usu-
fore Ogden Field was opened, 1891
ally under the direction of its most prominent faculty, that would
(above).
enhance its reputation on a national scale. This prosperity and
The gift by J. Ogden Armour of the land
expansion extended all along the decade, in which ait found its facing to the north of ait Student Union
way to create specific programs as the demands changed.11 Building, and the subsequent opening of
Ogden Field in ��, provided the insti-
tution with a notorious public presence
in the neighborhood. Through a clear,
half-a-block green field, ait was able to
stand out over its dense surroundings.
11 As a result of its reputation and technical facilities, ait was chosen to train engi- Successive land surveys in the area allow
neer officers serving during World War i . The army took over the fraternity houses on us today an understanding of hereinafter
Michigan Avenue, acquired by ait in ��, as barracks for the Student Army Training
urban transformations of the area.
Corps, and a temporary mess hall was built in Ogden Field.
Key
AIT Buildings Other Relevant Structures

1 ait Armour Mission Building in the Area
(/Student Union Building/ 8 Victorian Mansions
‘The Beanery’) 9 Cudahy Residence
2 ait Armour Institute Training 10 Mandel Residence
School 11 Turner Hall
3 ait Heating Plant 12 ‘The Mecca’ Flats
4 ait Armour Flats 13 Keith Public School
5 ait Physics Building 14 Coal Yard
6 Field House
7 Ogden Field (/‘The Bog’)

2.3 The Decay of Chicago South Side
During World War i, Chicago's black population began to

increase due to the so-called Great Migration from the Southern
states. While the War had halted immigration from Europe, it
impulsed orders for manufactured goods all across the nation, a
circumstance that favored the development of Chicago's indus-
try. This situation was followed by a demand for unskilled labor
by employers, which attracted colored emigrants to the city, in
search for an opportunity. By the end of the war, Blacks migrating
north in search of a job had already begun to move in.
However, racial segregation and restrictive covenants made
it difficult for blacks to purchase property in Chicago other than
2.9 Slums at Chicago South Side's on the South Side, confined in a narrow strip of land between
‘Gold Coast’, 1941. the railroads and the industrial areas from South of the Loop to
As land value decreased at Chicago ��th Street, soon despised as the ‘The Black Belt’ [Fig. �.�]. De-
‘Golden Coast’ in favor of the recon-
spite the lively social scene that developed in a parallel way in
structed areas of the city, the neighbor-
the neighborhood —the section of State Street between ��st and
hood's upper classes gradually moved
��th Streets was popularly known as ‘The Stroll’12— real estate
out. Most of their former residences,
experienced a continuous decline, aggravated by the population
too expensive to maintain, were taken
over by tenants that converted them into
shifts and the steady invasion of industries. This promoted a rapid
multi-family apartments and were divid- decay of the district as a privileged place of the city to live, and
ed into small flats, rented to moderate or the ‘Gold Coast’ reputation of the area west to State Street began
low income families —mainly blue-col- to crumble [Fig. �.��]. As lower-income families moved in, over-
lar workers from the nearby industries. crowding and deterioration increased and by the late ��s the
The whole South Side soon became expansion of urban blight was generalized in the South Side, then
increasingly denser and deteriorated, the largest area of blight in Chicago and in the United States.
constrained by an outdated, unsanitary Precisely delimited with the support of statistical analysis,13 its
lotting.
12 According to Whiting, “in depicting this period, corporate histories of the institu-
tions on the Near South Side romanticize the Black Belt's music scene for its exoticism,
but also criticize it for its influence on morals, claiming that many of the clubs violated
Prohibition laws, were linked to bootlegging rings, and condoned drug use, gambling,
and prostitution”, in Whiting , S. (��), «Flatland: The Impenetrable Density of Chica-
go's Near South Side,» in L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al. ��. Op. cit., p. ��.
Whiting probably refers to Macauley's portrait of ‘The Stroll’ as “one of the most
colorful [sic.] chapters in Chicago's cultural history”, in Op. cit., ch. xi : «Out of the
Chaotic Rubble», p. ��. See Fig. �.�� for the ‘Nighttime Stroll’ beside ait.
13 Based on exhaustive land-use surveys of Chicago urban area performed by the
Chicago Plan Comission (cpc), according to the methods of the Chicago School of So-
ciology, developed all along the ��s and ��s by R. Park and L. Wirth at uo c .
CH IC AG O SOU T H SI DE U R BA N DEC AY
clearing was strongly supported by reformists as the only way to 2.10 Negro Population at Chica-
effectively fight against its obsolete infrastructures, poverty, and go, 1934 (right); “Residential Values
unhealthiness, in tune with “a developing economy of consump- per Front Foot, 1931” (left, top), and
“Industrial Land Values, 1931” (left,
tion, and the nation's morally puritanical and ideologically prag-
bottom) (ait campus highlighted in
matic backbone.”14
white).
Surrounded by slums, the neighborhood became a prob-
The maps vividly illustrate the racial
lematic area, and ait could not avoid to be affected. Already in
segregation in the South Side poorest
industrial areas during the ��s.
Whiting points that the fact that Homer Hoyt, then Director of Research for the cpc ,
“who explicitly acknowledges his debt to the department of sociology at the uo c (x),
explains that he undertook this project “because the knowledge of past movement of
land prices seemed to me to be indispensable for any rational real estate investment
policy” (vii)”, arguing that this “(...) demonstrates a close relationship between the Chi-
cago School's urban sociological interests and methods and the private interests of the
real-estate market”, in Op. cit., note ��, p. ��.
14 Whiting suggests that “(...) a genuine fear that this moral underbelly, combined
with the deterioration of the area's building stock, would multiply and spread across
Chicago provided the immediate impetus to act”, in Op. cit., p. ��.

