Mies van der Rohe, architect as educator : 6 June through 12 July 1986 : catalogue for the exhibition

MIES VAN DER ROME: ARCHITECT AS EDUCATOR

r''

//i'r

A

'•*r,^

V

:■.#•%

. V ,' I

>-^T

..; :<i4"4*.

ri3v

^•J*;

MIES VAN DER ROME: ARCHITECT AS EDUCATOR

1

^^^^^

!

1

1 1 ' 1 1

■ i 1

c

t

1 1

^ i

MIES VAN DER ROME: ARCHITECT AS EDUCATOR

6 June through 12 July 1986

Catalogue for the exhibition

edited by Rolf Achilles, Kevin Harrington,

and Charlotte Myhrum

Mies van der Rohe Centennial Project
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago

The Mies van der Rohe Centennial Project dedicates this cataiogue to
John Augur Holabird, Sr, FAIA, (May 4. 1886-May 4, 1945), respected
friend of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

His initiative and vision as Trustee of Armour Institute of Technology
and as Chairman of its Search Committee which brought Mies to Chi-
cago contributed significantly to changing the course of architectural
education in America.

Funding of the Centennial Project and exhibition has been provided by
the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, the
National Endowment for the Humanities, the Illinois Arts Council, a
state agency, the New House Foundation, the S.O.M. Foundation and
the following individuals: Michael E. Breen, Peter Carter, Molly Cohen,
George Danforth. Joseph Fujikawa, Myron Goldsmith, Warren Haber,
John Holabird, Jr., Phyllis Lambert, Dirk Lohan, John Neil, Peter
Palumbo. H.P. Davis Rockwell, John B. Rodgers, Gene Summers and
Steven Weiss.

Cover photo: Experimental photograph. Photographer unknown. Collection of
Edward A. Duckett. Catalogue number 135.

Frontispiece: Mies van der Rohe with model of S. R. Crown Hall. Photograph by
Arthur Slegel. Courtesy Chicago Historical Society.

The catalogue is distributed by The University of Chicago Press

Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 86-71034
Clothbound: ISBN 0-226-31716-1; Paperbound: ISBN 0-226-31718-8.
Copyright © 1986. Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago. Illinois. All rights reserved.

Designed by Harvey Retzloff
Composition by Computype"
Printed in the United States of America
by Congress Printing Company

CONTENTS

6 Lenders to the Exhibition

7 Acknowledgments

9 Foreword George Schipporeit

11 MIES VAN DER ROME: ARCHITECT AS EDUCATOR

13 The Master of Humane Architecture Reyner Banham

17 Machines a Mediter Richard Padovan

27 Mies as Self-Educator Fritz Neumeyer

37 Mies van der Rohe: Architect and Teacher in Germany Sandra Honey

49 Order, Space, Proportion — MIes's Curriculum at IIT Kevin /Harrington

69 CATALOGUE OF THE EXHIBITION

70 1 Writing, Lecturing and Building 1919-1929
72 2 Bauhaus and Private Teaching 1930-1937
94 3 IIT Curriculum 1938-1958

116 4 IIT as a Model of a University Campus

122 5 Graduate Studies under Mies 1938-1958

149 APPENDIX

151 IIT Courses in Architecture 1938-1958

155 IIT Architecture Faculty and Students 1938-1958

165 Solved Problems: A Demand on Our Building Methods IVIies van der Rohe

167 Explanation of Educational Program iviies van der Rohe

LENDERS TO THE EXHIBITION

The Art Institute of Chicago

Bauhaus Archiv, Berlin

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin

Thomas Burleigh

Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal

Chicago Historical Society

George Danforth

Edward A. Duckett

Mark Finfer

Kenneth Folgers

Joseph Fujikawa

Feico Glastra van Loon

Albert Goers

Myron Goldsmith

Ogden Hannaford

R. Lawrence J. Harrison

Hedrich Blessing

John Burgee Architects with Philip Johnson

Raymond Kliphardt

Reginald Malcolmson

Carter H. Manny, Jr.

Marcia Gray Martin

John Munson

Brigitte Peterhans

Richard Nickel Committee

Norman Ross

Rudolf Kicken Galerie, Cologne

David Sharpe

Malcolm Smith

Edward Starostovic

George Storz

David Tamminga

Michael Van Beuren

John Vinci

Yau Chun Wong

Donald Wrobleski

Edmond N. Zisook

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several years ago, when the centennial of Mies's birth seemed far away,
some people in Chicago and New York began to think about the event
and how best to honor the memory of a great architect and teacher. It
was soon agreed that the two important repositories of Mies's legacy,
the Department of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chi-
cago and the Mies Archive, the Museum of Modern Art, New York,
should mount independent exhibitions — one concentrating on Its le-
gacy, the other on its holdings. In this way IIT developed its exhibition
and catalogue — Mies van der Rohe: Architect as Educator and MoMA
organized its Mies van der Rotie Centennial Extilbition. By showing
both exhibitions together in Chicago and in Berlin, the two centers of
Mies's life, his impact on the 20th Century could be thoroughly
explored. Both exhibits, each in its own way, emphasize a unique aspect
of the man, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, educator and architect.
Many people have worked to create the IIT exhibit and catalogue. None
has contributed more than George Danforth, Mies's student, colleague,
and successor as Director of the School of Architecture. George's
seemingly personal acquaintance with every student who attended IIT
from 1938 to 1958 and his continued interest in their careers is the
foundation upon which this exhibit and its catalogue Is built. George's
selfless interest in creating the finest possible tribute to Mies as
educator has been an inspiration to those fortunate enough to be his
colleagues. Without his memory, initiative, attention to detail, humor,
typing skills, sure eye, bullying at just the right moment those that need
It, and ever-present good humor, much of what follows in this publica-
tion would not be.

Others have also helped to create this catalogue and the exhibition. In
January 1983 Thomas L. Martin, Jr., President of IIT, established the
Centennial Advisory Committee, co-chaired by George Danforth and
John Holabird, Jr., architect and son of the chairman of the committee
that brought Mies to Chicago. Other Committee members were Peter
Beltemacchi, Harold Bergen, Heather Bilandic, Myron Goldsmith, Ar-
chibald McClure, Nancy Moss, George Schipporeit, David Sharpe, Ar-
thur Takeuchi, James Vice, Willard White, representing trustees, ad-
ministrators and faculty. George Schipporeit, Dean of the College of
Architecture, Planning, and Design has acted as Project Director. Car-
ter H. Manny, Jr. served as chairman of the Committee of Friends.
Arthur Takeuchi organized the series of eight lectures sponsored by IIT
with assistance from The Art Institute of Chicago and the Goethe Insti-
tute Chicago. The executive body for the Mies Centennial Project, the
Planning Committee, originally consisted of George Danforth, Myron
Goldsmith, George Schipporeit, David Sharpe, Arthur Takeuchi. and T.
Paul Young. Initially the Project Curator, T. Paul Young with the assist-
ance of Billie McGrew, Project Assistant, prepared a broad range of
planning documents, reports, and the N.E.H. grant application on
which the Project is based. The foundation they laid enabled the Project
to achieve its purpose.

In the fall of 1 984 and again in the spring of 1 985, John Sugden, David
Haidand Arthur Takeuchi organized two weekend long colloquia at the
Graham Foundation for students, former colleagues and friends of
Mies. These two events proved to be very important catalysts for the
Project. They gave it direction and meaning, and further helped all

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

those who attended to better understand the state of knowledge and
interest in the work and life of Mies.

Special thanks to Phyllis Lambert for her keen interest in the ex-
hibition's direction and guidance in selecting essayists for the cata-
logue: and Dirk Lohan for his suggestions and support.
The day-to-day direction of the Project has been accomplished by Rolf
Achilles, with the assistance of George Danforth and Charlotte
Myhrum. John Vinci curated and designed the exhibition with the
assistance of George Danforth and Charlotte Myhrum.
A number of students contributed to the Project. Outstanding among
these is Donna J. Junkroski who through dozens of hours of reviewing
microfilm and old class records created a complete list of students,
faculty and their classes during Mies's tenure as Director. Other stu-
dents who assisted the Project were George Sorich, model builder,
Laurie Grimmer and Michael Patton.

In the College of Architecture, Planning, and Design, help was forth-
coming from San Utsunomiya and Bernie Ivers, Assistant Deans,
Catherine Howard and Sylvia Smith in the College Office and the Dean
of the College, George Schipporeit.

In the professional community many colleagues have been very
cooperative. We are especially indebted to the Bauhaus Archiv, Berlin
and its Director Dr. Peter Hahn for his very generous assistance to the
point of co-sponsorship of this exhibit in Berlin. We are also deeply in
debt for his subvention of photographic expenses and the German
language edition of this catalogue. His colleague at the Bauhaus Archiv,
Dr. Christian Wolsdorff has been instrumental in securing photographs
of the loaned works and assuring proper shipment of the works to
Chicago. Arthur Drexler, Director of the Department of Architecture
and Design at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, has been most
helpful, as have Eve Blau of the Canadian Centre for Architecture,
Montreal, and Suzanne Pastor of the KIcken Galerie, Cologne. Malcolm
Richardson, Program Officer in the Division of General Programs at the

National Endowment for the Humanities, provided guidance and en-
couragement when the fate of the Project looked most bleak.
In Chicago we especially thank John Zukowsky, Curator of the De-
partment of Architecture at The Art Institute of Chicago, Neil McClure,
Director of the Chicago Architecture Foundation and its Education
Director, Paul Glassman for coordinating tours; Wim de Wit, Curator of
the Architectural Collection at the Chicago Historical Society; Dr. Wal-
ter Breuer, Director, and Angela Greiner, Program Assistant at the
Goethe Institute Chicago; Carter H. Manny, Jr., Director of the Graham
Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts; the staff of Inland
Architect; Franz Schuize; I. Michael Danoff, Director of the Museum of
Contemporary Art and its Director of Public Relations, Lisa Skolnik;
and Christian K. Laine of neocon.

In creating the catalogue, Harvey Retzloff has proved a most under-
standing designer and Carl Reisig of Congress Printing, a superb
printer. Thanks especially to the loan of a number of computers and the
programming skills of Billie McGrew, whose continuous Interest in the
Project saw it through difficult times and paved the way for a smooth
and speedy production of this catalogue. Photography and printing was
provided by Ross-Ehlert, Inc., Hedrich Blessing, Cheri Eisenberg,
Michael Tropea and Rolf Achilles.

Many individuals and firms have helped by lending material to the
exhibition and lending counsel. Among these is Thomas Burleigh, who,
through a cache of pictures provided a thorough insight into life at IIT;
Jack Hedrich of Hedrich Blessing; and Ivan Zaknic of John Burgee
Architects with Philip Johnson; Norman Ross and the many students
who lent slides of their professional work.

We are particularly grateful to the Graham Foundation for Advanced
Studies in the Fine Arts; the National Endowment for the Humanities;
the Illinois Arts Council, a state agency; Phyllis Lambert; the Illinois
Institute of Technology; numerous foundations and individuals for their
generous financial support.

Mies van der Rohe Centennial Project

8

FOREWORD

As the institution that invited Mies in 1937 to establish his innovative
curriculum in its Department of Architecture and then supported him
throughout his tenure as chairman and beyond, the Illinois Institute of
Technology is honored by giving recognition to Mies's contribution to
architectural education with this Centennial celebration of Mies as
Educator. Our endeavors are, of course, reinforced by many other
books, lectures and exhibitions around the world, all directed to a better
understanding of this architectural greatness so close to us in history.
And yet, what is the lesson to be learned?

For me, it is to be reminded of an exceptional generation of architects at
the turn of the century who responded to a world of dynamic social
change and accelerating technology and then to view Mies's struggle to
clarify a meaningful architecture within this context. Instilled from
childhood with a strong sense of craftsmanship and the heritage of
timeless building materials, his will to learn motivated him to leave
Aachen in 1905 at the age of 19 and move to Berlin where he appren-
ticed with the leading designers and architects of the day. For approx-
imately the next 25 years, the interaction with his peers, his theoretical
study of prototypes and the significance of Mies's own buildings pro-
duced an architecture that was widely recognized for both its simplicity
and beauty.

But most important to our Centennial is that his self-education pro-
duced strong convictions about what he felt were basic principles of
architecture. These he later translated into an educational program.
It was his unrelenting search for a new architecture that would evolve
the thought process of understanding what architecture should be and

the related appropriate method of professional education. When Mies
became Director of the Bauhaus in 1930, this school, famous for its
teaching process of uniting art and technology, was reorganized into a
curriculum of architectural education. The knowledge base required
for the practice of architecture, including an understanding of mate-
rials, structural engineering, heating and ventilating, cost estimating,
comparative study of buildings and practical training in the workshops,
became the prerequisite for the advanced architecture seminar taught
by Mies.

Here, for perhaps the first time, the early years of learning the required
professional training and technical skills were combined with the
senior experience of developing refined advanced level architectural
projects and the study of architecture as an art. After the forced closing
of the Bauhaus in 1933, it was Mies'scontinuing concern with education
which led to the opportunity of moving to Chicago and what was to
become his architectural destiny.

When offered the directorship of the Department of Architecture at the
then Armour Institute he accepted, subject to administration approval
of his new program. Developed in Germany, refined in New York and
adopted in Chicago, the expanded curriculum truly represented Mies's
philosophy of architecture. Submitted as a vertical diagram, entitled
'Program for Architectural Education,' it itemized components of
architecturaleducation which are as validtodayasthey were fifty years

ago.

This new curriculum was first implemented during the fall of 1938.

During World War II, reduced enrollment permitted the content to be

FOREWORD

patiently fine-tuned while at the same time iviies was also developing the
planning and architecture for the new Illinois Institute of Technology
campus. The post-war program was expanded to five years and ac-
credited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board.
Mies's goal as educator was to establish a curriculum concentrating on
those areas of architectural education which could be taught. His role
as teacher was to work directly with the advanced student. At this level
the teaching of architecture and the practice of architecture became
one because his buildings represented and, in fact, demonstrated the
same principles taught at the school.

The curriculum is structured as if it were a building or, more appropri-
ately, architecture. Carefully sequenced and fully articulated, each
learning experience builds: always from the simple to the complex.
The educational objective is to give each student a disciplined method
of work and problem solving based on acquiring the significant knowl-
edge and skills of the profession. During the first three years, the
student begins by developing drawing ability and visual perception,
progressing through Construction as an understanding of principles,
acquiring the technical knowledge of related Engineering and studying
Function as a way of understanding problems and building types.
These three years of comprehensive background are then applied to
the development of advanced architectural projects which explore
more detailed spatial and visual considerations thus making the fourth
and fifth years the synthesis of all previous work. Underlying each of

these student problems is the motivation to achieve an optimum level of
quality as a fundamental tenet of good architecture.
The faculty is unified by a conviction in both the method and philosophy
of this architectural program. Yet, there is always the constant remin-
der that these ideas, fostered with freshness and creativity, not become
dogma. It was never intended that the curriculum become a formula for
providing answers, but rather a matrix sensitive to adaptability.
To many who view the brick studies, the work represents only the
unrelenting discipline of drawing brick after brick — two lines for each
joint. They see only the surface. Yet, the principle of brick bonding,
when fully understood, is a building material system having an order
and a logic with almost unlimited possibilities. Moreover, this same
methodology and understanding can be applied to the problem solving
of any new construction technology or building material. When ex-
tended throughout the curriculum, this philosophy of teaching Princi-
ple instills in each student an ability to make independent decisions.
The challenge of both faculty and students is to continually test this
theory with the application to actual projects. This process is essential
to the vitality of the curriculum and its relevance to current architec-
tural issues. Within the broad range of architectural education NT rep-
resents an academic tradition consistent with today's technology and
appropriate for our time.

It is in this spirit that we honor Mies's contribution to architectural
education and begin his second hundred years.

George Schipporeit

Project Director

Mies van der Rohe Centennial Project

Dean

College of Architecture, Planning and Design

10

MIES VAN DER ROME: ARCHITECT AS EDUCATOR

Reyner Banham, an architectural historian, is a Professor at the Univer-
sity of California, Santa Cruz. His many books include Theory and
Design In the First Machine Age and Age of the Masters.

Fritz Neumeyer, an architectural historian, is an Associate Professor of
the History and Theory of Architecture at the Technische Unlverstat,
Berlin. He recently published M/es van der Rohe — Das kunstlose Wort:
Gedanken zur Baukunst.

Richard Padovan lives in England. He worked as an architect for 15
years and has taught extensively in England and on the Continent. He
now writes mainly on Modernism and has recently translated Dom
Hans van der Laan's Architectonic Space.

Sandra Honey is an architect and architectural historian living In Ha-
rare. Zimbabwe. Her articles on Mies have been widely published.

Kevin Harrington teaches architectural history at IIT where he is an
Associate Professor. Earlier he published Changing Ideas on Architec-
ture in the Encyciopedie. 1 750-1776. He is currently at work on a study
of the IIT Campus.

12

THE MASTER OF HUMANE ARCHITECTURE

Reyner Banham

Where now is Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the humanitarian who taught
his students to concern themselves over the convenient design of bag-
gage claim areas and the comfortable height of door handles? Where
now Mies the humanist who could quote the Fathers of the Church in
the original Latin and taught his students to know and love the great
periods of architecture's history? Where, too, is Mies the humane
pedagogue who sought to discover his students' strengths and lacks,
and taught them to use their own eyes, trust their own judgment?
It is almost as if that kind of Mies van der Rohe had never existed, never
taught at the Bauhaus and Illinois Institute of Technology. The world
seems bent on remembering only some legendary master of relentless
rationalism, the rigid exponent of a single structural system who
crushed all clients and students into one invariable Procrustean build-
ing type. For this, no doubt, his success has been largely to blame, and
for the ease with which the superficialities of his classic buildings could
be imitated almost everywhere without any understanding of what lay
behind them. And, too, his successors may have seemed too much
mere followers, continuing a grand educational program whose parts
and procedures they had not helped to forge, but were nevertheless
loath to change because they had received these lessons of the master
as revealed truth.