a critical situation since the late ��s because of various severe

financial reverses, ait faced a decrease in college enrollments
and therefore, on its available resources. After several cutbacks
of privileges to faculty and staff, Armour Flats were eventually
abandoned and, considering the difficulties to find appropriate
tenants to occupy them, �� units were razed between �� and ��.
In addition to this, race riots in its immediate surroundings
in �� resulted in the death of almost forty people, and injury to
over five hundred people. In the aftermath, the few members of
Armour faculty, who still lived close to or on campus, decided to
move. In order to keep a distance with its surroundings, severely
blighted, vacant lots were left unoccupied,15 giving the campus a
dismembered appearance.
By the mid-��s, the neighborhood had already changed en-
tirely, and its physical decline was complete [Fig. �.��]. The glam- 2.11 ait campus and vicinity, by the
year 1936 (opposite page); “Slums

Breed Crime” poster, c.1940 (above).
15 “The tabula rasa clearing of the slums was not so much a new beginning (...); in- ait took advantage from the great
stead, it resembled an endgame, a confirmation that the Depression was history”, in Op. amount of vacant properties surround-
cit., p. ��.
ing the Institute to keep a distance from
to the populated enterteinment business
that developed all along ‘The Stroll’
(above), among numerous vacant lots
Key and slums.
Opting for the re-arrangement and re-
furbishment of its existing facilities, the
AIT Buildings 17 Coal Yard
�� units remaining in two sections of
1 ait Armour Mission Bdg. (/ 18 Binga Bank & Arcade Bdg.
Armour Flats, very deteriorated, were fi-
Student Union Building)
nally restructured as classrooms, offices,
2 ait Main Building ‘The Stroll’
and research laboratories for the physics
3 ait Heating Plant 19 Belmont Cafe
and psychology programs, under the
4 ait Physics Building 20 Elite Cafe No.�
name of Physics and, later on, Chapin
5 Research Foundation (rf) 21 Cafe de Champion
Hall (opposite page).
Magnetic Recording Lab 22 Dave Peyron Music Shop
6 Parking Lot 23 Phoenix Theatre
7 rf Administration Bdg. 24 Grand Theatre
8 ait Ice Lab 25 William & Piron Music Co.
9 ait Machinery Hall 26 Lincoln Theatre
10 ait Armour Laboratory 27 Vendome Theater
11 Ogden Field (/‘The Bog’) 28 ‘The Mecca’ Flats
12 ait Fraternity Row 29 Monogram Theatre
30 Washington Theatre
Other Relevant Structures 31 Fiume Cafe
in the Area 32 Jones Music Co.
13 R.D. Irwin Book Publishers 33 Elite Cafe No.�
Building 34 Dreamland Cafe
14 Cudahy Residence 35 Panama Cafe
15 Mandel Residence 36 Oriental Cafe
16 Keith Public School 37 De Luxe Gardens

2.12 “Apartment Building in Negro or of the vibrant cityscape that had eventually characterized the
Section of Chicago, Il.” (right); “Do whole area, was completely vanished by then. This circumstance
Slums Make Criminals?” (above). made even more patent the pervasive poverty behind the old and
Bligh in Chicago South Side (right) was
decaying facades of the once elegant neighborhood. Flanked by
graphically documented by several Gov-
railroads and scattered by industrial and commercial buildings,
ernment Programs developed during the
by �� Chicago South Side had degenerated into one massive
late ��s and early ��s, which specifi-
slum [Fig. �.��].
cally focused at the so-called ‘Black Belt’
of Chicago South Side, where ait cam-
In order to palliate this rampant situation, present to a great
pus was located. extent in most American metropolises, different federal housing
Hilberseimer's later comment —“ This policies were introduced by the New Deal Administration.16 The
map (...) answers the question in the affir- promotion of these legal measures, combined with specific eco-
mative”— under a map of the city show- nomical initiatives,17 set an unprecedented legislative frame that,
ing delinquency rates, ��-�� (above), though primarily fiscally oriented, was able to effectively found
identified urban decay and congestion in “a new form of architectural development that consciously sought
Chicago Near South Side with race and to reflect this complex alliance of public and private domains”,18 and
crime, here depicted in black. would had a profound impact in the shape19 of most American
cities after the war.
16 Most notably, the �� Housing Act initiated a federal role in the local urban
policies, with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (fha), in charge for
improving and guaranteeing mortgage lending practices for the purchase or construc-
tion of residential properties. Later on, the �� Housing Act enabled federal assistance
to cities for slum clearance through the United States Housing Authority (usha) as well
as to states for the construction of low-income housing.
17 Most of them —such as tax breaks, subsidies, or, ultimately, the use of eminent
domain— were based in Keynes's economical theory, which found a broad appeal in
American public policies, as it provided “a basis to link Roosevelt's New Deal collective
interests with free-market individualism”, as noted in S cott, M. (��), «A New Per-
spective: The Urban Community in National Life», in American City Planning Since ��
(Berkeley: University of California), ch. �, pp. ��-��.
18 Whiting , S. (��), «Bas-Relief Urbanism: Chicago's Figured Field,» in L ambert,
Ph. (ed.) et al., Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis added].