Even more, perhaps. It is that striving for perfection that informed his
own work and was inculcated in all those who came under his direct
influence, IIT students included. The object of some early student exer-
cise might be, for instance, to draw a perfect line or set of lines, true,
parallel and precise. Every student who by diligence and determination

eventually mastered this demanding discipline would, of course, trea-
sure the sheet of paper on which that perfect line was finally drawn,
rejecting all others. That sheet would be proudly flourished at family
and friends, enshrined In the portfolio that was shown to other schools
and prospective employers, and if it survived, stood a fair chance of
being reproduced in articles about IIT or the future of architectural
education.

And as an illustration of the Miesian method of architectural education it
would be delusion, a deception. For it was only a testimony that the
exercise had been completed — the actual educational process, the real
learning that made a Mies student a Mies student, was what was re-
corded on all those previous sheets of paper, the rejected versions, the
smudges and broken pencil points, the blots and tear stains even. There
is coffee and midnight oil involved here, as well as those materials of the
drafting table that Mies's students were taught to employ so meticul-
ously — not to mention the advice, consciously sought or gratuitiously
given, and the commentary, benign or satirical, of practically everyone
else in the studio, including the teacher.

The architectural profession is too apt to judge the quality of its educa-
tional institutions solely by end products and not by processes - hence
all those conversations, and not just at IIT, on the lines of "What hap-
pened to old whats-hls-face? You never hear about him now but he was
a brilliant student." Alas, he may merely have been brilliant at drawing
perfect lines, and performing other studio party pieces, and never
understood the process by which he acquired that skill. A great teacher
does not mistake drawing skills for education and - more importantly

13

THE MASTER OF HUMANE ARCHITECTURE

— sees to it that the students never confuse them either. But the outsider
looking only at the end products of the work done at IIT might well be
misled. The more nearly perfect they were, the better they concealed
the human drama, the intellectual progress, that lay behind the
achievement.

But in any field of creative activity, a discipline totally mastered is the
essential support of the ability to create at liberty, the secure vehicle of
fantasy. For Mies, as for most of the great teachers of architecture, this
mastery of drawing was also a kind of analogy for the whole process of
learning. "We learn to keep our paper clean and our pencil sharp." he
would say with the hint of a wink, as if implying that a whole pedagogy
of architecture was in that saying; something about keeping our under-
standing uncluttered and our critical faculties finely honed, no doubt.
though Mies's utterances always seemed hermetic or oblique, enough
to be open to various readings, almost like those of the great masters of
Zen philosophy.

It is a classic Zen paradox that only absolute subjection to an unforgiv-
ing discipline can justify the demand to be free, "First acquire a faultless
technique, then forget it . . . " was a favorite Zen quotation of Walter
Gropius, Mies's predecessor at the Bauhaus. But there is no Mies story
that ends with the classic Zen envoi "the master struck him and passed
on." for Mies was gentle in his ruthlessness, yet his pedagogic method
must often have seemed equally gnomic. He rarely corrected a stu-
dent's work (or that of assistants in his office) or showed them how a
design should be done better. Rather, he told them in front of their
drawings that something would not work, that a better solution to this
or that was needed. The rest was up to them to discover or work out.
They were not alone or without help, however. In the big single volume
of S.R. Crown Hall, without partitions or hierarchy (other than the
sequential location of the five-year cohorts of students) everybody's
business was everybody else's business — or could be. The accumu-
lated wisdom and experience of each year above was handily available
to each year below, to be tapped by observation, discussion or intellec-
tual osmosis. By processes analogous to the discipline of continuous
self-improvement learned in the drawing classes, better solutions were
found — self-evidently better in the eyes of the students themselves.
But only, that is, if they had the mental capacities to understand and
apply the lessons of the discipline. That was the method at the heart of
the gnomic d iscourse of the studio, and for those who failed to grasp the

method (and there were many, as there always will be) there was the
very considerable consolation that they had at least acquired such
formidable drawing skills that they were instantly employable almost
anywhere. And furthermore, they had been very thoroughly schooled
in the processes of assembly of a repertoire of modest buildings out of a
closely prescribed range of materials, from wood and brick to steel and
glass. The repertoire may have been as small as the buildings were
modest and the materials restricted, but here again, extension to other
scales and materials were available to any student smart enough to
draw an analogy.

Somewhere in all this, Mies seems to have rediscovered something like
the kernel of the true substance of studio teaching as originally elabo-
rated at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. As every genuine product of the
Ecole has tirelessly insisted, what went on in studio was drawing as an
instrument of education, but that the education only really started when
the master seized upon one particular student's project and made it the
instance of a c//scoursst7r/e methode for all the rest of the studio to hear
and — hopefully — to understand. Mies's discourse was less prolix (to
put it mildly) than that of the great professors at the Ecole, and for that
reason more to be treasured. If remembered fragments of this kind of
discourse became lodged permanently in the minds of students of the
Ecole des Beaux-Arts, how much more true it was of the students from
NT; maxims were recalled and trotted out in later years, in and out of
context. Out of context, of course, they were almost incomprehensible
even to NT graduates. Because they seemed so opaque to other under-
standing, they were usually glossed by references to the aphorisms of
Mies's "Inaugural" lecture of 1938, or the categories of the formal
curriculum of IIT. Thus, "we might do that when we build on the moon"
(apparently first uttered without further explication) seems to have
been paired in memory with the opening phrase of the Inaugural "All
education must begin with the practical side of life" and taken to mean
that it was not practicable to whatever that was here on Earth.
But Mies might have meant a number of other things by this quip.
Carrying back observations, made impromptu about particular de-
signs. Into the measured cadences and diagrammatic clarity of formal
documents, can lead to "understandings" that can be total hogwash,
and there are good reasons for this. One Is that official philosophies of
architecture schools are essentially ceremonial documents; they de-
scribe all sorts of Important topics and attitudes, some almost

14

THE MASTER OF HUMANE ARCHITECTURE

peripheral to the teaching of design, but of grave concern to anyone
who proposes to use other people's resources in order to erect struc-
tures that may affect the quality of llfeof generations yet to come — but
how often (and not just at NT) has the architecture produced under such
benevolent curricula seemed to bear no relation to what a "common
reader" might suppose these curricular statements to mean. All verbal
formulae about architecture that employ the word organic, for instance
(whether uttered by Mies or by Frank Lloyd Wright) need to be meas-
ured warily against the architecture produced. The honesty with which
they were promulgated in no way reduces the potential confusions that
can be caused by Mies's extraordinary use of the word to mean "neither
mechanistic nor idealistic."

Secondly, the elegant and rational diagrams that constitute a complete
curriculum of study, at NT or anywhere else, have (as Mies's admirer, the
English architect, educator and legislator, Richard Llewelyn Davies
once admitted in a moment of candor) "no predictive value about what
will be studied, merely that students are legally required to be in certain
classrooms at certain times." Curricula cannot guarantee that the
words to be heard will refer to the posted topic or, if they do, that they
will be worth the effort of listening — indeed, in most schools, the
words worth the effort of listening will refer to anything but the posted
topics! Much as the clarity and logic of the NT curriculum are admired
by the school's alumni, they still seem to me too abstract in their ele-
gance to be more than an ideal diagram.

Students for almost two decades at NT were extraordinarily fortunate,
therefore, in that the curriculum was taught either by Mies himself or by
close associates who genuinely understood the disciplines and topics
offered in the way that he did, but also the crucial but ineffable material,
the design maneuvers, the hidden agendas and subtexts about moral
and constructional attitudes. For these were also imparted, often with-
out either faculty or students fully realizing that this was what was
happening. Those unformulated but deeply held attitudes were the ones
that gave the contexts in which the gnomic sayings of the studio made
senseandthey were also what put the breath of life and the potential for
great design into the empty skeleton of the curriculum which for all its
logical progression through exercises of rising complexity and subtlety,
still strayed little beyond the categories and received opinions of prog-
ressive education in Baukunst at the time. For credibility, it needed to
stand on a consensus that made sense in Chicago.

And if those were not yet received opinions in 1937, when the earliest
version of the NT curriculum was first promulgated, they very rapidly
acquired that status after the Second World War, so that the IIT cur-
riculum became, with local variations, a kind of international standard.
Insofar as it didn't work outside of IIT — and it rarely did — it was not
because of the opportunistic local variations, the preferred or man-
dated omissions and insertions of other subject matter, but simply
because it was not being taught by Mies and his circle. There is a very
obvious parallel here in the failure of the attempt to improve design-
teaching in a number of schools by the application of "the Bauhaus
system," which, again proved to be only a bunch of chapter headings
and formal imitations of student exercises culled from the literature, but
lacking the flesh and blood context — the living presence of the old
Bauhauslern — from which they had been born in the first place.
So we come back to the primacy of Mies, the singular man himself — or,
rather, the plural men and women who composed his faculties and
office staff, for Mies ever and properly gave credit to those with whom
he worked in the studio and the office. That credit was not always given
in print, which ruffled some sensibilities, but it was always given in
conversation and — if overheard — was usually given straight back:
"and if it wasn't for you, chief, I wouldn't even be here!" For the ultimate
paradox of Mies, the supposed arch-priest of the systematic and ra-
tional, was that he operated In so many ways in a manner that de-
manded, quietly and effectively, an absolute and irrational loyalty to
himself as a person, but more to the deeply believed sets of procedures
and attitudes that he had embodied in the curriculum and gave life to by
his presence.

His best assistants, students or disciples seemed to sense this even
before they met him. They seemed to discern within the formal mate-
riality and rational ordering of his buildings some immanence of the
man himself, warm, humane and infinitely demanding. Someof us who
were not gifted enough to discern this before meeting him. saw his
buildings very differently after we had confronted the solid, leather-
faced reality himself. We now saw them as works of rational and
humane imagination, works of undoubted Modernism in which the
values of tradition subtly endured. And we then saw, in the works of his
mere imitators, the absence of exactly those fundamental qualities, but
in the work of his truest students and most trusted collaborators, we
found the fundamental principles and attitudes present, even when the

15

THE MASTER OF HUMANE ARCHITECTURE

idiom of the design was sometlning different. I remember staring with
frozen admiration at the footing of the columns of the Chicago Civic
Center one Icy, bitter morning in 1964 or so, and thlnl^ing "Mies
wouldn't have done that . . . but young Brownson (IIT, B Arch "48, M
Arch '54) wouldn't have done it without Mies."

It is the tritest and truest of all accolades to great teachers that they
taught their students 'to thine own self be true." That is what the world,
currently obsessed with the idea of Mies as some Kind of tyrant bent on
Imposing a single reductionist style, does not yet want to believe of him,
but in the end it will have to, because that is what he did. The selves to
which they were true were not always noble souls or designers of
genius, and the truth they could generate might be modest, but they all
did what they could do on the basis of a better understanding of the
practice of architecture, an understanding which may have been nar-
row In its footings in the art of building, but was firm enough to support
whatever expansive visions might come to them in their later lives as
professionals of architecture.

16

MACHINES A MEDITER

Richard Radovan

The theme of the Centennial Exhibition is Mies van der Rohe:
Architect as Educator. It aims to show how in his role as educator Mies,
the architect, set out to teach future architects how to build. The aim
of this essay is complementary to this: to consider how Mies, the
educator, setout to make buildings — objects of meditation — thatteach
one how to think. In Mies's own words: "I want to examine my
thoughts in action .... I want to do something in order to be able to
think."'

This statement implies a two-way relationship between the mind and
things: not only does the intellect form the things it makes, but these
things in turn "in-form" the intellect. The idea that knowledge is a
mutual relation or correspondence between things and the mind is
contained in Aquinas's famous definition of truth as adaequatio rei et
intellectus. The Latin phrase has been quoted repeatedly in studies on
Mies, and he himself constantly cited it and clearly attached great
significance to it for the understanding of his architecture:

It then became clear to me that it was not the task of architecture to Invent form. I
tried to understand what that task was. I asked Peter Behrens, but he could not
give me an answer. He did not ask that question. The others said, "What we build
is architecture," but we weren't satisfied with this answer. Maybe they didn't
understand the question. We tried to find out. We searched in the quarries of
ancient and medieval philosophy. Since we knew that it was a question of truth,
we tried to find out what the truth really was. We were very delighted to find a
definition of truth by St. Thomas Aquinas: Adequatio Intellectus et rei. or as a
modern philosopher expresses it in the language of today: "Truth is the signifi-
cance of fact." I never forgot this. It was very helpful, and has been a guiding light.
To find out what architecture really is took me fifty years — half a century.^

Yet until Franz Schuize published his critical biography in 1985 no
writer on Mies, so far as I am aware, had examined the meaning and
context of the phrase, considered its specific relevance to his work, or
even taken the trouble to translate it. The average architectural reader,
disconcerted by the Latin, has usually been ready enough to accept the
words of the "modern philosopher" (in fact Max Scheler) as a satisfac-
tory translation. But as Schuize points out, "Truth is the significance of
fact" is not quite the same as "Truth is the correspondence of thing and
intellect . . . Still, since Mies was not a trained philosopher, he evidently
found the two statements close enough to his own view to be effectively
identical."^

This raises a doubt, which may as well be faced right away, as to
whether Mies himself really understood what Aquinas meant, or
bothered to seek further once he had hit on a maxim that seemed to
reflect his own preconceptions. If that were the case, the present inves-
tigation would have very little point. However, the recollections of
Mies's friends and associates confirm that despite his lack of any
philosophical training his lifelong interest in philosophy was deeply
serious, and certainly went far beyond a superficially learned dress-
ing up of his architectural rationale. Schuize describes how to the end of
his life he would struggle to understand philosophical and scientific
texts:

He read as he always had, and much the same philosophical fare, though his
earlier preoccupation with morphological subjects shifted . . . towards an inter-
est in physics and cosmology. He labored earnestly at this, poring over the same
texts in German and English by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger and

17

MACHINES A MEDITER

sometimes finding himself unable to understand what he had read. Typically, he
would go back to It again and again, Insisting . . . that it was Imperative to learn
the deeper truth he knew was there."

This does not sound like the man who would seize on Aquinas's defini-
tion as an impressive slogan, without probing further into what it
meant. It was my own curiosity about its real meaning, and a vague
intuition that it might throw new light on Mies's beliefs and on the
evolution of his architecture, that were the original motivations behind
the writing of this article.

The problem of the relation between the human intellect and things
(either natural or man-made) has engaged and divided philosophers
since the Greeks. For Plato, reality lay in the immutable spiritual world
of rational ideas or "Forms" (such as the self-evident truths of
geometry) and not in the flickering shadow of those ideal forms pro-
jected on the wall of the cave In which, while the soul remains impris-
oned in the body, we are forced to lie chained. In a former state the soul
has known all truth, and the discovery of truth is simply the recollection,
through reasoning, of this dimly remembered knowledge. Hence truth
is to be sought in the mind and not in material things.
But like Aristotle, Aquinas identifiesforms with their individual material
manifestations, and rejects Plato's doctrine of the latency of truth in the
mind. This has two important consequences, which I believe are rele-
vant to an understanding of Mies's architecture. First, it follows that
things are the source from which the intellect acquires ideas: "Our
intellect draws knowledge from natural things, and is measured by
them."^

However a problem now arises (and this Is the second consequence) as
to how the particular impressions received by the senses are converted
into thinkable concepts. For according to Aquinas.

Our intellect cannot have direct and primary knowledge of individual material
objects. This is because the principle of Individuation of material objects Is
individual matter; and our intellect understands by abstracting ideas from such
matter. Now what is abstracted from individual matter Is the universal. Hence
our intellect knows directly the universal only.^

Plato's theory that forms exist apart from matter and are therefore
thinkable had avoided this problem. By denying the separate existence
of forms. Aquinas is forced to postulate a special faculty, the "agent
intellect," with the power to convert sense-data into thinkable objects

by abstracting universal essences from their material conditions. But
unlike Plato's Forms, these universals have no existence outside the
mind. Nor. being abstractions, are they identical with the individual
form of the thing in itself. That is why Aquinas defines truth as a
"correspondence, " and not as a property, either of the thing or of the
intellect:

For true knowledge consists in the correspondence of thing and Intellect {ratio
veri conslstit In adaequatlone rei et intellectus), not the identity of one and the
same thing to itself, but the correspondence between different things. Hence the
Intellect first arrives at truth when it acquires something proper to It alone — the
Idea of the thing — which corresponds to the thing, but which the thing outside
the mind does not have.'

Unfortunately Aquinas does not specify whether the intellect draws
knowledge from man made things, as well as from natural ones. What
interests him is the analogy between the intellect of the artist and the
divine intelligence, in their creative function:

Our intellect draws knowledge from natural things, and is measured by them;
but they are measured in turn by the divine intellect, which contains all created
things in the same way as man made things are contained In the mind of the
artist. Therefore the divine Intellect measures, but is not measured; natural
things both measure and are measured; and our intellect is measured, but does
not measure natural things, only man made ones."

However, if man made things are not also a source of information for
the human intellect, alongside natural ones, the whole chain of depen-
dence — from God, through nature and man. to art — ends in a blind
alley. It is far more in keeping with Aquinas's general world view for the
products of the intellect to return to and perfect it. just as he regards the
whole of creation as intended to return to God: "The emanation of
creatures from God would beimperfect unless they returned to Him in
equal measure."^

For the analogy, which Aquinas constantly draws, between artistic
creation and divine creation to be complete, one must conclude
likewise that "the emanation of works of art from the human intellect
would be imperfect unless they returned to that intellect in equal mea-
sure."

Thus the work of art, as a concretization of human thought, placed "out
there" in the world of natural things, enables us "to examine our
thoughts in action," as Mies put it, "in order to be able to think."