19 Some of them are in the root of the later massive suburban growth and other
problems of American cities after the war, as described in S cott, M. (��), «Defense,
War, and the Struggle Against Blight,» in Op. cit., ch. �, pp. ��-��.
2.13 Vacant Lots and Tenement

Buildings in the Slums of South Chi-
cago, c.1941.
The common association of racial seg-
regation to poverty was often unexpect-
edly encouraged by some of the legal
measures adopted during the Depres-
But interventions in the existing urban fabric under such an sion years, whose constitutionality was
eventually questioned. This was the case
urban planning strategy were not exempted of a deep impact in
of the �� Neighborhood Composition
the social profile of the intervened areas [Fig. �.��].20
Rule, which had imposed the respect to
Although this ‘legal alliance’21 dissuaded private and/or
existing racial and ethnic neighborhood
semiprivate institutions from relocation —which initially would
definitions. By providing that any new
have seemed the logical solution— by allowing them to partic- housing project would not be permitted
ipate actively in the redefinition of a kind of public realm that to alter the racial character of its neigh-
would suit their specific needs, these were generally far from the borhood, these measures had a deep im-
social reality of their urban context. Seen just as land in need of pact in Chicago South Side.
redevelopment, such blighted areas were hardly ever considered
as appropriate for their purposes, and therefore never took it into
further consideration.22
20 For an exhaustive analysis of the racial issues behind Chicago urban policies in
the South Side, see H irsch , A. R. (��), «The Loop versus the Slums», in Making the
Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, ��-�� (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
University), ch. �, pp. ��-��. For a specific case study, focused on the Mecca building
(originally located at the site of the current s . r . Crown Hall at iit campus), see B lue -
stone , D., «Chicago's Mecca Flat Blues», Journal of The Society of Architectural Historians,
� (��): ��-�� (Dec., ��).

21 A general account of the impact of fha and wpa works during the ��s, can be
found in Wright, G. (��), «Architecture, The Public and the State, ��-��,» in usa
(London: Modern Architectures in History series), ch. �, pp. ��-��.
22 Whiting admits that “while we tend to associate ait/iit 's tabula rasa plan with
Mies”, it “actually stemmed from decisions that predated Mies's arrival in Chicago”,
in Whiting , S. (��), «Manifest Destiny: iit and the Urban Frontier,» in L ambert, Ph.
(ed.) et al., Op. cit., p. ��.

2.4 AIT Academic Expansion Plans
The situation of ait clearly exemplified the problems of ur-

ban blight and how it conditioned all its surroundings. Confined
to a seven-acre extension, the Institute found itself bounded by
disperse commercial and residential properties far from its inter-
ests. So, when economy seemed to offer signs of improvement and
expansion was considered again, the new legal frame encouraged
ait Trustees to opt for remaining in the neighborhood. However,
the decision to stay in the existing site was largely imposed. As

the land value of its holdings had decreased due to the condition
of the neighborhood, ait barely could afford to purchase a bigger
extension of land anywhere other than the South Side. Despite
the certainty that the site would be at some point too small to
accommodate future development, lack of adequate financial as-
sistance made the purchase of additional land unfeasible.
2.14 Advertising of ait activities,
Desisting from moving to a new location23, ait Board of
presenting its new “Engineering and Trustees decided instead to perform a “planned rehabilitation”
Architecture” expanded programs, of the facilities already owned by the Institute, completed by a
1938. landscaping program, and the laying of new sidewalks all along
When ait could not secure the share of the campus.24 In addition to this, a Development Committee was
its funding from the gifts of private do- created, of which ait president Willard E. Hotchkiss was appoint-
nors, the Board of Trustees decided not ed president in the ��-�� academic year. Its aim was to raise
to rely on them for any longer. Instead, funds, survey future needs of the Institute, and present a plan of
it sought funding from industrial corpo- action. As a result of its study, the Committee made several rec-
rations. This decision rested in the belief
ommendations.
that cooperation with industry would
bring mutual benefit —while ait could
offer specific training and research to in-
dustry, its financial support would have a 23 In spite of the determination of ait Board of Trustees, efforts to move the Institute
profitable impact on the competitiveness out of the Near South Side continued throughout the ��s. However, the required fund-
ing for acquiring any suitable new properties could not be achieved, and it was decided
of the Institute.
that ait would remain on its original location, as described in M acauley, I., «Another
Move, Another Drive,» Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
Whiting also refers to the booklet A rmour I nstitute of Technology (ed.) (��)
A New Home for Chicago's Center of Education in Engineering and Architecture (Chicago: n.p)
[University Archives (Paul V. Galvin Library, iit) (document not accessed by the au-
thor)], which describes the whole operation. See Whiting , S. (��), Op. cit., note ��, p.
��.
24 This was possible because of the financial support of the Works Progress Admin-
istration (wpa), as described in Vagtborg , Harold A. «Improvements in Buildings and
Grounds», in Armour Engineer and Alumnus, � (�): �� (Oct., ��) [University Archives (Paul
V. Galvin Library, iit)].
A I T AC A D E M I C E X PA N S I O N P L A N S
Despite of the proximity of the economic struggle of the De- 2.15 “AIT in Pictures”, article de-
pression years25, the Committee argued that academic expansion scribing the different academic pro-
would attract students and qualified faculty. Therefore, by �� grams at ait.
The article offered a graphic overview of
ait decided to increase its educational programs —it established a
the activities in ait new curriculum. It is
complete graduate school including, among others, architectural
notorious the way the ait School of Ar-
studies [Fig. �.��]— and its program of service to business and in-
chitecture was described, where the im-
dustry; it expanded its community and professional services, and
age illustrating a “Professor and Student
initiated a cooperative program in collaboration with industry Discussing First Mention Drawing” (left
[Fig. �.��]. page, top right) gives an account of the
The Committee also proposed to strengthen ait research educational methods then prevailing.
policy, in order to attract investments from industry. When the Such academic program was illustrated
early institutes had been established, industrial research was lim- with a selection of its activities, mainly
ited and quite unsophisticated. The main purpose of the original focused on the reproduction of classical
research programs had been to provide technical support to Chi- themes and models. It coexisted with
cago commerce and industry through the use of the equipment other technical studies —i.e. “Combin-
and staff of the Institute. But, although the Institute had already ing Theory & Practice in Industry”
(right page, bottom left)— oriented to-
started a program to train technical and supervisory personnel
wards collaboration with industry.
for industrial companies, scientists and engineers from ait were
called on more and more often for assistance.
The Committee saw this situation as an opportunity to stim-
ulate the growth of the Institute through its technological devel-
25 ait had faced deficit in the year �� for the first time in its history, as reported in
P eebles , J.C. (��) A History of Armour Institute of Technolog y, ��-�� (Chicago: n.p), p.
��.

2.16 Article describing specific re-

search for construction industry,
conducted at the Reseach Founda-
tion of ait (right); advertising of the
Research Foundation of ait, expos-
ing its different fields of research
(above).
Structured in two divisions, the Re-
search Foundation developed long-term
and short-term projects, according to
the different demands of companies op-
erating at Chicago. These ranged from
“the improvement of existing industrial
products” —Industrial Research Divi-
sion— for the former ones, to “the study
opment, believing new state-of-the-art facilities would also make
and evaluation of specific industrial
ait more competitive with other schools. Consequently, the Com-
problems” —Experimental Engineering
mittee suggested that the consulting work of the faculty involv-
Division— for the latter ones. Its results
ing the use of its facilities should be coordinated, proposing the
were exhaustively published at ait inter-
nal bulletins, as a way to give publicity
establishment of a specific research institution to optimize it. By
to them, and attract new investments for ��, after a thorough study of its feasibility, the Board of Trustees
the Institute. finally approved the founding of an industrial research institute
—the Research Foundation (rf) of ait, later known as Armour
Research Foundation (arf)— [Fig. �.��], aiming to “promote, en-
courage, maintain, and aid scientific investigation and research in
affiliation with ait by the faculty, staff, and alumni thereof, and
others associated therewith.” 26
As a final recommendation, the Committee proposed to ex-
pand the original Armour campus, and to develop new facilities
26 A rmour I nstitute of Technology (ed.), «Research Foundation Established»,

in Armour Engineer and Alumnus, � (�): �� (May, ��) [University Archives (Paul V. Galvin
Library, iit)].
in the area by taking advance of its blighted surroundings. In 2.17 “The Department of Architec-
order to coordinate this, a specific ait Advisory Committee on ture of ait” (left); ait internal bulle-
Architecture was created. The presence of ait at the Art Insti- tin, cover (above).
Always of great interest to ait founders,
tute of Chicago [Fig. �.��] facilitated contact with most prominent
ait School of Architecture had always
Chicago architects, and the Committee was established under the
received a special treatment. In fact,
direction of ait faculty member John Holabird, of Chicago firm
it was one of the most relevant depart-
Holabird & Root, including ait trustee Alfred Alschuler, and ait
ments of the university, thanks to its al-
alumnus and faculty member Jerrold Loebl, among others. liance with the prestigious Art Institute
One of their first duties was to designate a suitable director of Chicago (above), where it was initially
for ait Architecture School that would ensure its international located. Such an association deliberately
recognition. After an exhaustive survey, Mies van der Rohe was tried to promote a link with the Beaux-
appointed, and finally confirmed as a candidate in �� by ait Arts, consistent with the traditional
Trustees.27 In a parallel way, the Committee established the need teaching methods of the time.
for a comprehensive plan for ait campus, with the aim of esti- On the other hand, its downtown lo-
mating the required funds to guarantee its further viability. The cation, independent of ait South Side
Committee assumed that an integral solution would make eventually campus, endowed it with great indepen-
dence, as well as an international projec-
inevitable not only the acquisition of nearby properties, but the consolidation
tion in all its activities.
of multiple city blocks at ait immediate vicinity.28 By adopting this poli-
cy, ait set a precedent for other initiatives in the South Side, that
would end to reverse the course of the whole neighborhood.29
27 See Hotchkiss papers, box h ��, folder ‘Executive Committee, Board of Trustees’,
Minutes of the Committee meeting held in Jun. � st , �� [University Archives (Paul V.
Galvin Library, iit)]. Holabird himself was requested to make the formal invitation, as
described in S chulze , F. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��.
28 As most properties surrounding ait belonged to private owners, it seems reason-
able to assume that the dimensions and the general site strategy for the campus expan-
sion came from ait Advisory Committee on Architecture.
29 “The stage was set for the inauguration of a new era”, in the words of M acauley,
I. (��), «Armour Goes On», in Op. cit., ch. x , p. ��.