18

MACHINES A MEDITER

Doric Temple, Segesta. Sicily. Late 5th
Century B.C. Courtesy of Rolf Achilles.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Farnsworth
House. Piano. 1945-50, Courtesy of
Hedrich Blessing.

Furthermore, since according to Aquinas "our intellect is not directly
capable of knowing anything that is not universal," it follows that the
work of art, the man made thing, is more directly and completely
knowable than natural things. Originating from an infinite and un-
created intelligence, they cannot be fully apprehended by our finite
created intellect; but the man made thing, which originates in that finite
intellect, embodies the rational and universal forms of human thought,
and is directly intelligible. Compared with the endless nuances, sub-
tleties and complexities of nature, art appears crude and primitive; but
for the intellect it has a special immediacy and clarity. Maritain writes in
Art and Scholasticism that:

. . .in the beauty which has been termed connatural to man and is peculiar to
human art this brilliance of form, however purely intelligible it may be in itself, is
apprehended in the sensible and by the sensible, and not separately from it ... .
The mind then, spared the least effort of abstraction, rejoices without labor and
without discussion. It is excused its customary task, it has not to extricate
something intelligible from the matter in which it is buried and then step by step
go through its various attributes; like the stag at the spring of running water, it
has nothing to do but drink, and it drinks the clarity of being.'"

Thanks to their intelligibility, man made things can act as necessary
intermediaries between us and the natural world, bringing to it an
added radiance, such as a Greek temple brings to the landscape in
which it is set. It is as though nature demanded the clear sharp facets of
our rational creations for its own completion; Mies observed that:

We must strive to bring nature, buildings and men together in a higher unity.
When you see nature through the glass walls of the Farnsworth house, it takes
on a deeper significance than when you stand outside. Thus nature becomes
more expressive — it becomes part of a greater whole.

Much adverse criticism of MIes's work and philosophy has been based
on the misconception that they were founded on a Platonist belief in a
transcendental world of universal essences, of which his buildings were
intended as symbols. Thus Mumford complains In "The Case Against
Modern Architecture"that "these hollowglass shells . . .existedalone in
the Platonic world of his imagination . . ."'^ while Jencks, in Modern
Movements In Architecture, fails to distinguish between Plato and
Aquinas:

The problem of Mies van der Rohe ... is that he demands an absolute commit-
ment to the Platonic world-view In order to appreciate his buildings. . . . For
instance, nominalist philosophers and pragmatists, who believe that universals

do not In fact exist, would find the Platonic statements of Mies mostly just
humorous, because they go to such terrific pains to project a nonexistent
reality Not only does Mies refer to Aqulnas's formulation explicitly, but he

also seems to uphold the further scholastic doctrine that all the apparent
phenomena of this world are actually mere symbols for a greater reality lying
behind them.'^

On the contrary, for Aquinas, and likewise for Mies, things are not mere
appearances or symbols but real, while universals exist only in the
intellect. Mies's architecture does not aim at universality in order to
symbolize a platonic world of ideal Forms, but simply in order to be
intelligible, its whole intent is to state, as lucidly as it can, what it is and
how it is made. This fundamental matter-of-factness, this Sachllchkelt.
was underlined by Ernesto Rogers in Casabella:

Obviously, when Mies cites St. Augustine's phrase "Beauty is the splendor of
truth" he cannot take refuge in the metaphysical halo of the great Saint, because
Mies's truth is neither revealed, nor aprioristic, nor in the strict philosophical
sense objective .... Mies's religion is that of a layman who has an existential limit,
and it is only In the affirmation of the real, historically understood, that he can
satisfy his craving for truth, and thereby for beauty.'"

Moreover, the "reductivism " of which Mies's critics accuse him is not a
denial of the richness and complexity of nature, but intended to accen-
tuate it:

Nature too must lead its own life. We should take care not to disturb it with the
colorfulness of our houses and interiors. '=

The Farnsworth house has never I believe been really understood. I myself was
in that house from morning to evening. Up to then I had not known how beautiful
the colors in nature can be. One must deliberately use neutral tones in interiors,
because one has every color outside. These colors change continuously and
completely, and I have to say that simplicity is splendid"

The striving for structural clarity, and for that "splendid simplicity"
which found fulfillment in the Farnsworth House, was confirmed by
Mies's reading of Aquinas; but it had at first to contend with other
influences that pulled in opposite directions. The image built up in the
hagiographies of the 1960's, of the granite monolith impervious to the
battles that were going on around him, is one-sided. It must be set
against the fact that in his German years he was very much "in the thick
of it."" as Sandra Honey has said, and shared fully in the intellectual
conflicts of his time.

19

MACHINES A MEDITER

It is impossible to determine how early Aquinas became important for
Mies; in Fritz Neumeyer's view it was only in his later years. '^ One can
fairly safely rule out any likelihood that he was exposed to Scholastic
teachings as a pupil at the Cathedral School at Aachen, as has often
been assumed. The anecdote quoted earlier, about his discovery of
Aquinas's definition of truth, gives the impression that it happened
while he was in Behrens's office! 1908-12), but that is unclear. However
Schuize cites the recollection of Mies's assistant Friedrich Hirz, who
joined him in 1928 when he started worK on the Barcelona Pavilion,
that "he read a lot of St. Thomas Aquinas" while he was with him.'^ One
can reasonably conclude, I think, that Aquinas could have begun to
have an influence on Mies's work during the 1 920"s. Mies's first designs
of the I920's either continue (like the Kempner, Feldmann, Eichstaedt
and Mosler houses) the Neoclassicism of his prewar work, or reflect
the influence of Expressionism, and above all that of his close friend
Hugo Haring, who shared Mies's atelierfrom 1921 to 1924. This is most
evident in the two projects for glass office buildings, of 1921 and 1922.
Schuize notes that: "Haring's own project for the Friedrichstrasse com-
petition, which was probably worked out simultaneously with Mies's, is
notable for fat, rolling exterior curves that readily bring the undulating
volumes of Mies's second project to mind."^°

What is strikingly absent from both projects is structural clarity.
Schuize illustrates a sketch plan of the 1922 skyscraper, describing it as.

separates the two projects; there could be no better starting point for
the story I want to trace here: Mies's gradual clarification of the struc-
ture of his buildings at the expense, if need be, of all other concerns. He
acknowledged the self-denial the intellectual asceticism, that this in-
volved:

I often throw out things I like very much — they are dear to my heart - but when I
r\a\je a better Idea — a clearer Idea, I mean - then I follow that clearer idea. After
a while I found the Washington Bridge most beautiful, the best building in New
York, and maybe at the beginning I wouldn't you know. That grew; but first I had
to conquer the idea, and later I appreciated it as a beauty. Thomas Aquinas says
that "Reason is the first principle of all human work." Now when you have once
grasped that, then you act accordingly. So I would throw out everything that is
not reasonable. I don't want to be interesting; I want to be good."^"

Between 1922 and 1962 when he began to work on the National Gallery
in Berlin, Mies progressively simplified his plans reducing them finally
to a single vast square space, and articulated his structure so that each
element was unmistakably distinct from every other. There is a striking,
and I believe not merely coincidental, parallel with the development of
the classic Gothic style over a similar period of time, about 1 190-1230,
and under the influence of the same Scholastic demand for claritas.
Then, too, the linked autonomous spaces of Romanesque were reduced

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Glass
Skyscraper Project, Friedrichstrasse.
Berlin. 1922, Sketch of plan. Courtesy of
Museum of Modern Art.

a most unconvincing effort, in which a geometric system of piers is forced to
take root in the amoeboid plan. The geometry itself collapses into irregularity
and all trace of rational order is lost .... In the Glass Skyscraper Mies was
preoccupied less with structure than with form.^'

Writing about the two glass towers in Fruhlicht, Mies threw in a func-
tional justification of the skyscraper's apparently "arbitrary" curved
outline — "sufficient illumination of the interior" — but this is less
convincing than his other two reasons: "the massing of the building
viewed from the street, and . . . the play of reflections.""
The design is hard to reconcile with his statements that it was "not the
task of architecture to invent form," and "Form is not the aim of our
work, but only the result.""

1 922 seems to have been a turning point in Mies's development. Within
a few months of the glass skyscraper, apparently in the winter of
1922-23, he designed the concrete office building. An ideological gulf

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Concrete
Office Building Project. 1922. Courtesy of
Museum of Modern Art.

20

MACHINES A MEDITER

^ ^

Cathedral. Speyer. Floor Plan of c.1 106.
Courtesy of Hans Erich Kubach; Dom zu
Speyer. Darmstadt. 1974. p. 99.

Notre Dame. Paris. Floor Plan of 1163.
Courtesy of Andrew Martlndale. Gothic
Art. N.Y.. 1967. p. 23.

to the single uniform space of High Gothic; and the structure was
articulated so that each member was clearly identified. The classic
Miesian corner detail Is comparable to the classic Gothic compound
pier with Its central shaft surrounded by a cluster of slender colonnet-
tes, each corresponding to a separate arch or vault rib. In Gothic Archi-
tecture and Schoiasticism Erwin Panofsky writes:

As High Scholasticism was governed by the principle of manlfestatlo. so was
High Gothic architecture dominated by what may be called the "principle of
transparence. . ." Like the High Scholastic summa. the High Gothic cathedral
aimed, first of all. as "totality" and therefore tended to approximate, by synthesis
as well as elimination, one perfect and final solution. .. . instead of the
Romanesque variety of western and eastern vaulting forms ... we have the
newly developed rib vault exclusively so that the vaults of even the apse, the
chapels and the ambulatory no longer differ In kind from those of the nave and
transept ....

And:

According to classic Gothic standards the Individual elements . . . must proclaim
their Identity by remaining clearly separated from each other — shafts from the
wail or the core of the pier, the ribs from their neighbors, all vertical members
from their arches; and there must be an unequivocal correlation between them."

However neither Mies nor the Gothic builders arrived at the "one per-
fect and final solution" by a smooth progression. The development of
classic Gothic, as Panofsky shows, was consistent, but not direct:

On the contrary, when observing the evolution from the beginning to the "final
solutions," we receive the impression that it went on almost after the fashion of a
"Jumping procession," taking two steps forward and then one backward, as
though the builders were deliberately placing obstacles in their own way.^*

Cathedral. Chartres. 1194. Wall and
Corner Piers Plan. Courtesy of John
James. Chartres. London. 1985. p. 94

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, 860-880 LaKe
Shore Drive. Chicago 1951. Mulllon and
Corner Details. Courtesy of Hedrlch
Blessing

Similarly, one has the feeling that Mies could have gone straight from
the concrete office project, the most prophetic of his early projects, to
the IIT campus, leaving out all the stages in between; for in it appear all
the characteristics of his later work: reduction of the concept to its
simplest, most essential statement; clear, regular structure; and univer-
sal, omni-functional space. But things are never that simple. Only by
being open to contradictory influences, and resolving the resulting
conflicts by what Zevi calls "the flagrant dissonances of Barcelona,
Berlin and Brno"" could Mies have arrived at the truly complex
simplicity of the National Gallery.

With the two Country House Projects — in concrete (early 1923) and
brick (winter 1923-24) he veersoff in a new direction, undertheby now

21

MACHINES A MEDITER

now strong influence of Theo van Doesburg and De StijI through his
close involvement with G. There was much about DeSf/y7 to attract him:
here, finally, was a new art movement inspired primarily by philosophy;
and its foundation manifesto had declared that the "new consciousness
of the age" was "directed towards the universal."^*
But the philosophical bases of De StijI were closer to Platonism (though
it derived from German and Indian philosophy rather than Greek) than
to Aquinas's common sense acceptance of the real existence of material
things. It aimed at the representation, beeldlng. not of phenomena, but
of a noumenal world of pure thought.-' In painting, this was to be
achieved by eliminating the figural object and replacing it by a unity of
rectangular planes of primary color.^° In architecture, it would be
achieved by eliminating the figural delimitation of space — the room
clearly defined by four walls or corner columns — and replacing it with
a continuous space in which walls and columns stood as isolated planes
and lines. Point 5 of Van Doesburg's manifesto Towards a Plastic
/Arcrt/fecfure (1924) declared:

The subdivision of functional spaces is strictly determined by rectangular
planes, which... can be imagined extended into infinity, thereby forming a
system of coordinates in which all points correspond to an equal number of
points in universal, unlimited open space.

Pure thought, in which no representation derived from phenomena is Involved,
but which instead is based on number, measure, proportion and abstract line, is
revealed conceptually (as rationality) in Chinese. Greek and German philosophy,
and aesthetically in the Neoplasticism of our time.^'

Neither the three house projects that Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren
showed in the exhibition "Les Architectes du Groupe de Styl', ' in Paris
in October 1923. nor the Rietveld-Schroder House of 1924. succeeded
in this aim: the Paris models consisted of intersecting volumes, not
planes, the Schroder House, externally, of a rectangular box with
Neoplastic surface decoration. Only Mies's second Brick House Project
fulfilled Van Doesburg's aims.

However, since the walls were asymmetrically disposed (Point 12 had
rejected repetition and symmetry in favor of "the balanced repetition of
unequal parts") it was impossible, so long as they remained load-
bearing, to achieve a clear structure. Inevitably some walls carried
loads and others not. while spans were unequal and varied in direction.
Miess three brick houses of the late 1920's(Wolf. Esters and Langelare
all more practical reworkings of the project: all have living rooms

ERreEiiHoi!

-%rnimrt ,(^ij>

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Brick Country
House Project. 1922. Perspective
Drawing. Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

Ludwig Mies van der Rofie, Esters House,
Krefeld. 1928. Floor Plan. Courtesy of
Museum of Modern Art.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Hermann
Lange House. Krefeld. 1928. Floor Plan.
Courtesy of Museum of Modern Art.

22

MACHINES A MEDITER

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, German
Pavilion, Barcelona. 1928. Perspective
SKetch. Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, German
Pavilion, Barcelona. 1928. Floor Plan,
Plan One. Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. German
Pavilion. Barcelona. 1928. Perspective
sketch. Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

planned as series of overlapping rectangles, producing staggered gar-
den elevations; and all wrestle unsuccessfully with the problem of
structural clarity. It took Mies five years to find a solution, though Van
Doesburg's Point 8, "Walls are no longer load bearing; they have been
reduced to points of support . . . ."^^

Mieshasrecalledthat in the early days of the Barcelona project, in 1928,
that "One evening as I was working late on the building I made a sketch
of a freestanding wall, and I got a shock. I knew it was a new principle.""
This was the birth of the onyx wall that formed the core of the Pavilion.
Yet why did it constitute a new principle? He had used freestanding
walls, in the sense of isolated planes in space, in the country house
project; what was new could only be the idea that the wall stood free of
the structure, and loads were carried by columns. The columns were
slow to appear, however; the earliest surviving plans and sketches
show quite recognizable versions of the design, with overhanging roof
slab, two courts containing pools, and a plinth approached by steps; but
no columns. Then, late in 1928, they finally appear; but at first there are
three rows, and their arrangement looks Irregular. A later plan shows
two rows, but of three columns only, one end of the roof still being
supported by walls. Finally, a completely regular structure and freely
composed wall planes are superposed as independent but contrapuntal
systems. It is as though the concrete office building and the brick
country house had been overlaid — a synthesis of Scholasticist clarity
and Neoplasticist spatial continuity.

Just as Mies's brick houses of the 1920's reworked the project of
1923-24, the houses of the 1930's were variations on the Barcelona
theme. But by 1945-46, when Mies began to design the Farnsworth
House, this synthesis was no longer good (that is, clear) enough. The
rationality of the Pavilion's structure was apparent only in plan; in three
dimensions, the structural bay defined by four columns was nowhere
visible. The walls played an ambiguous role, threatening to usurp that of
the columns. (Sandra Honey has reported "thatthey in fact concealed a
further five supplementary columns; it is hard to see what purpose
these served, other than lateral bracing.)

The Barcelona Pavilion, the Farnsworth House and the unbuilt Bacardi
Project (first formulation, if one excludes the Fifty by Fifty House and
Convention Hall projects, of the "perfect and final solution" of the Berlin
Gallery) form as it were a set. Each consists of a pavilion raised above
ground level, approached off axis by flights of steps and supported by

23

MACHINES A MEDITER

<

eight columns; each marks a breakthrough in Mies's search for clarity;
and each is the model for subsequent designs. At Piano, the ambiguities
of Barcelona are overcome by bringing the columns to the outer edge of
the roof and floor planes and stopping all interior divisions short of the
ceiling; for Bacardi, the plan Is reduced to a single great bay. with two
columns on each side. Less is more. As happened in the 1920'sand 30"s,
the theme, once stated, is repeated. The Farnsworth House becomes
the model for S. R. Crown Hall, the Mannheim Theatre and the Bacardi
Building in Mexico City; the unbuilt Bacardi project, for the Schaefer
Museum and the Berlin Gallery.

Thus M less career proceeded d la lectica My, like the articles in Aquinas's
Summa. in which he sets one argument (videturquod) against another
ised contra) and proceeds to a solution (respondeo dicendum). It was
not. as Zevi describes, a parabola with its summit around 1930. so
much asaseriesof fluctuations with an ultimate goal — like the twisting
course of a river which at last must flow into the sea. And (to pursue the
simile) just as a river bears down to the sea sediment from its upper
reaches, so. without the Brick Country House Project, the Barcelona
Pavilion and the Farnsworth House. Mies's final statement, the Berlin
Gallery, would not have been possible.