2.18 Final (?) sketch of Holabird's

Master Plan design for ait campus
expansion, 1936 (left), redrawn in
its original urban context (opposite
page).
The preserved design integrated all the
preexisting historic buildings, which it
tried to revalue, by means of a classical
axiality along the access through ��rd St.
This was reinforced by closing ��nd St.,
Federal St., and Dearborn St.
Partially incomplete in its North side, the
campus was always represented isolated
from its surroundings. As a way to solve
the transition between the campus and
its vicinity, the plan suggested the use of
green areas, in order to decrease density
and create controlled views. Significant-
ly, such elements would appear in all sub-
sequent designs.
Key
Preexisting AIT Buildings 11 ait Administration Bdg. 24 Parking Lot

1 ait Main Building 12 ait Library Building 25 Athletic Tracks
2 ait Machinery Hall 13 ait M.C. Metallurgic Bdg. 26 New Elevated Train Station
3 ait Armour Laboratory 14 ait Thermo-Dynamics Bdg. 27 ait Dormitories
4 ait Fraternity Row 15 ait Electrical Engineering 28 ait Fraternities
Building 29 ait Faculty Residence
Holabird & Root's AIT 16 ait C.E. Building
Campus Master Plan 17 ait Math & Humanities Bdg. Other Relevant Structures
Design Buildings 18 ait Architecture Building in the Area
5 Green Areas (undefined) 19 ait Graduate Architecture 30 R.D. Irwin Book Publishers
6 ait Research (/Research Foun- Building Building
dation?) Building 20 Power Plant 31 Mandel Residence
7 ait Pure Research Bdg. 21 ait Physics Building 32 Vendome Theater
8 ait Industrial Design Bdg. 22 ait Chemistry Engineering 33 Binga Bank & Arcade Bdg.
9 ait Faculty Union Building
10 ait Graduate Building 23 ait Field House

2.19 Preliminary sketch of access

sequence in Holabird's ait campus
Master Plan design (right); “Civic
Center Plaza”, illustration from D.
Burnham's ‘Plan of Chicago’ (above).
Holabird conceived the main access to
the campus from a new elevated train
station at ��rd St. The axial point of view
of his perspective studies (right) probably 2.4.1 Holabird's ait Scheme
tried to evalute a visual link between ait
off-campus residential facilities at Mich- In the year ��, an initial campus Master Plan design for ait
igan Ave. and the original buildings of was presented to ait Board of Trustees by John Holabird30 [Fig.
Armour Mission, as well as it described �.��]. Holabird's plan occupied an area of approximately �� acres
his will to provide the Institute with a
—approximately � blocks—, extending from ��st to ��th Streets,
representative entrance, as a ceremonial
between State Street and the existing railroad tracks, and includ-
boulevard.
ed a perpendicular strip all along both sides of ��rd Street that
Such approach seems indebted to that of
connected the location of the Institute with other ait properties
Burnham's Plan of Chicago, which had
rejected the full-block city model of the
at Michigan Avenue.
downtown. On the contrary, it had pro- The plan was centered symmetrically along this transverse
posed a new monumental civic center ac- axis, linking its significant buildings in an overall ‘City Beautiful’
cessed by different avenues (above), with scheme [Fig. �.��]. The entrance to the campus was then empha-
a series of new parks and courtyards (op- sized by placing the Student Union and the Library in two identi-
posite page, right), which were planned cal buildings on either side of this axis, at the core of the scheme.
to be carved out from the existing urban As the campus buildings were not detailed but as l-shaped and
fabric as a background. u-shaped forms, the courtyards acquired a character of indepen-
dent outdoor ‘rooms’, varying in size and shape, while the design
seemed to focus on landscaping.
30 As noted by S. Whiting, the final scheme seems not to have been preserved, and it
only appears described by J. Loebl —a member of ait faculty as well as an ait Board of
Trustees (although not an Executive Committee) member— in W.E. Hotchkiss Papers,
box h ��, folder “Executive Committee, Board of Trustees”, Minutes of the April � th
meeting, �� [University Archives #��.�� (Paul V. Galvin Library, iit)].
Whiting follows that “given that Holabird was not a member of the Board of
Trustees (he was elected later that fall), it is possible that Loebl was showing the com-
mittee the Holabird proposal (...). I presume, however, that the sketch was Loebl's own
scheme, given the improbability that Holabird, a faculty member in the Department
of Architecture, would not present his own proposal to the Committee. One can easily
imagine that all of ait architecture faculty members were vying for the commission”, in
Whiting , S. (��), Op. cit., p. ��, note ��.
2.20 Draft of a preliminary version

of Holabird's design for ait cam-
pus expansion, around 1936 (left);
“Streets Within the City”, illustra-
tion from D. Burnham's ‘Plan of Chi-
cago’ (above).
Although its authorship is not expressly
indicated, this drawing remains today
among Mies's papers. This fact might
explain that Mies was familiar with
Holabird's scheme even before it was fi-
Seen as a whole, Holabird's Master Plan gave the general nally presented to ait Board of Trustees
idea of freestanding constructions, housing different programs on Executive Committee. Indeed, although
he had not been employed by the insti-
a large green campus. But, while the Holabird scheme “may have
tution yet, he might have been consulted
implemented a campus-planning order, it did not optimize this
by ait Trustees about the future campus
organizational strategy in order to rethink the city”31. The un-
expansion, therefore being aware of the
suitability of this axial logic for an urban site,32 surrounded by ex-
intentions of ait from the date thereof.
isting buildings, and into the grid of Chicago's Near South Side, Note that, although here empty, blocks
speaks of the actual challenge of the commission —to provide an between State St. and Wabash Ave. are
identity for the institution, while making it work within the urban delineated in the proposal. This could be
layout of the city. Perhaps aware of it, the committee opted for indicative of the existence of plans by ait,
counsel concerning a contemporary option and, considering the even then, to acquire the land.
ongoing negotiations with Mies, he was most probably requested
for a proposal of his own [Fig. �.��].33
31 Op. cit., p. ��. Whiting describes this strategy as “point urbanism”, in Idem. Note
the similarity to the Burham Plan of the characterization of ait/iit campus by Whiting
as a “bas-relief urbanism”, in Whiting , S. (��), Op. cit.
32 Turner , P. V. (��), «The University as City Beautiful», in Campus: An American
Planning Tradition (New York/Cambridge, Mass.: The Architectural History Founda-
tion/mit), ch. �, pp. ��-��.
33 Whiting asserts that “no documentation in the iit archives indicates whether
or not Mies was familiar with the Holabird [and Alschuler] schemes”, in Whiting , S.
(��), Op. cit., p. ��, note ��. However, other archives seem to offer positive evidence
on this respect [see Fig. �.��].

By the late ��, Hotchkiss resigned as president of ait. In 2.21 ait academic buildings, c.1937;
reviewing his administration, he acknowledged the success in ait campus in its urban context, by
broadening the academic programs offered by the Institute. How- the year 1937 (opposite page).
The acquisition of vacant properties
ever, he warned that, if the plan envisioned by the Committee was
around ait properties was the first step
to be realized, the future major task would be to make it “speedily
for further expansion of the campus to
take the form of increased endowment”34 [Fig. �.��].
the North (opposite page), according to
the recommendations of ait Develop-
ment Commitee.
In order to accommodate the increase of
34 Hotchkiss , W.E., «President's Report and Resignation», Armour Engineer and
enrolments for the newly established pro-
Alumnus, � (�): ��-��, �� (Oct., ��).
grams, the center of campus academic
activities was displaced then to both sides
of ��rd St., between ait Main Building,
ait Student Union, and ait Machinery
Key
Hall (above). The rest of the buildings
were refurbished, in order to house dif-
AIT Buildings 11 Ogden Field (/‘The Bog’)
ferent administrative or research facili-
1 ait Armour Mission Bdg. (/ 12 rf Electrical Engineering
ties.
Student Union Building) Research Building
2 ait Main Building 13 ait Fraternity Row
3 ait Heating Plant
4 Physics Hall Other Relevant Structures

5 Chapin Hall & Research in the Area
Foundation (rf) Magnetic 14 Cudahy Residence
Recording Lab 15 Mandel Residence
6 Parking Lot 16 Vendome Theater
7 rf Administration Building 17 ‘The Mecca’ Flats
8 ait Pattern Shop 18 Keith Public School
9 ait Machinery Hall 19 Coal Yard
10 ait Armour Laboratory 20 Binga Bank & Arcade Bdg.

2.4.2 Mies and Chicago: First Contacts
As a substitute, ait Board of Trustees named Henry T. Heald

acting president of ait, after his commitment with Hotchkiss' pol-
icy of “building a greater ait.”35 Heald's personal compromise to
“bring to the position exceptional talents to carry forward Ar-
mour's program”, proved to be key to attract Mies to ait. Not in
vane, one of Heald's first challenges was to find a satisfactory solu-
tion for ait Department of Architecture, whose director had de-
cided to resign a year ago after more than �� years in his charge.
While a definite solution was found, architects Louis Skidmore
and Jerrold Loebl occupied the directorship's post for one aca-
demic year each.
As a matter of fact, ait Trustees had already approved Mies
van der Rohe as the best candidate to occupy it, but the Ameri-
can reception of Mies in purely architectural terms [Fig. �.��] had
2.22 ‘Modern Architecture: Inter- overshadowed his significance as school director.36 Such circum-
national Exhibition’ catalog, 1932, stance did not made negotiations easy, as, according to their cor-
featuring architecture by Mies van respondence,37 by �� he did not seem to offer definite signs to
der Rohe.
join ait. Despite Mies had initially showed interest for the posi-
The success of the Modern Architecture ex-
tion,38 he later exposed his conflicting feelings, motivated by his
hibition held at the Museum of Modern
“specific preconceptions about the structure of an educational in-
Art, New York, between Feb. ��th – Mar.
stitution for the teaching of architecture”, that would require of a
��rd, ��, was responsible, to a large
extent, for introducing Mies's work to
America, thanks to the institutional sup-
port of the museum and its influential
35 Heald's pragmatic statements, arguing that“(...) the rapid development of Armour
organizers. But, simultaneously, it con- into the great technological institution which its plan calls for and which this communi-
ditioned all further American reception ty requires, is something which waits primarily for money (...)”, in H eald , H.T., «Acting
of the figure of Mies, as his name was President Speaks», Armour Engineer and Alumnus, � (�): �� (Oct., ��), gave him a special
credit among ait Board of Trustees.
hardly ever mentioned in relation to the
36 K entgens -C r aig , M. (��), «Image of the Bauhaus as Received in America,» in
Bauhaus —he became its director a year
Bauhaus and America: First Contacts ��-�� (Cambridge, Mass.: mit), p. ��. Heald later
after the exhibition took place.
confessed that “(...) after all, even if we don't know too much about the fellow, he's so
much better than any of the people you could get to head a school of architecture, why
not take a chance?”, in H eald , H.T., «Mies van der Rohe at iit,» in B lake , P. (ed.) et al.
��. Four Great Makers of Modern Architecture (New York: Columbia University), p. ��.
37 A description of the correspondence between Holabird and Mies —and, later on,
between Heald and Mies— is detailed in S chulze , F. (��), «Departure and Flight,
��-��,» in Mies van der Rohe: A Critical Biography (Chicago: uo c), ch. �, pp. ��-��.
38 M ies van der Rohe , L., Telegram to J. Holabird, Apr. �� th, �� [Papers of Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe, Manuscript Division (Washington d.c ., l o c)], partially transcribed
in S chulze , F. (��), Op. cit., p. ��.
M I E S A N D CH IC AG O: F I R ST CON TACTS
“basically new form” for the existing school.39 In addition to this,