Aquinas's phrase may also help to answer the two most common
criticisms raised against Mies's work; that despite all the talk about
truth, his buildings are in fact false in their expression of structure; and
thatthey make intolerable demands on those who live in them. The first
is based chiefly on his practice, at Lake Shore Drive and elsewhere, of
cladding the concrete casing of his steel columns with steel plates, and
then applying to them l-section mull ions which support no glazing. (The
hidden columns at Barcelona would fall into the same category).
But Aquinas defined truth as a correspondence between different
ttiings. or between thing and intellect and not as an identity. The steel
facings of Mies's columns correspond to the steel within, in the same
way as the abstract concept of the thing understood by the intellect
corresponds, but is not identical, to the material individuality of the
thing itself. Aquinas himself answered the object ion that "the intellect is
false if it understands an object otherwise than as it really is" by distin-
guishing between false abstraction, which considers the form of a thing
as being separate from its matter — as Plato held — and true abstrac-
tion, which merely considers the form of the thing separately from its
matter, -according to the mode of the intellect, and not materially,

according to the mode of a material thing. "^^ Similarly, the visible steel
structure at Lake Shore Drive is necessary to make the real steel
structure manifest; it does not try to present that structure as being
otherwise than it really is. Panofsky sees the same 'visual logic" in the
classic Gothic cathedral;

We are faced neither with "rationalism" in a purely functionalistic sense nor with
"Illusion" In the modern sense of I'art pour I'art aesthetics. We are faced with
what may be termed a "visual logic" illustrative of Thomas Aquinas's nam et
sensus ratio quaedam est. A man imbued with the Scholastic habit would look
upon the mode of architectural presentation . . . from the point of view of man-
ifestatlo. He would have taken it for granted that the primary purpose of the
many elements that compose a cathedral was to ensure stabil ity, just as he took it
for granted that the primary purpose of the many elements that constitute a
Summa was to ensure validity. But he would not have been satisfied had not the
membrif ication of the edifice permitted him to re-experience the very processes
of architectural composition Just as the membriflcation of the Summa permitted
him to re-experience the very processes of cogitation.'*

The second criticism, which is more fundamental and is the reason for
my title, has been leveled against Mies since early in his career. In 1931
Die Form the organ of the Deutscher Werkbund whose vice-president
Mies became in 1926, published an article under the title 'Can one live in
the Tugendhat house?" The author, Justus Bier, claimed that "personal
life was repressed" by the "precious" spaces and furnishing of the
house, making it a "showroom" rather than a home." In the mid-1960's
Mumford said much the same;

these hollow glass shells . . . had no relation to site, climate. Insulation, function,
or internal activity, [and] the rigidly arranged chairs In his living rooms openly
disregarded the necessary intimacies and informalities of conversation;"

and Venturi, that "Mies's exquisite pavilions . . . ignore the real com-
plexity and contradiction inherent in the domestic program."^'
Even Mies's biographer, Franz Schuize, recognizes that the Farnsworth
House,

is more nearly a temple than a dwelling, and it rewards aesthetic contemplation
before it fulfills domestic necessity .... In cold weather the great glass panes
tended to accumulate an overabundance of condensation ... In summer . . . the
sun turned the interior into a cooker. . . Palumbo is the ideal owner of the
house ... he derives sufficient spiritual sustenance from the reductivlst beauty of
the place to endure its creature discomforts.""

Of course that is just the point; Mies's buildings, before they are func-
tional shelters or even objects of "aesthetic contemplation," are source?

I

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Bacardi Office
Building Project, Santiago de Cuba. 1957.
Perspective of Structure. Courtesy of Fritz
Neumeyer.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. New National
Gallery. Berlin. 1967. Courtesy of Werner
Blaser.

24

MACHINES A MEDITER

O _ J_ X_. 0

^ r

Le Corbusler, Pavilion de I'Esprit
Nouveau. 1925. From Oeuvre Complete
de 1910-1929. Zurich. 1964. p. 107.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Tugendhat
House. Brno. 1930. Courtesy of George
Danforth.

Of "spiritual sustenance" - tinat is, of food for the mind. It is Instructive
to compare Mies's attitude In this respect with that of Le Corbusier, who
seems to have agreed, In theory if not In practice, with Loos's dictum
that:

Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monu-
ment. Everything else, everything which serves a purpose, should be excluded
from the realms of art."'

James Dunnett has recently argued that:

The Radiant City . . . was to be a setting for a particular ideal of intellectual life, the
model of which was, above all, that of Cubism — which for Le Corbusier was
essentially a meditative art .... In describing the house as a "machine for living
In" Le Corbusier was classifying it according to a principle of differentiation
which was central to his thought and to his sense of form .... The division
opposedtheessentlally"servant "functionsof lifeandthe "free'functions .... [It]
was extended to the field of artefacts by recognizing two distinct categories: the
"free" artefact, i.e. the work of art, and the "servant" artefact, i.e. the Implement
or tool (ouf/7). Though the former needed no ulterior justification, the latter was
justified only by its service to the processes of life, and hence to the enjoyment,
ultimately, of the former .... The role of a "machine for living in" is outlllage —
that of servant."^

In classifying the house as a machine or tool Le Corbusier was regard-
ing it not as a work of art — a proper object of meditation In itself — but
rather as the self-effacing container of that proper object, namely the
Cubist painting. Its role was to be "a vessel of silence and lofty solitude"
in which the work of art could be meditated upon."^
Of course iVlies's houses, too, could enhance the experience of a work of
art, despite Justus Bier's objection that one could not hang pictures in
the main space of the Tugendhat House. But their intention went be-
yond that: to the enhancement of the experience of life itself. Replying in
Die Form to Bier's criticisms, Crete Tugendhat observed:

I have . . . never felt the spaces to be precious, but rather as austere and grand —
not in a way that oppresses, however, so much as one that liberates . . . .Just as in
this space one sees each flower as never before, and every work of art (for
instance the sculpture that stands before the onyx wall) speaks more strongly, so
too the human occupant stands out, for himself and others, more distinctly from
his environment."

For Mies, as for Le Corbusier, the house was a machine a medlter. But
where for Le Corbusier It was merely a machine to meditate In. for Mies
It was a machine to meditate with. An educator could have no higher
aim.

25

MACHINES A MEDITER

NOTES

1 Werner Blaser. Mies van aer Rohe. Furniture ana Interiors. 1980, p. 10.

2 Peter Carter, Architectural Design. March 1961. p. 97.

3 Franz Schuize, Mies van aer Rohe: A Critical Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1985, p 173.

4 Schuize. p. 313

5 St. Thomas Aquinas, Ouaestlones aisputatae ae verltate. 1256-59. part I qu. 86. art. 2,
translation author.

6 St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. 1267. part Iqu, 86, art. 1, 1 267. translation 1st
2 lines. Anthony Kenny. Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1 980; 2nd two lines,
Fathers of the Dominican Province, translators, Aquinas, Summa. London & Chicago:
Burns Oates & Washbourne. 1922.

7 Aquinas, De verltate. qu. I art. 3.

8 Aquinas, De verltate. qu. I art. 2.

9 Aquinas. De verltate. qu. XX art. 4,

10 Jacques Maritain. /4rf and Scfto/asf/c/sm, 1923.

11 Christian Norberg-Schuiz, "Bin Gesprach mit Mies van der Rohe," Baukunst una
Werkform, Nov, 1958.

12 Lewis Mumford.'TheCase Against Modern Architecture," /Arch/fecfura/Recoro', 1962.

13 Charles Jencks, tvioaern Movements In Architecture, 1973, pp. 95-108.

14 E. Rogers. "Problematica di Mies van der Rohe," Casat3ella, 214, Feb. -Mar. 1957, p. 6.

15 Norberg-Schuiz

16 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, "Ich mache niemals ein Slid, ' Bauwelt. Aug, 1962.

17 Sandra Honey, "The Office of Mies van der Rohe in America," UIA International Ar-
chitect, issue 3, 1984, p. 44.

18 Conversation with Neumeyer.

19 Schuize. p. 338. note 43.

20 Schuize, p. 103.

21 Schuize. p. 101.

22 Mies. "Two Glass Skyscrapers." Fruhlicht. Summer 1922.

23 Mies, G, number 2. 1923.

24 Mies. "Conversations about the Future of Architecture," Reynolds Metals Company
sound recording, 1958.

25 Erwin Panofsky. Gothic Architecture ana Scholasticism. Latrobe. Pennsylvania: The
Archabbey Press. 1951. pp. 43-50.

26 Panofsky, p. 60.

27 Bruno Zevi. Poetica aell architettura neoplastica. 2nd edition, 1974, p. 187.

28 1st manifesto of De StijI. De StijI. II. 1, 1918, p. 2.

29 Theo van Doesburg, "Denken-aanschouwen-beelden," De StijI. II. 2, 1918, p. 23.

30 Piet Mondrian, "De nieuwe beelding in de schilderkunst 3." De StijI. I. 4. 1918, p. 29.

31 Theo van Doesburg, "Tot een beeldendearchitectuur, "DeSf/y/, VI. 6/7, 1924, pp, 78-83.

32 van Doesburg. "Tot een beeldende architectuur."

33 Mies. Six Stuaents Talk with Mies. North Carolina State College. Spring 1952,

34 Sandra Honey, "Who and What Inspired Mies van der Rohe in Germany," Architectural
Design. 3/4, 1979, pi 02.

35 Aquinas. Summa Theologica. part I, qu. 85. art. 1.

36 Panofsky, pp. 58-59,

37 Justus Bier, "Kann man im Haus Tugendhat wohnen?" Die Form. Oct. 1931, pp. 392-
393.

38 Mumford. "The Case Against Modern Architecture."

39 Robert Venturi. Complexity ana Contraaiction In Architecture. 1966. pp. 24-25.

40 Schuize. p. 256-

41 Adolf Loos. /^rcft/fecfure, 1910.

42 James Dunnett, "The Architecture of Silence," The Architectural Review. Oct 1985, pp.
69-75.

43 Le Corbusier, La vllle raaieuse. 1935.

44 Crete Tugendhat. "Die Bewohnerdes HausesTugendhatsaussern sich," D/e Form, Nov.
1931. pp. 437-38.

26

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C A T O R
Fritz Neumeyer

"Formula of my Happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal."

— Friedrich Nietzsche

"My father was a stone mason, so it was natural that I would either
continue his work or turn to building. I had no conventional architec-
tural education. I worked under a few good architects; I read a few good
books — and that's about it."'

With this, the essence of a "biography," Mies van der Rohe marked
those specific moments which defined his professional path from mate-
rial to function to idea. What Mies may have learned from those specific
forms of construction known since childhood can be gleaned from
Adolph Loos. Also a stone mason's son Loos wrote in his famous essay
"Architektur" of 1909, "only a very small portion of architecture is art:
the tombstone and the monument. Everything else which serves a
function is to be excluded from the realm of art. Only when the colossal
misunderstanding that art is something adapted to a function is over-
come will we have the architecture of our time."^
Mies came in contact early with this small yet extremely important
aspect of architecture, belonging as it does to the resources of a stone
mason. Tombstones and monuments embodied an absolute ideal as
well as a formal step beyond architecture. This served not only to
acquaint him with the practical side of construction but also to sensitize
him to the quality of material and uniform character of what was built.
The metaphysical was its essence of reality, symbolic nature its actual
being, for its function was to transcend visible physical reality by refer-
ring to the numinous world of the invisible.

During these student years in Aachen another encounter occurred,
which Mies claimed to be of lasting significance. Cleaning out the
drawer of a drafting table in the office of Aachen architect Albert
Schneider, where Mies worked briefly, he found an \ssueoi Die Zukunft
(The Future), published by Maximilian Harden. Reading it with great
interest, Mies later admitted^ that the content of this journal far surpas-
sed his understanding, yet awakened his curiosity and concern. From
then on Mies considered questions of philosophy and culture: he read
intensively and began to think for himself.''

This chance encounter with the Berlin weekly Die Zul<unft. which he
now read regularly, brought Mies intocontact with a hitherto unfamiliar
world. A megaphoneof anti-Wilhelminian rebellion, known as the most
read, most admired and most hated political weekly in Germany, pres-
ented to its turn of the century readers such well known writers as the
art critics Karl Scheffler, Julius Meier-Graefe and Alfred Lichtwark, the
Danish literature scholar George Brandes and the Berlin historian Kurt
Breysig. Author-artists such as Henry van de Velde and August Endell,
writersof fiction such as Richard Dehmel, Stefan Zweig.Heinrich Mann
or August Strindberg, the economic historian Werner Sombart and the
philosophers Alois Riehl and Georg Simmel rounded out the list of
contributors.

Acquaintance with this journal had weighty potential significance.
Issue no. 52, September 27, 1902, seems almost a prophecy of Mies's
future as it contained an essay by Alois Riehl "From Heraclitus to
Spinoza," and a report by Meier-Graef on the Art Exposition of Turin
where the vestibule designed by Peter Behrens caused a sensation.

27

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C A T O R

Mies would not meet Alois Riehl and Peter Behrens until five years later
in Berlin, where they profoundly influenced his intellectual and artistic
development. The religiously Piased education Mies received at The
Cathedral School in Aachen planted a special disposition for the abso-
lute and metaphysical and a tendency towards a comparable world
view. This tendency took firm root following his chance encounter with
philosophy in Die Zukunft. In 1927 Mies wrote in his notebook, "Only
through philosophical understanding is the correct order of our duties
revealed and thereby the value and dignity of our existence."^
For Mies the key to reality lay hidden in philosophical understanding.
Philosophy, alone among the paths to enlightenment, had the advan-
tage of depth and simplicity, because its method separated the primary
from the secondary, the eternal from the temporal. Mies sought in his
study of philosophy an intellectual equivalent to his lack of academic
training as an architect. "Reduction" to the essence offered "the only
way," to genuine understanding and the possibility "to create important
architecture."^

This Intellectual premise had a personal counterpart, for Mies's first
step into architectural independence grew from his interest in philos-
ophy. He built his first house in 1907, his twenty-first year, for a
philosopher. At the time, Mies worked for Bruno Paul. In addition to his
work, Mies attended the courses Bruno Paul taught at the Berlin
Museum for Applied Arts. Here Mies had his first important artistic
experiences and learned from the elegance of Paul's design.
Building the house for Alois Riehl, Professor of Philosophy at The
Friedrich Wilhelm University In Berlin, introduced Mies in 1907 into the
world he had first encountered in reading D/eZu/^unft. Hisflrst patron, a
close friend until his death in 1924 and for whom Mies designed his
tombstone, provided a decisive entrance into that strata of society,
primarily intellectuals, artists, businessmen, industrialists and finan-
ciers, from which Mies later received commissions. In this cosmopoli-
tan world of Berlin, Mies met at the Riehl house Walther Rathenau, the
classical philologist Werner Jaeger, the art historian Heinrich Wolfflin
(then engaged to Ada Bruhn, she married Mies in 191 3), the philosopher
Eduard Spranger and probably also the philosopher of religion,
Romano Guardini, who influenced Mies's thinking of the late twenties.
The Riehl House shows the first influences of classicism Mies absorbed
from the Berlin building tradition. Thoroughly modern in its contempo-
rary interpretation of sober Biedermeier publicized in 1907 by Paul

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe seated in front
of the Riehl House. 1912, Courtesy of
Franz Schulze.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Riehl House.
Neubabelsberg. 1907, Garden view.
Courtesy of Moderns Bauformen. 1910.

Mebes in his influential Bauen um 1800 (Building Around 1800), even
more important than stylistic surface considerations, Mies mastered
thegrammar of the composition. By overlapping volumes of geometric
form, also expressed in the tense plan, Mies's signature becomes clear.

Bruno Paul, Clubhouse of the Berlin Lawn
and Tennis Club, c,1908. Courtesy of Fritz
Neumeyer,

28

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C AT O R

Peter Behrens, Crematorium in Hagen.
1906-07. Courtesy of Fritz Hoeber, Peter
Behrens. Munich, 1913. p. 64.

Behind the Bieder or honest appearance of the entry shel I Mies selected
for this house, he treated the garden facade as a pavilion set asymmetri-
cally on a monumental base — a theme he followed to the end of his life.
If, in the mind's eye, one removed from this house everything but the
pilasters of the walls and the loggia, the structure seems to suggest the
Farnsworth House or the National Gallery, Berlin. The pavilion is prob-
ably the first architectural exercise Mies addressed in Berlin. Not only

Peter Behrens. Atelier In Potsdam,
Neubabelsberg. Mies is third from right.
Courtesy of A. E.G. Archive.

Peter Behrens, A, E.G. Turbine Hall,
Berlin-Moabit. 1909. Courtesy of A. E.G.
Archive.

Schlnkel's buildings in nearby Potsdam, but also Pauls Club House of
the Berlin Lawn and Tennis Club in Zehlendorf, show concepts on
which the Riehl House draws. Paul entrusted Mies with the planning of
the Zehlendorf building, and it thus numbers among his first works.
While working for Bruno Paul, Mies became familiar with the works of
Peter Behrens especially his 1906 crematorium in Hagen, which also
may have influenced the plan of the Riehl House. Paul Thiersch, Mies's
supervisor in Paul'soffice, worked on the crematorium in 1906 while in
Behrens's office in Diisseldorf. Recognizing his talent Thiersch told
Mies that "you belong with Behrens.'"'