Mies's intention to continue his professional practice shows that he
probably saw himself more as an architect than as a pedagogue.40
Dubious about the possibility that his ideas could be realized at
Chicago, Mies finally decided to decline the offer made by ait,
arguing that he “could not believe that the framework provided
by the school would allow for as comprehensive an architectural
education as seems to me necessary at this time”, and that “the
changes in the school's curriculum would have to be so funda-
mental that they would greatly overstep the present limits of the
current architecture department.”41
Nonetheless, Mies continued in contact with Hotchkiss, to
whom he cordially offered his advice to find an adequate candi-
date for ait. In later correspondence, he explained that he had
“in the meantime received an offer from another American uni-
versity”,42 probably referring to an available position in Harvard,
which he initially intended to accept, but was finally assigned to
Walter Gropius.43
Mies had been also appointed for another position opened
the same year at Columbia University, New York, but his difficul-
ties to speak English made him unsuitable for the post. Given the
circumstances, a great part of the credit for Mies's final decision
to emigrate to the United States seems to come from his former
American students at the Bauhaus. These included William T.
Priestley, John B. Rodgers, Bertrand Goldberg, and Howard
Dearstyne.44
39 M ies van der Rohe , L., Letter to J. Holabird, May � th, �� [Ludwig Mies van
der Rohe Files (Washington d.c ., l o c)]. Schulze explains the optimism in the following
letters by Holabird and Hotchkiss suggesting that these were sent “probably without
having yet received this message from Mies”, in S chulze , F. (��), Op. cit., p. ��.
40 He probably had in mind Alfred Barr's offer to build the new building for the
m o ma , New York, which later “turned out another will-o'-the wisp”, in words of S chul -
ze , F. (��), Op. cit., p. ��.
41 M ies van der Rohe , L., Letter to J. Holabird, Jun. �� nd , �� [Papers of Ludwig Mies
van der Rohe, Manuscript Division (Washington d.c ., l o c)]. An extract of the letter can
be found in K entgens -C r aig , M. (��), Op. cit., p. ��.
42 M ies van der Rohe , L., Letter to W.E. Hotchkiss, Sept. � nd , �� [Papers of Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe, Manuscript Division (Washington d.c ., l o c)], transcribed in K ent-
gens -C r aig , M. (��), «Acceptance and Support,» in Op. cit., p. ��.
43 Actually Mies refrained from opting to the post when he learn that Gropius was
his competitor, “whom he regarded as more privileged and socially adroit than himself,
but patently inferior as an artist”, according to the description of the whole situation
in S chulze , F. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��. Mies's former student at Bauhaus M. van
Beuren, recommended him to opt for Chicago instead.
44 An exhaustive report can be found in Wingler , H.-M., Stein , J. (eds.) et al. (��),
«List of matriculated Bauhaus students», in The Bauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago
(Cambridge, Mass.: mit), pp. ��-��. Concerning Rodgers's support, see Mc Atee , C.
(��), «Mies's American voice,» in «Alien #��: Mies's First Trip to America»,
L ambert, Ph. (ed.) et al., Op. cit., pp. ��-��.