The Berlin office of Peter Behrens, who in 1907 became artistic adviser
to the international electrical conglomerate A. E.G., offered a spectrum
of work unmatched by any other architectural office in Europe of the
time. His concept of a synthesis of art and life in a grand uniform style
expressed itself In a distinct Industrial classicism where opposing
worlds of Industrial technology and ceremonial art were reconciled.
The renowned Turbine Hall of 1909 symbolized a new aesthetic power,
which promised to overcome the stylistic pluralism of the 19th century.
Behrens's "Zarathustra Style," as a contemporary art critic termed It,
announced the "Kunstwollen" (will to art) which Rlegl's art theory had
first proclaimed. In It one heard the echo of the "will to a great style" as
postulated by the philosopher Friedrlch Nietzsche In his thesis on the
dominance of art over life. Only In art could man regain his lost whole-
ness. An attempt to organize a new way of life was based on this
concept of the primacy of the aesthetic. From the design of the com-
pany letterhead, to its product line, to Its factory buildings and housing
estates Peter Behrens exercised his aesthetic will. He embodied the
new artist who created the modern. Industrial Gesamtkunstwerk (total
work of art), expressed In Nietzsche's vision of culture as a "unity of
artistic style In all manifestations of life. "

Peter Behrens's success In uniting art and philosophy In a stylistic
synthesis balanced the Influence of Riehl. There was a certain "logical"
connection between the Riehl House and Peter Behrens, for Mies's first
patron played a significant role In those art circles which popularized
Nietzsche as the philosopher of culture after 1900. In 1897, with Fr/ed-
rlch Nietzsche als Kunstler und Denker (Friedrlch Nietzsche as Artist
and Thinker) Riehl was first to publish a book on Nietzsche In Germany,
thereby Initiating the Nietzsche cult and furthering his image at the turn
of the century. In Einfuhrung in die Philosophie der Gegenwart {\ntro-

29

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C AT O R

duction to Contemporary Philosophy) of 1903 (Mies owned a 1908
edition) Alois Riehl again outlined Nietzsche's philosophical aesthetic,
honoring him as the philosopher whose world view was the "mirror of
the modern soul."

Through RIehl and Behrens Mies intimately confronted the intellectual
problems of the times, keenly aware of the existential dilemma of
modern man. freed from the old bonds of belief only to find his inner self
in a new mental order. By his own assessment Mies began his "con-
scious professional career" around 1910. This consciousness awak-
ened at a time of transition marked by many divergent theories and
beginnings which appeared "confused" to Mies. His encounter with the
work of Frank Lloyd Wright (first introduced to Berlin in 1910), and
even more important the thoughts of the Dutch architect Hendrikus
Petrus Berlage (whom Mies met in 1912 while engaged on the house
project for the art collector Helene Kroner of The Hague), showed him
the full spectrum of modern concepts: form, space and construction.
Behrens, Wright and Berlage Interpreted these three elements of
architecture very differently. Beriage's concept of the objective idea,
where simple and honest construction served as the fundamental basis
of all building, offered Mies, still in search of absolute values, the found-
ation for his "Elementarismus," which after 1919 Mies placed under the
primacy of construction. With the collapse of the old order in the First
World War, the renewal of Baukunst ^ began at a point in opposition to
all accepted concepts and ideologies. Because they alone were objec-
tive, material and construction must serve as the foundation on which a
new architecture would rise. Mies's Fundamentalism effectively dis-
tanced itself from all other theories and formal concepts. The house
cleaning of Baukunst began by rejecting all aesthetic and symbolic
aspects: encompassing a total resistance to art. As Mies proclaimed
with appropriate pathos in his first manifesto, dated 1923, "we reject all
aesthetic speculation, all doctrine, all formalism."'
Mies drew a line between himself and all prior art. Whether classicism,
expressionism, constructivism or neoplasticism, Mies uncompromis-
ingly branded any idea which alluded to "form" or approached "style"
as "formalistic." Form no longer had a right to exist. Now quite superf-
luous, form was placed ad acta and unequivocally stricken from the
catalog of architectural categories. As Mies said, "We know no form,
only building problems. Form is not the aim but the result of our work.
Form as such does not exist."'"

With these words Mies subordinated artistic freedom to the ascetic
virtues of impartiality and objectivity.

Like a litmus paper of conscience, at every opportunity Mies held up his
categorical imperative of form. What Mies hoped for he only alluded to
in his closing words: "It is our task to free the act of building from
aesthetic speculators and to restore building to that which it should be
alone, namely building."

Or, as he added in an informative postscript to his manuscript of the text,
"To return building to that which it has always been.""
The future and the eternal, as these interchangeable lines imply, would
rise together In the view Mies championed. A timeless, absolute law of
creation would totally subjugate the new builder. It reads "Baukunst is
the will of an epoch translated into space; living, changing, new. Not
yesterday, not tomorrow, only today can be given form. Only this kind of
building is creative. Create form out of the nature of the tasks with the
methods of our times. This is our task."'^

Mies hoped to conquer reality and honesty with his unconditional sur-
render to the myth of building and the will of the epoch. Here lay the
path out of the conflict bogged down with prewar notions. With a set of
projects originating between 1921 and 1924 Mies sliced through, in a
single stroke, the knot of the dilemma that held Baukunst. The daring
plans for glass skyscrapers, an office building and country houses of
brick and concrete proudly departed from the time honored image of
architecture, completing a radical break with historical form. Mies's
creations stand alone in time, the consequence of his careful thought,
fundamental conception and formal completion. Exemplary in their
definition and fantastic in poetic precision, at once realistic and Utopian,
fully mature and complete they stand at the beginning of a new de-
velopment.

These prototypes of modern architecture catapulted Mies into the first
rank of the avant garde. Later as editor of G [tor Elementare Gestaltung ,
the magazine published by Hans Richter and El Lissitzky), and as a
leading member of the Novembergruppe Mies became one of the most
Important protagonists of the avant garde. His membership in the
Deutscher Werkbund (vice president from 1926 to 1932), the Bund
Deutscher Architekten (Union of German Architects), and theZertner-
ring (founded 1925) indicates his concern extended beyond simply a
new "art."
Mies chose to walk toward the new architecture on the path of self

30

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C A T O R

education In objective order. Construction and material teach the mod-
ern Baukunstler (building artist) whose task it is to reveal their beauty.
Mies saw the secret of creating form hidden in the essence of the task,
not in some historical analysis or imitation. The discipline of the new
master builder began with orderly subordination to the new order of
being represented by material and function. He focussed his vision on
the future without sentimentality, seeing himself as the agent of the will
of the epoch.

In the name of construction, material and the will of the epoch this
program for a new beginning blended the Hegelian model of an objec-
tive Idea with Schopenhauer's metaphysical will. From Nietzsche it
inherited its hatred of academic education and of man caught In the web
of historicism. Nietzsche's motto: "But the first must educate them-
selves," expressed Mies's thoughts in 1925 when he first announced his
Ideas on architectural education. In responding to the Bund Deutscher
Architekten topic Erziehung des baukunstlerischen Nachwuchses
(Education of the new generation of builders), Mies more or less out-
lined his own development when he wrote: "Everyone who has the
necessary fiber should be allowed to build, regardless of origin or
education. The question of educating the new generation of builders is
f undamenta I ly a question of the essence of BauKunst. Were this concern
clearly answerable there would be no problems in education. Where
the goal is fixed, the way is given. But we stand amid a transition of the
hitherto fixed views. Tomorrow Baukunst will be thought of differently
than today. Therefore, the young Baukunstler should not be fettered,
but freed of conventions and educated in freedom of thinking and
judgment. Everything else can be left to the intellectual boutsof ourday.
How and where that is taught is of no concern."'^
Mies organized his architectural thoughts around the question of es-
sence—the fundamental question to philosophy. The development of
Mies's concepts is clearly legible every time he addressed the question.
In his manifestoes on "Baukunst and the Will of the Epoch" in the early
twenties or "Industrial Building" in 1924, Mies advocated an anonym-
ous, artless building based on objectivity. Its essence manifested itself
directly through materials and practical conditions, not through the
invention of form based on subject. "Important and characteristic
forms " emerge, Mies explained in 1924 (in a lecture using the example
of Bruno Taut's plan for enlarging the city of Magdeburg), paradoxi-
cally, "just because no form was aspired to."^*'

The unexample became the example, and the new Baukunst stepped
into an existence aptly noted by J. J. P. Oud when he wrote, "We do our
work conscientiously, follow it through to the smallest detail, subordi-
nate ourselves totally to the task, don't think of art, and, see there - one
day the work is completed and shows itself to be — art. "'^
The ideas which dominated Mies's thoughts on building in 1924 ap-
peared in a totally different light in 1927. In 1924, in "Baukunst andihe
Will of the Epoch," Mies defined the house as an effort to "organize
living . . . simply from its function." Three years later he adds critical
questions to his earlier assertions. In his notebook of 1 927/28 he states:
"The house is a commodity. May one ask for what? May one ask what
the reference is? Evidently only for bodily existence. So, that all goes
smoothly. And yet man has needs of the soul which cannot be satisfied
with this .... "'^

Early in the twenties Mies subordinated himself to the "hierarchy of
things," yet by the end of the decade he added a concern for the
"hierarchy of levels of knowledge.""

This revaluation of purpose and organization dictated a new view, yet
Mies sought to escape its implications through a new definition: "Order
is more than organization. Organization is setting aims. Order gives
sense."'*

This change in position, from the materialistic-positivistlc "what" to the
idealistic "how," occurred in 1925/26. The contradictions between his
proclaimed theory and architectural projects had already hinted at the
new orientation. Mies prescribed the radical therapy for Baukunst of
self restraint in favor of objectivism which should have brought forth
schematic sketches, instead Mies prepared a potion of large format
perspectives which served as an aesthetic overdose. For all his awe of
engineering and construction his most extraordinary aspirations are
unmistakably artistic.

Closer observation of these projects shows many symbolic relics In the
form of allusions to classicism. For example, in his Concrete Office
Building Mies divided the end bays into three creating a structure which
appears "formless" from the outside, but presents a classical A-B-A
rhythm inside. Visible traces of the academic tradition also appear in
the entrance done in the manner of an enclosed portal niche with pier
support and expansive stairs, appearing to follow a classical solution
and reminding the initiated of Schinkel's Berlin Altes Museum. Also,
hardly seen at first glance, the floors gradually project out on each

31

MIES AS SELF-EDUCATOR

higher level through the progressive enlarging of the corner windows
on each story. Already in 1919 J. J. P. Oud referred to the sculptural
possibility concrete construction allowed In a building not only In the
traditional stepping "back from bottom to top," but also the reverse, "to
project out from bottom to top."'^

This solution showed the functional value of the classicism Mies learned
from Behrens. This hidden classicism permitted Mies the artist to do
what his dogmatic theory of "building" forbade. Thus the plastic qual-
ities of concrete, which fascinated the artist, could be honestly ex-
pressed as an aesthetic device without jeopardizing the engineering
characteristic of its programmatic logic or its objectiveness.
Reducing the problem of a building to essentials did not lead to aesthetic
solutions as Mies had argued. The "schematic" which existed already in
the task "and therefore found expression in its character"^" demanded
suppression of the aesthetic. What the manifestoes did not mention the
depicted architecture proclaimed. Mies sought to reconcile the objec-
tive world of facts and reality with his world of observed understand-
ing. Mies the artist permitted the eyes certain rights even in his first
explanation of his glass skyscrapers. Their independent shape did not
result from needs of construction but depended solely on aesthetic
considerations. Issues of appearance determined the surface of the skin
and bone structures. He countered "the dangers of appearing dead"
with the play of reflections. ^'

These architectural plans displayed qualities which Mies's theories
neither allowed nor explained. Not until 1924 to 1926 did explanations
appear which simultaneously permitted relaxation of this position and
its reassessment after being stretched in two directions. In 1927 setting
parameters became the dominant theme of Mies's position. The de-
mands he now placed on himself and histime are marked by "lifting the
tasks out of a one-sided and doctrinaire atmosphere"" and a "justice to
both parts."" that is, the objective and the subjective.
Mies set the tone for his new view in the foreword for the publication of
the 1927 Weissenhofsiedlung beginning, "It is not totally meaningless
today to point out that the problem of the new house is primarily a
Baukunstlerisches artistic architectural problem, in spite of its techni-
cal and economic aspects. It is a complex problem and can be solved
only through creative energy, not through calculation and organi-
zational means. "^^
In 1924 Mies argued vehemently for a fundamental reorganization of

architecture through industrialization which would answer social, eco-
nomic and artistic questions,^^ now, in 1927, he criticized the "clamor
for 'rationalization and standardization'" which accompanied the "call
for economically efficient housing," in his Weissenhof position state-
ment.^* Rationalization and standardization, the backbone of indus-
trialized architecture, now appeared to be only "slogans," which did not

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe. Concrete
Office Building Project. 1922. Courtesy of
Museum of Modern Art.

Karl Frledrich Schlnkel, Altes Museum,
Berlin. 1823-30. Entrance. Courtesy of
Fritz Neumeyer.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,
Weissenhofsiedlung, Stuttgart, 1927.
Courtesy of Fritz Neumeyer.

32

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C A T O R

aim at the crux, butonly aspects, of the problem. With these words iviies
abandoned his position of 1924 supporting the industrialization of
architecture.

The change in Mies's position between 1924 and 1927 is marked by his
moving from materialism toward idealism. This change is reflected in
his statement of 1924 when Mies saw the "central problem of architec-
ture today" as one of "a question of materials" and 1927 when he
considered it "basically an intellectual problem."" For Mies the "cre-
ative energies" of the intellect won out over calculating and organi-
zational means.

At the 1930 convention of the Deutscher Werkbund in Vienna, Mies
concluded his speech by reaffirming his new position and by denying
mechanistic and functionalistic doctrine, a doctrine he would later
equate with modern architecture. He said.

The new era is a fact: It exists. Irrespective of our 'yes' or 'no.' It is pure fact ....

One thing will be decisive: how we will assert ourselves In the face of facts. Here

the problems of the spirit begin. Not the 'what' but alone the 'how' Is decisive.

That we produce goods and with what means we fabricate Is of no Intellectual

consequence.

Whether we build high or low, with steel or glass, says nothing about the value of

these structures.

Whether we strive for centralization or decentralization In our cities Is a practical

question, not one of value.

Yet It is the question of value which Is decisive.

We must set new values, note ultimate function, to establish new measures.

Sense and justice of any era, also the new one, lies singularly and alone In the

supposition that the spirit Is given the right to exist. ^'

These sentences speak in terms of closeness and distance, calling and
warning, yes and no. Perceived as one of the outstanding figures of
modern architecture because of the Barcelona Pavilion and Tugendhat
House, Mies accepted the objecti veness of the epoch as a necessary fact
— which no doubt held its own possibilities — but denied it as a goal and
theme of Baukunst. In opening his campaign on two fronts, Mies coun-
tered any type of one sidedness, allowing neither the objective power of
technology, nor the individual act of free interpretation by an artist-
individual to be given preference.

For Mies the architect's decisive consideration was not principally
practical but philosophical. One built not so much to provide functional
living space, but to define a specific quality of life. The concept of quality
was not a retreat into elitism, but a stride toward an optimal solution

achieving results on a broad scale. Mies founded this conviction on his
view of the social function of art and Baukunst. When called to the
Bauhaus in 1930 Mies incorporated this notion into his principles of
teaching thereby giving the Bauhaus a new structure. In his 1928 lec-
ture Die Voraussetzungen baukunstlerlschen Schaffens (The Pre-
requisites for Creating Artistic Construction), Mies proposed that
teaching offered the possibility "of unfolding consciously artistic and
spiritual values in the hard and clear atmosphere of technology.""
In striving toward this intellectual goal Mies saw himself allied with the
philosopher of religion Romano Guardini and the architect Rudolf
Schwarz, both of whom he knew. As late as 1950 Mies based his
philosophy of Baukunst on their concepts of baukunstlerlsctier Er-
ziehung (learning artistic construction), concepts Mies had formulated
in 1938. With the transformation of two decades of self discovery into
an uncomplicated, unified mental construct, Mies said goodbye to
Europe. His acceptance speech for the position of Director of the
School of Architecture at the Armour Institute of Technology in 1938,
composed in Germany before his departure, marks the end of his
European career. Nowhere else does Mies express his philosophy of
Baukunst with such logic, clarity, perception and conviction. While all
around him architectural culture was borne to the grave by the rhythm
of marching feet, Mies created in a few pages a concept of an ideal order
in which "the world of our creation should begin to flower anew."^°
The Miesian order of Baukunst. following the method of architectural
education Mies had learned through the philosophical writings of
Romano Guardini, Georg Simmel, Max Scheler, Eduard Spranger and
Henri Bergson derived from a philosophy of opposites and its effect on
culture. From this philosophy Mies unfolded hisown order of opposites
which leads to a higher unity. For Mies the primary differentiation lay
between man's "vital existence" and value, founded in man's "spiritual
designation" and made possible by his "spiritual being." Mies's point of
departure was set: "Our definition of purpose defines the character of
our civilization, our definition of value the light of our culture." There-
fore "genuine learning" aimed "not only at purpose but also at value. "^'
From this totality of opposites the premise of Baukunst Is derived: "As
much as purpose and value are essentially opposites and from different
levels, they are united. What else should our value system make refer-
ence to if not value. Both realms together predicate human existence . . .
If these notions are true for all human endeavor, even for the slightest

33

MIES AS SELF-EDUCATOR

hint of value, how much more binding must they be in the realm of
Baukunst. The essence of Baukunst is rooted totally in the purposeful.
But it reaches across all levels of value, to the realm of spiritual being,
into the realm of reason, the sphere of pure art. Every method of
architectural education must account for this fact . . . . "
For Mies building followed a route of realization, which made "clear"
step by step "... that which is possible, necessary and sensible," in
order to get "from the irresponsibility of opinion to the responsibility of
insight," and thereby achieve "the clear conformity of spiritual order."
Again the stations the architect passed in order to find himself and his
way to Baukunst are autobiographical: "The disciplined path from
material through purposes of building" to "the sphere of pure art,"
duplicates the route Mies took from an apprenticeship as a stone mason
through his radical material and functional concerns of the early twen-
ties to the final idealistic creation of 1929.

The scope of the above dimensions becomes clear through comparison
of the following assertions. In 1938 Mies led his listeners, just as in his
1923 lecture Solved Problems into the "healthy world of primitive
building." In 1923 Mies asked his audience, "Have you ever seen any-
thing more complete in fulfilling its function and in its use of material?"
while showing them a leaf hut and other primitive skin and bone struc-
tures created out of walrus ribs and seal hides. ^- But in 1938, these
marvels had broader implications, for aesthetic interest added to these
basic creations where "every ax bite still had meaning and where a
chisel mark was a genuine exclamation." Mies continued, "What feeling
for material and what power of expression speaks in these buildings?
What warmth they radiate, and how beautiful they are. They echo like
old songs. In stone structures we find the same. Which natural urge
does it express? . . . Where do we find such a wealth in structure. Where
else but here do we find a healthier strength and natural beauty. With
what self assured clarity does the beamed ceiling rest on this old
masonry and with what feeling was a door cut out of these walls."
The "unknown master" who created these elemental images of ex-
istence had a clear and natural understanding of materials, imbuing
them with symbolic meaning. The building of any epoch could be an
example. Here opposing realms of life, vital existence and spiritual
being, created an almost self-evident and therefore generally accept-
able unity. A similar bridge between subject and object, carrying the
concept of culture as a single unit, exists for contemporary man when

exercising authority over modern materials and techniques. But he had
not yet dared to build. The existence of these means in themselves does
not presuppose a value. Therefore, as Mies points out, there need exist
no modern feelings of superiority over primitive building: "We promise
ourselves nothing from the materials, but only their proper handling.
Even the new materials do not assure us superiority. Each material is
only worth that which we make out of it."^^

Only an understanding of those possibilities hidden in the essence of a
material leads to a fundamental understanding of real form. The ques-
tions must be asked: "We want to know what it can be, what it must be,
and what it may not be. We want to know its essence."
Aside from the nature of materials and the nature of function, Baukunst
demands to know "the spiritual place in which we are," and to discern
the "sustaining and driving forces." Only after this Is known can a critic
of the epoch be possible: "We will attempt to pose real questions.
Questions of value and of the purpose of technology. We want to show
that it [technology] lends us not only might and grandeur but also
contains risks. That technology too, is subject to good and evil. And that
man must make the right decision."

Pygmy Village, c.1905. Courtesy of James
J. Harrison. Life Among the Pygmies,
1905.

34

MIES AS S E L F - E D U C A T O R

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe standing
before tlie steei skeleton of the
Farnsworth House, Piano, c.1950.
Courtesy of Fritz Neumeyer.

Yet every decision — and here Mies pursues the logical construction of
his spiritual home without limit — leads to a specific order: "Therefore
we want to illuminate the possible orders and clarify their principles."
The fundamental division into materialistic and idealistic order with
which Mies finally concludes brings his philosophical experiences and
architectural possibilities to their lowest common denominator. Mies
says, "the mechanical principle of order," with which the buildings of
1923 were branded through an "overemphasis of material and func-
tional tendencies," were rejected because they did not satisfy "our
sense of the servile function of material and our interest in integrity and
value." The "idealistic principle of order" to which his ideal buildings of
1929/31 related also could not be affirmed, because in its "overem-
phasis of the ideal and formal" it neither satisfied interest in "truth and
simplicity" nor "practical reason."

Mies made no decision for his "organic principle of order," aimed at a
"sense and purpose of measure of the parts." This principle, not to be
interpreted in the sense of a biological parallel, derived its intellectual
and conceptual counterpart from Romano Guardini's Philosophle des
Lebendlg-Konkreten . which recalled Plato anc/ Nietzsche. ForGuardini
organic designated that sphere of life in which the contradictions of
matter and spirit, purpose and value, technique and art might possibly
refer to a mutually inclusive existence. In it lay hidden the creative
principle which could bring man and things together, which through
the "proportions between things"" brought forth beauty.
Mies concluded his 1938 address with St. Augustine. Already in 1928
Mies saw in him a brilliant founder of order who sought to introduce a
spiritual measure into life by aiming at "one goal," namely that of
"creating order in the desperate confusion of our time," to transform
chaos to cosmos. Mies concluded, "But we want an order which allows
each thing its place. And we want to give each thing its due according to
its nature. That we want to do so completely that the world of our
creations begins to blossom from within. More we do not want. More
we cannot do. Through nothing the sense and goal of our work is made
more manifest than the profound words of St. Augustine: 'Beauty is the
splendor of truth"."

This "Summa Theologica" of Miesian Baukunst was binding. As the
1965 publication. Thoughts on the education in Baukunst indicated
nothing new could be added. The principle framework of Mies's
Baukunst, as outlined in his 1938 lecture, was set and final.

Only by passing through an objective order could man attain a "self
worth, which is called his culture." Out of this "the object becomes the
subject and the subject becomes the object, ' (after a concept expressed
by Georg Simmel in his essay, "Philosophy of Culture," which Mies
owned), the specific, which defined the cultural process, is created. ^^ In
an analogous context Mies saw technology as "a genuine cultural
movement ... a world unto itself." From the encounter of technology
and Baukunst architecture emerged in the sense of the "culture of
building." Mies said, "It is our sincere hope that they will unite, that some
day one will be the expression of the other. Only then will we have
architecture as the true symbol of the epoch. "^^

The treadmill of history, the eternal return of the metaphysical
bridgehead, which marked Simmel's Nietzsche inspired concept of

«s*^..;.-:v^^^^.3^;:'J2'

35

MIES AS SELF-EDUCATOR

culture, found expression in IVIies, wino said, "In endlessly slow gesta-
tion the grand form Is created whose birthing Is the function of the
epoch . . . Not all that occurs, is carried out In the realm of the visible.
The decisive engagements of the Intellect are decided on invisible
battlefields. The visible is only the last step of an historic fact. Its realiza-
tion. Its true realization. Then it ends. And a new world arises.""
The steel skeleton embodied and symbolized for Mies that objective
order through which the Baukunst of the age steps toward educational
self-recognition and technical order which may then be transformed
Into culture. Mies strove to lay the foundation for such an objective
culture. In which technical and spiritual values merged to form a higher
unity and rise In "self-realization ' (Simmel). His concept of Baukunst
sought to Integrate the new world of construction into the humanistic
cosmos. It is"simultaneously radical and conservative, radical, because
It affirms the scholarly power to carry and drive our age . . . conserva-
tive, because It not only serves a purpose, but also a value, and it is
subject not only to function, but also expression. It is conservative
because it Is founded on the eternal truths of architecture: order, space,
proportion."^*

The "disciplined path" from material through purpose to idea is the
curriculum vitae which Mies followed in his own self-education. It did
not trust In the teachability of Baukunst but in the training of hand, eye
and mind. It is in this sense that Mies's words, "fulfill the law to win
freedom"^^ are meant. [Translated by Rolf Achilles]

NOTES

1 Katherine Kuh, ''Mies van der Rohe: Modern Classicist." Saturday Review. 23 January
1965. p. 61.

2 Adolf Loos. Trotzaem 1900-1930. Innsbruck. 1931, plOI.

3 Franz Schuize, Mies van aer Rohe: A Critical Biography . Chicago; University of Chicago
Press, 1985. pp. 17-18.

4 Doris Schmidt, ■Glaserne Wande fur den BlicK auf die Welt — Zum Tode Mies van der
Rohe,"' Sudaeutsche Zeltung. Nr.198. 19 August 1969. p. 11, quoted from Wolfgang
Frieg. Ludwig Mies van aer Rohe: Das europalsche Werk 1907—1937. Bonn, 1976.
(Diss.), p. 60.

5 On Mies's notebook and his relation to philosophy see my book:/W/es van der Rohe -Das
kunstlose Wort. GedanHen zur Baukunst. Berlin, 1986.

6 Mies in conversation with Peter Carter, Bauen und Wohnen. 16, 1961, p. 230 ff.

7 Rudolf Fahrner, ed.. Paul Thiersch. Leben und Werk. Berlin. 1970, p. 27. Also, in
conversation w/ith Dirk Lohan. Mies said, "When I had completed the house (Riehl),
Thiersch, whom we recently heard from, came. Thiersch had been with Behrens. and
then becameoffice supervisor for Bruno Paul, and he said to methat Behrens had asked
him to tell him when he had some good people and to send these people to him. He told
me. You should really go see him, he's a top man.' That's how I came to Behrens."
Unpublished manuscript, Mies Archive, Museum of Modern Art. [MoMA].

8 [Translator's note: the term Baukunst is not translated in this essay. It is an important
concept for Mies and has been variously translated as the art of building, the art of
construction, and building art.]

9 Mies van der Rohe, 'Arbeitsthesen," G, nr. 1, July 1923, p 3.
10 Mies van der Rohe, "Bauen." G, nr. 2, September 1923, p. 1. ff.

1 1 Noteon the verso of the manuscript "Betonhaus,"" 1 October 1923, Mies Archive, Library
of Congress, [LC].

12 Mies van der Rohe. "Bauen," G, nr. 2, September 1923, p. 1

13 Mies van der Rohe, letter to the BDA-Berlin, 16 June 1925, Mies Archive, MoMA.

14 Mies van der Rohe, Lecture Manuscript, 19 June 1924. Dirk Lohan Archive.

15 J.J. P. Oud,"Wohinfuhrtdas neue Bauen: Kunst und Standard, "O/e Form. 3. 1928, p. 61.

16 Mies's notebook, fol. 22, Mies Archive, MoMA.

17 Mies van der Rohe, Lecture Manuscript on art criticism, 1930, fol. 5, Mies Archive,
MoMA,

18 Mies van der Rohe, Lecture Manuscript, Chicago, undated, Ic. 19601, Mies Archive, LC.

19 J.J. P. Cud, "Uber die zukunftige Baukunst und ihre architektonischen Moglichketen."
Fruhlicht 1, 1922, Heft 4. Reprinted in Bruno Taut, FruAi/Zchf 1920-1922. Berlin, 1963, p.
206. Mies's first essay "Hochhauser." also appeared in this magazine.

20 See note 14.

21 Mies van der Rohe. "Hochhauser."

22 Mies van der Rohe, ["Foreword,""] Bau und Wohnung. Stuttgart: Deutscher Werkbund,
1927, p. 7.

23 Mies van der Rohe, "Zu meinem Block,"" Bau und Wohnung.

24 See note 22.

25 Mies van der Rohe, "■Industrielles Bauen,"" G, Nr. 3. June 1924, p. 8ff.

26 Mies van der Rohe. •Preliminary comments to the first special publication of the
Werkbund-exhibit," Die Wohnung. Stuttgart, 1927, in Die Form. 2. 1927, H. 9. p. 257.

27 ibid.

28 Mies van der Rohe, "Die neu Zeit. " Die Form. 5, 1930, H. 15. p. 406.

29 Mies van der Rohe. 'Die Voraussetzungen baukunstlerischen Schaffens." Lecture, Feb-
ruary, 1928. Dirk Lohan Archive.

30 Mies van der Rohe, [Inaugural Address as Director of Architecture at Armour Institute of
Technology,] presented at the Testimonial Dinner in the Palmer House, Chicago, 18
October 1938.

31 Various Mies quotes with no special context. On the differentiation of value and purpose
Mies marked several passages in Alois Riehl, Zur EInfuhrung in die Phllosophle der
Gegenwart. Leipzig, 1908. especially p. 9. p. 183f. (double markings) and p. 187f.
(double markings along passage on values, beliefs, morals and production). Copy in
Dirk Lohan Archive.

32 See Appendix for complete text of Miess 1923 lecture.

33 Mies marked passages in Eduard Spranger, Lebensformen. Geisteswissenschaftllche
Psychologie una Ethik der Personlichkelt. Halle/Salle. 1922, p. 325f..on the question of
life and technology.

34 Excerpted from an interview with the Bayrischer Rundfunk (Bavarian Radio) on the
occasion of Miess 80th birthday; published in Der Architekt. 15, 1966, H. 10, p. 324,
where Mies discusses Baukunst See also, Mies van der Rohe, "Schon und praktisch
bauen! Schluss mit der kalten Zweckmaszigkeit," Duisburger Generalanzelger. 49. 26
January 1930, p. 2, where Mies discusses beauty. Also, Mies van der Rohe, Radio
Address Manuscript, 17 August 1931, Dirk Lohan Archive, where Mies discusses prop-
ortion.

35 Georg Simmel, "Zur Phllosophle der Kultur, Der Begriff und dieTragodieder Kultur,"" In
Georg Simmel, Philosophlsche Kultur. Gesammeite Essais. Leipzig, 1911, p. 203. Copy
In Dirk Lohan Archive.

36 Mies van der Rohe, "Architecture and Technology, ""/Arfs and /Arcrt/fecfure, 67, 1950, vol.

10. p. 30.

37 Mies van der Rohe, Lecture, Chicago, (c.1950), Mies Archive, LC, fol. 17, 18

38 Mies van der Rohe, quoted by Peter Carter, Bauen und Wohnen. 16, 1961. p, 239.

39 See note 37.

36

MIES VAN DER ROME: ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY
Sandra Honey

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Riehl House,
Berlin-Neubabelsberg. 1907. Courtesy of
Bertel Thorn PrikKer.

True education is concerned not only with practical goals but also with values.
By practical aims we are bound to the specific structure of our epoch. Our
values, on the other hand, are rooted in the spiritual nature of men.

If teaching has any purpose, it is to implant true insight and responsibility.
Education must lead us from irresponsible opinion to true responsibility.
It must lead us from chance and arbitrariness to rational clarity and order.

The long path from material through function to creative work has only a single
goal: to create order out of the desperate confusion of our time.'

When he addressed the Armour Institute of Technology in 1938, Mies
van der Rohe, uprooted from his native Germany at the age of fifty-two,
struggled to convey his principles to an audience which knew little of
his culture, or the struggles of his generation — the architects who, in
two decades, had created European modern architecture,
in this speech Mies presented the core of his teaching, the relation of
architecture to its period and the expression of the period's sustaining
force. Among his generation, Mies sought to Interpret the spirit of the
time in his architecture. He demonstrated how to translate theory Into
an architecture of simplicity and beauty. His genius lies In this intense
clarity of perception.

Mies ended his inaugural speech by saying "Nothing can express the
aim and meaning of our work better than the profound words of St.
Augustine: 'Beauty is the splendor of Truth". "^

On this high moral note he began a long teaching career In Chicago. If
his teaching is to be fully appreciated and his educational principles are
to guide the student towards the goals Mies set for himself, an under-
standing of his methods is essential, for he said, "We must understand

the motives and forces of our time and analyze their structure from
three points of view: the material, the functional and the spiritual."^
Some of the motives and forces inspiring Mies's generation were ex-
pressed In pamphlets and manifestos published by such organizations
as the Deutscher Werkbund and the Bauhaus. Many architects were
obsessed with the birth of the new technological society and the form
this society would generate.

More than any other architect of his generation, Mies penetrated the
discussion and Isolated Its significant aspects and ideas. He defended
the art of architecture and once, In an impromptu speech, he explained.

The role of the critic is to test a work of art from the point of view of significance
and value. To do this, however, the critic must first understand the work of art.
This is not easy. Works of art have a life of their own; they are not accessible to
everyone. If they are to have meaning for us we must approach them on their
own terms."

Mies left his native Aachen in 1905 and moved to Berlin, where within
three months he apprenticed to Bruno Paul, a Bavarian, who headed the
School of the Decorative Arts Museum where Mies registered for two
years.

Mies left Paul on receiving his first architectural commission — the
Riehl house near Potsdam. Professor Riehl sent Mies to Italy for three
months and on his return he designed a simple house in the local
manner. In 1908 Mies joined the office of Peter Behrens who was then
chief designer and architect for A. E.G., the German electrical company.
Behrens, the most Influential architect in Berlin, had been a leading
exponent of the Art Nouveau Movement brought to Germany by Henri

37

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

van de Velde. Hermann Muthesius, a close friend and collaborator of
Behrens, reported on the English Arts and Crafts Movement on his
return to Berlin in 1903. Muthesius Interpreted the planning of the
English country house as functional and declared that scientific Sach-
llchkelt (objectivity) was to guide architecture. He insisted that archi-
tecture and design should merge into a single discipline becoming a
Gesamtkunstwerk where every article of daily use and the structures of
engineers should belong to the field and activity of the architect-
designer.

Although Muthesius was not a founding member of the Werkbund. he
was the first to formulate what later would become part of its program.
Muthesius said the Werkbund should "help form recover its rights," and
be the creator and perpetrator of a German taste industry, aided by state
policy. Mies said of his stay in Behrens's office that, "It then became clear
to me that it was not the task of architecture to invent form. I tried to
understand what that task was. I asked Peter Behrens, but he could not
give me an answer."^

Mies supervised construction of Behrens's embassy building in St.
Petersburg — a monumental edifice modeled on Schinkel's Altes
Museum. While working for Behrens, Mies was commissioned pri-
vately to build the Villa Perls in 191 1. The smooth, symmetrical eleva-
tions of this simple neo-classical villa resemble Behrens's stripped
classical work of the same period.

Mies recalled that, "Under Behrens I learnt the grand form, if you see
what I mean, the monumental."*

Also at this time Mies studied Schinkel, especially his scale, proportion
and rhythm. In 1912 Mies traveled to The Hague with Behrens's scheme
for the Kroller-Muller family house, and he stayed when he gained the
commission himself, but which he never completed. He now studied
Berlage who, Mies said, "was a man of great seriousness who would not
accept anything that was fake and it was he who had said that nothing
should be built that is not clearly constructed."^

Berlage despised the irrelevant, preaching the elementary truths of the
primacy of space, the importance of walls as creators of form, and the
need for systematic proportion. He declared that, "Before all else the
wall must be shown in all its sleek beauty. Its nature as a plane must
remain."

Through his stay in Holland, Mies rediscovered the brick. The Influence
of Schinkel and Berlage remained with Mies throughout his career.