2.23 Mies visiting Frank Lloyd

Wright at Taliesin, Wisconsin, 1937.
This was patent by the summer of ��, when Mies was at the
United States, and first visited Chicago.45 Priestley had an assign-
ment in the city, and had offered Mies to show him the city. Hav-
ing Holabird & Root as his associated engineers, when Holabird
knew about Mies' imminent visit, he asked Priestley to arrange a
meeting with Mies to discuss the position at ait, still open. Once
there, Mies met with Prestley and Goldberg, who took him on a
brief architectural tour46 [Figs. �.��, �.��]. At the end of the day,
Priestley invited Mies to meet some representatives from ait, on
his next stop in Chicago, and he accepted.
Three weeks later, Mies met J. Holabird, president of the
Commitee, H. Heald, now president of ait, and J. Cunningham,
Chairman of ait Armour Board of Trustees, with Priestley and
Goldberg as interpreters.47 Still with full hope of having Mies as
Director of ait Department of Architecture,48 the meetings ex-
tended several days, until they finally made a formal offer. Mies,
however, did not accept at once, raising again his objections to
assume the existing curriculum. Assured then that he would be
allowed to carry out his ideas with complete freedom, Mies ac-
45 Actually, Mies arrived to the United States on Aug. �� th, invited by the Resors
to design a house for them. Rodgers helped him as an interpreter, and Priestley later
joined as draftsman. The trip to Chicago was actually a stop in his way to visit the site
at Wyoming, as described in Mc Atee , C. (��), «Bringing Mies to America,» in Op. cit.,
pp. ��-��.
46 The whole visit is detailed in S chulze , F. (��), Op. cit., pp. ��-��. Regard-
ing Priestley's role in the arrangement of the meeting, see K entgens -C r aig , M. (��),
«The Armour Institute and Former Bauhaus Students,» in Op. cit., p. ��.
47 The risk assumed by Heald became already patent at the meeting: Mies did not
speak English, so, for a certain time, his courses at ait would need to be taught mainly
in German, even if he had the support of a translator, as related in H eald , H.T., «Mies
van der Rohe at iit,» in Op. cit., p. ��.
48 “The Armour people had lost none of their ardor”, in the words of S chulze , F.
(��), Op. cit., p. ��. For a detailed description of the meeting, see S chulze , F., «How
Chicago Got Mies—and Harvard Didn't», Inland Architect, ��: ��-�� (May, ��).

Ramon Serrano Aviles 01 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ramon Serrano Aviles 01 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Madrid

EL IIT DE MIES VAN DER ROHE:

Ramón Serrano Avilés, Arquitecto

MIES VAN DER ROHE'S ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY:

Submitted to the Department of Architectural Composition, in Partial

Ramón Serrano Avilés, M.Arch.

EL IIT DE MIES VAN DER ROHE:

Mies van der Rohe's Illinois Institute of Technology:

Ramón Serrano Avilés, Arquitecto

el día ............... de .................................................... de ........................

Realizado el acto de defensa y lectura de la tesis

el día ............... de .................................................... de ........................

en la Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (etsam).

Abstract [/Resumen] ......................................................................... x [/xii]

part i – historical survey and compositive analysis

2 Urban and Architectural Context Prior to 1938 ....................... 101

3 Mies's Exile and Preliminary Campus Plans, 1938-40 ........... 135

A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T vii

4 War Shortage and Discipline Inquiry, 1941-45 ......................... 187

5 Post-War Construction and Planning, 1946-50 ........................ 237

6 Urban Scale and Clear Structure, 1951-59 ............................... 277

part ii – critical assessment

7 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 325

7.3 From Integrated Design to Open Composition .................... 339

8 Bibliography ..................................................................................... 343

part iii – appendix

9 Research Resources ................................................................... 389

Index of Abbreviations ................................................................ 460

keywords: Illinois Institute of Technolog y, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,

The Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) campus, Chicago,

steady re-composition of its elements: as the number of completed

palabras clave: Illinois Institute of Technolog y, Ludwig Mies van der

El campus del Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) de Chica-

mentos ejecutados, con el fin de mantener la identidad original

A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xiii

Digamos que nuestro trabajo es hacer evolucionar la arquitectura

Transformación histórica de los principios de orden

Dadas las circunstancias de su exilio americano, Mies y Hil-

1 C aldwell , A. (����), «Architecture: Vision of Structure,» The Structurist, ��/��: ��

Teniendo todo esto en cuenta, resula especialmente revelador

En cualquier caso, esas formaciones estructurales implicaron

3 H ilberseimer , L. (����), «The Elements of City Planning,» Armour Engineer and

lemas técnicos, y las nuevas técnicas conllevan nuevos prob-

Sin embargo, la opinión de Hilberseimer de que “las ciudades

Orden estructural contra organización transitoria del

Bajo esta perspectiva, la noción de “orden” resulta particu-

su llamada a “la inmediata acción constructiva”.11 Una vez más,

Desvelando aspectos ocultos de su estructura interna, el todo

Transformar el orden desde dentro

Estas ideas encajaban especialmente bien con el paisaje ur-

A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xvii

dación, que esas propiedades tan fácilmente identificables podían

Aunque se desconocen las razones detrás de una afirmación

16 Whiting , S. (����), «Superblockism: Chicago's Elastic Grid,» en EL-K houry,

menos significativa de lo que podía ser. En cualquier caso, Mies

A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xix

se manifiesta de manera natural. Su patrón era un esfuerzo por

El Plan General del campus del iit, estructurado de acuerdo

paradójicamente, contra cualquier evolución social.

De un proyecto integral a una composición abierta

El plan de Mies de extender el campus más allá de los límites

A NA LYS I S A N D H I ST ORY OF A C OM P O S I T I V E DE V E L OP M E N T xxi

1 C aldwell , A. (��), «Architecture: Vision of Structure,» The Structurist, ��/��: ��

3 H ilberseimer , L. (��), «The Elements of City Planning,» Armour Engineer and

16 Whiting , S. (��), «Superblockism: Chicago's Elastic Grid,» en EL-K houry,

26 C aldwell , A. (��), «Architecture: Vision of Structure,» en The Structurist, ��/��:

1 S chulze , F. and Windhorst, E. (��), «A New Architectural Language: ��-

at Harvard University between ��-��, invited by Gropius. Giedion, in turn, backed

of Modern space in «Der raum (architektur),» in Moholy-Nagy, L. ��. Von Material zu

�-� (Feb.–Mar., ��).

72 In Op. cit., p. �� [emphasis and reference to figures added].