The development of the new rational German architecture was slowed
by four years of war. By 1919 Utopian idealism and exuberant indi-
vidualism in nearly every German city led artists, architects and
sculptors to found revolutionary societies to bring modern art to the
people. Berlin became the most active center of art and culture in
Europe in the early 1920's. It sucked in such new movements as Dutch
De StijI, Russian Constructivism and Suprematism, Swiss Dadaism,
and French Cubism and Purism, and the pre-war German Expressionist
Movement regained momentum. New radical periodicals proliferated;
established magazines became radical, while editorial policies varied,
they all claimed modern art alone could bring culture to the people.
They all demanded state patronage.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Perls House,
Berlin- Zehlendorf. 1911. Courtesy of
Bertel Thorn Prlkker.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Kroner House
Project. The Hague. 1911, Full scale
model. Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

ffi

f^

I I

m:

■Ni

^**>*'-f^^?^ggB

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe. Glass
Skyscraper Project, Friedrichstrasse.
Berlin. 1921. First scheme. Collage.
Courtesy of Edward A. Duckett.

Through Glass Architecture, published in 1914, Paul Scheerbart, the
poet of crystal architecture inspired Bruno Taut's Glass Chain Circle.
Taut's "Architektur-Programm" of 1918 laid down the alms and ideals
later adopted by the organizers of the great German social housing
program, and it also Inspired Gropius's program for the Bauhaus.
For his project in the Friedrichstrasse Competition of January 1922.
Mies proposed an all glass office building on a prismatic plan to fit the
triangular site. Later in 1922 he drew another glass skyscraper, on a
faceted, free-form, curvilinear plan, for an Imaginary site. These proj-
ects were illustrated in Fruhllcht in 1922, to which Mies wrote,

Skyscrapers reveal their bold structural pattern during construction. Only then
does the gigantic steel web seem impressive. When the outer walls are put in
place, the structural system which is the basis of all artistic design, Is hidden by a
chaos of meaningless and trivial forms. When finished, these buildings are
Impressive only because of their size: yet they could surely be more than mere
examples of our technical ability. Instead of trying to solve the new problems
with old forms, we should develop the new forms from the very nature of the
new problems.'

Mies began to understand glass in the rational terms of the new order.
This approach to architecture by Mies and others came to be known as
sachiicti or swecK architecture, and the term Die neue Sactiilctikeit (the
new objectivity or practicality) was used to describe the movement.
During 1923 the ideas of Le Corbusier, the Constructivists and the De
StijI Group began to exert a strong influence in Germany. The De StijI
collaborators defined the form of the new architecture. Van Doesburg's
manifesto, "Towards a Plastic Architecture," published in 1924, proc-
laimed the new architecture was elemental, economic, functional, for-
mal, open, anti-cubic, asymmetrical, non-repetitious, and knew no
basic type. From these proclamations the De StijI architects, drawing
on Berlage and Wright, arrived at a simple formula of plain vertical
walls and flat roofs, free of decorative elements.
Van Doesburg settled in Weimar from 1921 to 1923 to be close to the
Bauhaus, founded in 1919 by Walter Gropius. Here he held a design
course for Bauhaus and other interested students, organized a con-
gress of Constructivists and Dadaists, and lectured extensively. Van
Doesburg encouraged the Bauhaus to change its outlook, although
Laszio Moholy-Nagy, the Hungarian Constructivist, had more effect in
the matter. He took over the Vorkurs from Johannes Itten. Romanti-
cism, mysticism and medievalism lost ground.

In 1 923, after four years of activity the Bauhaus published a curriculum
which most students followed loosely. The Bauhaus slogan changed
from "Art and Handicrafts" to "Art and Technology — A New Unity."
At his atelier in Berlin, Mies was an excellent host. He shared his work
space with Hugo Haring, and they kept up a constant dialogue. Mies
gave insight into his discussions with Haring and others when he wrote
in 1924 that,

Greek temples. Roman basilicas and medieval cathedrals are significant to us as

creations of a whole epoch rather than as works of Individual architects

Such buildings are impersonal by nature. They are pure expressions of their
time. Their true meaning Is that they are symbols of their epoch.
Architecture is the will of the epoch translated into space. Until this simple truth
is clearly recognized, the new architecture will be uncertain and tentative. Until
then it must remain a chaos of undirected forces. The question as to the nature of
architecture is of decisive Importance. It must be understood that all architecture
is bound up with its own time, that it can only be manifested In living tasks and In
the medium of Its epoch, in no age has It been otherwise.
The demand of our time for realism and functlonalism must be met. Only then
will our buildings express the potential greatness of our time ....
Our utilitarian buildings can become worthy of the name of architecture only If
they truly interpret their time by their perfect functional expression.'

Mies joined the Novembergruppe in late 1921, becoming chairman of
the organizing committee for architectural exhibits, a position he held
until 1926.

During 1923 and 1924 some of the architects in the Novembergruppe
gathered in Mies's office to discuss developments. Among them were
Otto Bartning, Walter Curt Behrendt, Ludwlg Hilberselmer, Hans Poel-
zig, Bruno and Max Taut, Haring and Mies, and they became known as
the Zehner Ring (Circle of Ten). Later, the circle expanded to Include
Behrens, Gropius, the Luckhardt brothers, Ernst May, Hans Scharoun
and Martin Wagner. For its duration, it remained a loose, Informal
association, without a constitution or a head.

The G Group also drew membership from the Novembergruppe. in-
cluding six De StijI collaborators, the Constructivist El Lissitsky, Mies,
Hilberselmer and Friedrich Kiesler. Hans Richter and Werner Graeff
organized the publication of Zeltschrift fur Elementare Gestaltung,
known as G, with themselves and Lissitsky as editors. Mies replaced
Lissitsky on the editorial board of G 2, September 1 923, and he financed
the publication of G 3 which appeared in June 1 924 in a new format. The
fourth and final issue of G appeared in March 1926.
G 1 produced slogans and ideas, varied in origin, but with a constant

39

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

theme of elemental creativity brought to the magazine by El Lissitsky. It
included Miess Concrete Office Building Project of 1923 of which Mies
wrote.

The office building is a house of work, of organization, of clarity, of economy.
Broad, light workspace, unbroken, but articulated according to theorganizatlon
of the work. Maximum effect with minimum means.
The materials: concrete, steel, glass.

Reinforced concrete structures are skeletons by nature. No trimmings. No for-
tress. Columns and girders eliminate load-bearing walls. This is skin and bone
construction.'"

In the same issue, speaking for the G Group. Mies declared,

We reject all aesthetic speculation, all doctrine, all formalism.

Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space: living, changing, new.

Not yesterday, not tomorrow, only today can be given form.

Only this kind of building will be creative.

Create form out of the nature of our tasks with the methods of our time.

This is our task.

The Concrete Office Building can now be traced in part to Schinkel's
Altes Museum, and Mies said later that he was "a little inspired by the
Palazzo Pitti, for I wanted to see if we could make something of similar
strength with our means, and for our purposes."''
G 2 concentrated on executed works and projects of group members. It
included a photograph of the model of Mies's Concrete Country House
project of 1923, and his anti-formalist manifesto:

We refuse to recognize problems of form, but only problems of building.

Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result.

Form, by itself, does not exist.

Form as an aim is formalism; and that we reject.

Essentially our task is to free the practice of building from the control of aesthetic

speculators and restore it to what it should exclusively be: building.

All G Group statements took a hard uncompromising position.
G 3 appeared in June 1924 with Mies's 1922 glass skyscraper project on
the cover, and a montaged drawing of his Friedrichstrasse Competition
project illustrated Richter's editorial. In this issue Mies wrote.

Industrialization of the processes of construction is a question of materials. Our
first consideration, therefore, must be to find a new building material. Our
technologists must and will succeed in inventing a material which can be indus-
trially manufactured and processed and which will be weatherproof, sound-
proof and insulating. It must be a light material which not only permits but

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Concrete
Office Building Project. 1922. Drawing.
Courtesy of Museum of Modern Art.

requires industrial production. All the parts will be made in a factory and the
work at the site will consist only of assemblage, requiring extremely few man-
hours. This will greatly reduce building costs. Then the new architecture will
come into its own.'^

Although slow to declare his modern ideas, from 1923 on Mies played a
major role. For reasons not yet clear leadership of the Ring fell to Mies,
and his authority increased as the years passed.

From 191 9 to 1923 Germany experienced great social unrest and politi-
cal turmoil. From 1925 to 1930 building increased considerably
through mass housing developmentsfinanced by various federal, state,

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Concrete
Country House Project. 1924. Model.
Courtesy of Museum of Modern Art.

40

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Municipal
Housing Development.
Afrlkanlschestrasse. Berlin, 1925.
Courtesy of Museum of Modern Art.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.
Welssenhotsledlung. Stuttgart. 1924.
Model of first scheme. Courtesy of Fritz
Neumeyer.

municipal political and commercial agencies. Inspiration for these
housing programs came primarily from Bruno Taut. His concern was
no less than the restructuring of society.

In 1924, architects of the new housing took a different approach: the
new dwelling had to be reorganized and more advanced technology
used to alleviate space problems within cities. The first real progress
was made in Frankfurt, where Ernst May was appointed City Architect
in 1925, and construction began on housing estates built to the most
stringent budgets. At the same time, Martin Wagner was appointed to
the same post in Berlin. The impetus for the new style of housing came
from building societies, particularly from the largest of them, gehag,
which at Wagner's request appointed Taut as chief designer.
Mies's contribution to social housing in Berlin was a relatively small
development on Afrikanische Strasse ( 1926-27), three slab blocks and
an end block with some communal facilities. Among the most distin-
guished of such developments, Mies's buildings were well planned,
relatively spacious, with well proportioned elevations.
Widespread publicity for the new German architecture came in 1927
from an experimental housing project, the Weissenhof Exhibition, or-
ganized by Mies and the Deutscher Werkbund. In 1925 the WerKbund
began to publishD/e Form, a magazine of attractive and lavish format. It
addressed every aspect of architecture and design. In 1927 Mies van
der Rohe made his first contribution to the Werkbund discussion of
form in a letter to the editor,

Dear Dr. Riezler,

I do not oppose form, but only form as an end in Itself. And I do this as the result of

a number of experiences and the insight I have gained from them.

Form as an end inevitably results in formalism. For the efforl is directed only to

the exterior. But only what has life on the inside has a living exterior.'^

Mies's appointment as First Vice President of the Werkbund, responsi-
ble for Its exhibition programs, coincided with the decision to stage the
first major exhibition since Cologne in 1914 at Weissenhof, a suburb of
Stuttgart. As director Mies controlled planning and architecture. His
first scheme for the hilltop site conceived a unified community crowned
by a horizontal block. In the manner of Taut's Die Stadtkrone. When the
city insisted on freestanding units, separated by motor roads, Mies split
the site into irregular plots.

By autumn 1926 Mies had chosen the architects to participate, and
scheduled the exhibition to open in summer 1927. In the interests of

uniformity, he stipulated that all buildings have a flat roof and smooth
white finish. In his foreword to the exhibition catalogue he wrote,

The problem of the modern dwelling Is primarily architectural. In spite of Its
technical and economic aspects. It Is a complex problem of planning and can
therefore be solved only by creative minds, not by calculation or organization.
Therefore, I felt It Imperative, In spite of current talk about rationalization and
standardization, to keep the project at Stuttgart free from being one-sided or
doctrinaire. I have therefore Invited leading representatives of the modern
movement to make their contribution to the problem of the modern dwelling.

The foreign architects were Le Corbusier with Pierre Jeanneret ( Paris),
J.J. P. Oud and Mart Stam (Rotterdam), Josef Frank (Vienna), and Victor
Bourgeois (Brussels). Of the German architects he selected Behrens,
Poelzig, the Taut brothers, Hilberseimer, Gropius from Berlin, Rading
and Scharoun from Bresiau, while Docker and Schneck represented
Stuttgart. Of Berlin architects the only significant omission was Men-
delsohn, for Haring was invited but declined.

The Weissenhof development attempted to explore new technical
methods of construction. The buildings were far too luxurious and
expensive to be prototypes for mass housing, in his block Mies demon-
strated the potential of steel frame construction, with fixed stairwells
and service cores, and flexible internal planning.
Walter Curt Behrendt's Der S/egrfes neuen Baustlls (The Victory of the
New Building Style) portrayed the atmosphere of 1927 in Germany, and
showed that the Weissenhofsiedlung demonstrated how progressive
architecture, whether by Le Corbusier, De StijI or from Berlin, had

41

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

merged into a single aesthetic under the orchestration of Mies van der

Rohe.

The international character of the new architecture was celebrated by

critics and architects. Gropius had published Internationale Archltektur

in 1925; and in 1927 Hilberseimer published Internationale Neue

eau/funsf. followed by three other books on different aspects of the new

style. Opposition also strengthened, with Alexander von Senger's Krisis

der Arctiltektur published in 1928 attacking modern architecture as a

whole.

From 1928 a new more realistic phase of modern architecture emerged

characterized by the Congres Internationale d'Architecture Moderne

(CIAM) and the Dutch group, de 8. The first CIAM meeting ended with

the La Sarraz Declaration that,

The destiny of architecture Is to express the orientation of the age. Works of
architecture can spring only from the present time.

Delegates from European national associations affirm today the need for a new
conception In architecture that satisfies the spiritual. Intellectual and material
demands of present-day life. Conscious of the deep disturbances of the social
structure brought about by machines, they recognize that the transformation of
economic order and of social life Inescapably brings with it a corresponding
transformation of the architectural phenomenon.

Hannes Meyer, who replaced Gropius at the Bauha us in 1928, published
his functionalist theory in the Bauhaus Yearbook entitled "Bauen,"

All things In this world area product of the formula: (function times economy).
All things are, therefore, not works of art.
All life is function and therefore unartlstlc.

In 1929, Bruno Taut echoed Meyer's theory, but added that beauty, a
concept foreign to Meyer, would come from efficiency:

The first and foremost point at Issue In any building should be how to attain the
utmost utility.

If everything is founded on sound efficiency, this efficiency itself, or rather Its
utility, will form Its own aesthetic law.

The aim of architecture is the creation of perfect and, therefore, beautiful effi-
ciency.

While publicly and politically funded social housing kept many radical
architects busy, Mies van der Rohe's wealthy patrons allowed him to
consolidate his practice. He built a monument to the Communists Karl
Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg, and the Wolf, (Guben, 1925-1926),
and Lange and Esters Houses (Krefeld, 1928-30). Developed from his
Concrete Country House project of 1923, Mies attempted to modernize
Wright. The smooth, refined brickwork was Dutch in influence, the
facades were unarticulated.

In 1928 and 1929, Mies entered four competitions: the replanning of
Alexanderplatz, and the Adam Building (Berlin, 1928), a bank building
(Stuttgart, 1928), and another office building on Friedrichstrasse (Ber-
lin, 1929 — the same triangular site as the 1922 competition).
Mies continued to organize Werkbund exhibitions until his resignation
in 1932. At the Barcelona International Exhibition in 1929, Mies de-
signed and built the A. E.G. exhibition hall and laid out all the exhibits.
Lilly Reich, MIes's colleague and frequent collaborator, had designed
l/l/er/(£»unc^ exhibits at the Frankfurt Fair from 1924 to 1927. In 1926 she

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe. Wolf House,
Guben. 1926. Courtesy of Museum of
Modern Art.

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe, Hermann
Lange House, Krefeld. 1928. Courtesy of
Museum of Modern Art.

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe,
Welssenhofsledlung, Stuttgart. 1925.
Aerial view of model, final scheme.
Courtesy of Fritz Neumeyer.

42

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

moved to Berlin where she administered Mies's practice and ran her
own Interior design business with showrooms just down the street
from Mies's office.

Lilly Reich designed Mies's exhibit at the Mode der Dame Exhibition,
Berlin, 1927 — the Velvet and Silk Cafe. This displayed Mies's tubular
steel furniture — his first furniture — for mass production. In the
Tugendhat House (Brno, 1928-1930), the most stunningly luxurious
house of the decade, Lilly Reich designed the interior decorations.
During their collaboration (1927-1939), she added to Mies's work a
luxurious richness in color and texture which remains unsurpassed.
Mies van der Rohe's German National Pavilion at Barcelona became a
symbol of the decade, 1919-1929. Mies returned to the balanced,
asymmetric composition of free standing walls and flowing space of the
Brick Country House project of 1923, but the theoretically endless
space of the earlier project was subtly controlled.
At Barcelona, Mies synthesized conflicting themes. The space was
continuous and centrifugal, but it was no longer the infinite space of the
brick villa project — the positioning of certain walls, or screens, in
relation to the edge of the podium imposed a limit.
Barcelona and Tugendhat were criticized for their luxurious elegance.
In 1930, Mies warned that technical progress would lead to a loss of
meaning in architecture:

Let us not overestimate the question of mechanization, standardization and

rationalization.

And let us accept the changed economic and social conditions as fact. All these

things go their destined way, blind to values.

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe, German
Pavilion, Barcelona. 1929. Plan. Courtesy
of Museum of Modern Art.

The decisive thing Is which of these given facts we choose to emphasize. This Is

where spiritual problems begin. The Important question to ask Is not "what?" but

"how?"

That we produce goods and by what means we manufacture them means

nothing spiritually speaking.

Whether we build high or low, with steel and glass, tells us nothing about the

value of building.

Whether In town planning we aim at centralization or decentralization Is a

practical question, not one of value.

Yet it Is the question of value that is decisive.

We have to establish new values, to demonstrate ultimate alms. In order to

acquire standards or criteria.

For the meaning and right of every age. Including our own, consists solely in

giving the spirit the opportunity to exist. '■*

The Barcelona Pavilion, along with Le Corbusler's Villa Savoie (Poissy,
1929-31), marked the culmination and the close of the heroic period of
modern architecture in Europe. Barcelona was acclaimed a master-
piece of modern architecture and an outstanding example of artistic
achievement.

In the summer of 1 930 Mies took over from Hannes Meyer at the Dessau
Bauhaus. In itsshort history the Bauhaus moved twice: from Weimar to
Dessau and from Dessau to Berlin.
Groplus set out the first Bauhaus Program in 1919:

The ultimate aim of all the visual arts is the complete building! To embellish
buildings was once the noblest function of the fine arts . . . .Today the arts exist in
isolation, from which they can be rescued only through the conscious, coopera-
tive effort of all craftsmen.

Architects, sculptors, painters, we must all return to the crafts! For art is not a
profession.
There is no essential difference between the artist and the craftsman.

Bauhaus teaching methods were linked to craft training, to the acquisi-
tion of craftsmanship, and as a teaching discipline it implied learning by
doing. The innovation of the Bauhaus, over established methods of
Kunstgewerbeschule training, lay in the introduction of handicraft
methods to fine arts instruction.

The other great Innovation was the Vorkurs. or preliminary course,
which set out to cleanse each student's mind of all preconceptions. The
Bauhaus Vorkurs acquired such fame that it came to be regarded as the
essence, sometimes the entirety, of the Bauhaus Method.
When the school changed direction in 1923, the Bauhaus Method of
instruction was easily adapted to the new approach. In Idee undAufbau

43

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

des Staatlichen Bauhauses Weimar.'"' Gropius elaborated on the educa-
tional system:

The objective of all creative effort in the visual arts is to give form to space. But
what Is space and how can it be given form?

The brain conceives of mathematical space In terms of numbers and dimen-
sions. The hand masters matter through the crafts, and with the help of tools and
machinery. Conception and visualization are always simultaneous ....
True creative work can only be done by the man whose knowledge and mastery
of statics, dynamics, optics and acoustics equip him to give life and shape to his
inner vision. In a work of art the lawsof the physical world, the Intellectual world
and the world of the spirit function and are expressed simultaneously ....
The guiding principle of the Bauhaus was therefore the Idea of creating a new
unity through the welding together of many arts and technology: a unity having
its basis in Man himself and significant only as a living organism.
The human achievement depends on the proper coordination of all the creative
faculties, it Isnot enough to school oneoranotherof them separately: they must
all be thoroughly trained at the same time.

The course was divided into two halves: Werklehre and Formlehre. The
split was surprising, coming straight after the preamble which insisted
on unity. However, in the interests of the new unity, Gropius brought the
two disciplines closer by appointing studio masters equally proficient at
both Werklehre and Formlehre. In practice this proved difficult.
Gropius then listed the various Bauhaus departments, but neither
building nor architecture was given a department. Under the section
Instruction in Architecture, he asserted:

Only the journeyman who has been seasoned by workshop practice and in-
struction In the study of form is ready to collaborate in building.
The last and most important stage of the Bauhaus education Is the course in
architecture, with practical experience in the Research Department as well as on
actual buildings under construction.

In so far as the Bauhaus curriculum does not provide advanced courses in
engineering — construction in steel and reinforced concrete, statics, mechanics,
physics, industrial methods, heating, plumbing, technical chemistry — it is con-
sidered desirable for promising architecture students ... to complete their edu-
cation with courses at technical and engineering schools.

Up until 1927, when a Bauhaus Department of Building was formed by
Hannes Meyer, students of architecture gained experience only in
Gropius's private practice.

Students had campaigned for an architecture department since 1923,
when it became clear that no commissions would be forthcoming from
the City of Weimar nor from its citizens. Since Its beginning the Bauhaus

Educational Process at the Bauhaus,
diagram. c.l9l9.

THE CURRICULUM

The course of instruction at the Bauhaus is divided Into:

1. Instruction in crafts (Werklehre):

STONE V^OOD METAL CLAY

Sculpture Carpentry Metol Pottery

workshop workshop workshop workshop

GLASS COLOR TEXTILES

Stained glass Wall-painting Weaving
workshop workshop workshop

A. Instruction In materials and tools

B. Elements of book-keeping, estimating, contracting

II. Instruction in form problems (Formlehre):

1. Observation

A. Study of nature

B. Analysis of materials

2. Representation

A, Descriptive geometry

B, Technique of construction

C, Drawing of plans and build-
ing of models for all kinds
of constructions

3. Composition

A. Theory of space

B. Theory of color

C. Theoryofdesign

A Curriculum of the Bauhaus. c.1919.

44

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

had been unpopular in conservative Weimar; Gropius was accused of
sheltering left-wing political activists. In 1922 Oscar Schlemmer's
manifesto for the first Bauhaus exhibition referred to the Bauhaus as a
"cathedral of socialism." From then on, both the architectural style
developing in the school and the ideas of its faculty and students were
attacked as leftist and communist. In 1925 the right-wing provincial
government expelled the Bauhaus from Weimar.
When Meyer joined the Bauhaus in Dessau he criticized the education it
offered. On taking over from Gropius (Mies refused the appointment),
he found himself in a tragi-comic situation where, as head of the
Bauhaus, he fought against Bauhaus style. Meyer attempted to put the
architectural course on solid scientific foundations, and introduced
fundamental changes into the curriculum. He invited Ludwig Hilber-
selmer to form a department of town planning and engaged Mart Stam
to teach architecture. Alcar Rudelt and Friedrich Engemann were
brought into teach structural engineering, and Walter Peterhans taught
photography. Moholy-Nagy resigned, and Josef Albers took over the
Vorkurs as well as teaching interior design.

Meyer's program for the Bauhaus aimed essentially at closer contact
between the course of instruction and the needs and reality of life
outside:

Building is a biological process. Building Is not an aesthetic process. In its design
the new dwelling becomes not only a "machine for living," but also a biological
apparatus serving the needs of the mind and body.

He then gave a long list of "new age" synthetic materials and continued.

We organize these materials Into a constructive whole based on economic
principles. Thus the individual shape, the body of the structure, the color of the
material and the surface texture evolve by themselves and are determined by
life.

And he ended,

Building is nothing but organization; social, technical, economic, psychological
organization.

Meyer's rejection of aesthetics, like Mies's, had qualifications: he is said
to have been caught, on occasion, weighing the proportions of a build-
ing. In Befon als Gestalter published in 1928, Hilberseimer stated:

The rapid perfection of scientific methods of research and technical aids . . .
caused, for a whole epoch an overestlmatlon of the possibilities of technol-

ogy .... Technique Is never more than a means for the art of building

Technique and art are profoundly different.

He Clearly separated the physical from the spiritual sciences.
After three hectic years Meyer was dismissed from the Bauhaus fol-
lowing pressure from the City Council of Dessau. Again Gropius invited
Mies to head the Bauhaus, and this time he accepted.
Mies van der Rohe altered the character of the Bauhaus, and spiritually
the real Bauhaus ended with Meyer's dismissal. The political and social
activities characteristic of that illustrious era were virtually eliminated
and, under Mies, the Bauhaus became a school of architecture. On his
appointment there was protest from students who declaimed Mies as a
builder of mansions. He closed the school and expelled the ringleaders
of the revolt. He also closed the Prellerhaus to student residents, and
they had to find lodgings elsewhere in Dessau.

There were faculty changes too, notably the appointment of Lilly Reich
as lecturer. In January 1932 she succeeded Alfred Arndt in the interior
design department. Hilberseimer taught architecture and town plan-
ning. Rudelt and Engemann continued to teach structural engineering.
Mies retained Josef Albers (preliminary course, representational
drawing), Wassily Kandinsky (introduction to artistic design), HinnerK
Scheper (wall painting), Joost Schmidt (woodworking), Walter
Peterhans (photography) and Lyonel Feininger (master without formal
appointment). Thus there was a large measure of continuity in teaching
methods.

Mies's heavy-handed manner in dealing with unrest caused resentment
among the students. Discontent led to infighting and occasionally
strikes. His leadership was criticized, but he succeeded in quieting local
ition to the school in Dessau and gained the support of the Mayor.
Gropius had placed the Bauhaus in safe hands.

The Bauhaus gave him his first opportunity to teach. He took charge of
final year architecture students and held seminars three days a week,
mornings and afternoons. No papers were written, no examinations
given. Students were assessed on architectural work alone.
Mies started his students designing houses. The first problem he set
was a single-bedroom court-house. He said that if an architect could
design a house well he could do almost anything. Students produced
sketch after sketch — Mies recommended at least a hundred - then
Mies would examine them at length and remark, more often than not,
"Versuchen Sie es wieder" (try it again). When the scheme was finally

45

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

approved it would be drawn. To reach this stage wouid tal<e weeks, or

even months.

One of iviies's students, Selman Seimanagic, drew a delightful comment

on his project: "Selman," said Mies, "We shall have to start ail over

again." The student was surprised and started explaining eagerly how

well the plan functioned. "Come now, Selman, if you meet twin sisters

who are equally healthy, intelligent and wealthy, and both can bear

children, but one is ugly, the other beautiful — which one would you

marry?"'*

Howard Dearstyne, an American student at the Bauhaus, wrote home

at the end of 1931:

We are learning a tremendous lot from Mies van der Rohe. If he doesn't make
good architects of us he'll at least teach us to judge what good architecture Is.
One of the uncomfortable (perhaps) sides of associating with an architect of the
first rank Is that he ruins your taste for about all but one-half of one percent of all
the architecture that's being done the world over. Mies van der Rohe not only
comes down hard on the American architects (for which he has, without the
shadow of a doubt, the most perfect justification), but holds that one doesn't need
the fingers of one hand to count the German architects who are doing good
work."

Ludwig Hilberseimer was the second architecture master, and he and
Mies shared a Master House at the Bauhaus. They retained their ar-
chitectural practices in Berlin and came to an arrangement whereby
they commuted from Berlin alternately: Mies spending half the week in
Dessau, and Hilberseimer the other half. Unlike Mies, Hilberseimer
seemed a true Bauhausler and his seminars, conducted in characteris-
tic Bauhaus fashion, were more relaxed than Mies's. Pius Pahl, who
studied under both masters, gave his impression:

I enter the room in which the lectures are given and sit down a little way from the
others. They come In one by one and find places on tables, benches, stools and
window-seats. They debate. I am waiting for Hllbs, but In vain. After some time
one of the older students is addressed as Hllbs. What a surprise for a former
student of the Hoheres Staatliches TechnlkumI"

For just over a year after Mies's take over relative calm reigned at the
Bauhaus in Dessau. The political situation changed suddenly at the
beginning of 1932 when the National Socialists gained a majority In the
City Council of Dessau. The National Socialist candidates promised In
their campaign to dissolve the Bauhaus and demolish its frame build-
ings. In October 1932, some staff, students and equipment moved to
Berlin and the Bauhaus was for the third and last time in a new home. In

less than six months the Bauhaus died of attrition. Its financial support
from Dessau ended, and on 11 April 1933, the Gestapo arrested some of
the students, searched the building, sealed it and placed it under guard.
As a school, the Bauhaus effectively ended, but as an institution the
efforts of Mies and others continued, and it was not until 20 July 1933,
that the faculty, consisting of Mies, Albers, Hilberseimer, Kandinsky,
Peterhans, Reich and Walther unanimously voted to close the Bauhaus
because of insufficient funds.

The three livesof the Bauhaus, Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, parallel the rise
and fall of the Weimar Republic. It was a time of revolution, foreign
occLipation, political murder, fantastic inflation, seemingly endless ex-
perimentation in the arts, poverty and great wealth, vast unemploy-
ment, new architecture, manifestoes and general political violence
culminating in government by decree. Culture became less the critic
more the mirror of events. The newspaper and film industries ground
out left- and right-wing propaganda, and the country was inundated by
kitsch, much of It politically inspired.

Following Adolph Hitler's accession to power in the spring of 1933, his
government began an attack on architects, depriving some of commis-
sions and pressuring others from positions of leadership in professional
organizations. The Werkbund was purged and a new council selected.
A frequent visitor to Berlin in the 1930's, Philip Johnson analyzed the
three factions involved in the struggle for control of the new Kultur-
politik. He said Mies was respected by conservatives like Paul Schmit-
thenner and that the Kampfbund fur Deutsche Kultur (an organization
set up in 1928 by Alfred Rosenburg) had nothing against him.
Johnson knew Mies had been awarded a prize (along with five others)
for his entry in the Reichsbank Competition of February 1933. Mies's
design was the only modern entry to win a prize — was monumental,
stark and heavy, with rigidly ordered interiors. Johnson speculated that
if (and it may be a long if) Mies should build this building it would clinch
his position as the new Party architect.'®

Joseph Goebbels, yet to declare his policy, was first unsympathetic to
the opponents of modern art and architecture. He wished the new State
to appear creative rather than restrictive. He attacked Rosenburg's
Kampfbund and, in April 1933, promised artists freedom to create art
suitable for the new regime. In November 1933 Goebbels set up the
Reictiskulturkammer, which became the only legal representative for
creative professionals. It assumed control over the arts, and Goebbels

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Reiclisbank
Project, Berlin. 1933. Drawing. Courtesy
of Hedrich Blessing.

46

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

•>^4?S^,

■^

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Courthouse.
C.1934. SKetch. Courtesy of Museum of
Modern Art.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Admin-
istration Building for the Silk Industry,
Krefeld. 1937. Drawing. Main Hall.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, House with
Three Courts Project. 1934. Plan.
Courtesy of Museum of Modern Art.

appointed the president of each chamber. By 1934 some artists who
had portrayed the more exuberant spirit of the 1920's were listed as
"degenerate" and their worK was suppressed and banned from publi-
cation.

Gropius and Wagner hoped for support from Goebbels as late as June
1934. Haring defended the Ring as a professional organization of Prus-
sian origin, rooted In the prewar lVer/(t)und. Their efforts were fruitless;
disillusion replaced hope and Gropius, who inspired and initiated ap-
peals to the Relchskulturkammer began preparations to leave Ger-
many. Mies, possibly the least political of the radical architects, seems to
have kept a low profile after his negotiations with Rosenburg over the
fate of the Berlin Bauhaus.

Mies, like Gropius, received commissions from the new government.
For the propagandistic Deutsches Volk/Deutsche Arbeit exhibition of
1934, Mies designed the Glass and Mining exhibits, In which he dis-
played some of his tubular steel furniture. Gropius also designed an
exhibit, while Cesar Klein designed the Nazi eagle tapestry, and Herbert

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Hubbe House,
Magdeburg. 1935. Model. Courtesy of the
Museum of Modern Art.

Bayer designed the catalogue. None of their names appeared, since
they were elsewhere listed as degenerate artists.
In 1934 Mies entered the competition to design the national pavilion for
the International Exhibition in Brussels. Later, Mies told his grandson.
Dirk Lohan, that he heard that Hitler was so disgusted with his design
that he threw It on the floor and stomped on it. In the years before his
departure to America, Mies spent muchof his time In the Tyrol, In Upper
Bozen, but he stayed in contact with his Berlin office and Lilly Reich.
Mies's income after the closure of the Bauhaus came mostly from his
furniture patents and, through Lilly Reich, from some small interior
design commissions in Berlin. He continued to teach in his Berlin
studio, and in August 1933 he took four students to Lugano for three
months's tuition. Lilly Reich joined him there as did two American
students, the former Bauhausler Howard Dearstyneand John Rodgers.
Until 1937 Mies employed two ex-Bauhaus students Eduard Ludwig
and Herbert Hirche part-time. Ludwig executed the drawings for the
Relchsbank Competition and the projected Administration Building for
the Silk Industry In Krefeld — a building on a splayed plan similartothe
Relchsbank. Mies was in America when this project was presented in
Krefeld in 1937.

In the 1930's Mies studied the pavilion and the court — the theme of
Barcelona. He repeated it in his Model House at the Berlin Building
Exposition of 1931 — his last exhibition for the Werkbund. In the Model
House, the flowing space still reached outward, channeled by screens,
two of which slide out beyond the podium.

From 1931 to 1938, Mies developed a series of court-house projects In
which the space, though still allowed to flow, was limited by the external
walls of the house and court conjoined. Walls, glass and columns were
used as progressively more subtle and more economic means of con-
trolling space. Mies Introduced the court-house theme to his students;
it was a major topic at the Bauhaus and later at the Illinois Institute of
Technology, where he produced montages of the schemes he had
designed in Germany.

The sketches and montages enabled Mies to transcend material con-
straints and express his guiding intention more clearly. External views
were selected and controlled by openings in the walls. Finally these
openings were virtually eliminated. The houses became completely
introspective, and their isolation may suggest Mies's need to shield
himself from the reality of life in Germany.

47

ARCHITECT AND TEACHER IN GERMANY

The interiors were marked by their vacancy, occasionally filled by a
sculpture, a painting, or a view, set against the unrelenting ascetic
purity of walls and screens. The enclosed space contained the ideal of a
monastic life, a private world where, surrounded by order and clarity,
men could meditate on eternal truth and contemplate beautiful objects.
In August 1937, four years after he closed the Bauhaus and completed
his last work in Germany, Mies was invited to America by Mr. and Mrs.
Stanley Resor to design a dwelling in Wyoming. Mies was again invited
to direct the architecture school of the Armour Institute of Technology,
and this time he accepted. He visited Chicago then went back to New
York to work on the Resor house and the Armour curriculum in the
office of John Rodgers and William Priestley. With their help, and that of
Howard Dearstyne, Mies drew up a program of architectural education
based on his experience at the Bauhaus.

During the years of relative inactivity in Berlin Mies continued reading,
including St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza. Later in the
United States he quoted frequently from these writers, and they seemed
to give him the inner strength he needed to live and work in a foreign
land. He admired the writing of Romano Guardini, a contemporary
philosopher whose book. Das Ende der Neuzeit: Ein Versuch zur
Orientlerung.^° he recommended to his students.

During his last years in Germany Mies had time to think and develop his
architectural philosophy of order and clarity which was reflected in the
simplicity of the court-house projects. The architect he admired most
was Rudolf Schwarz, a Roman Catholic whose book, The Church In-
carnate: The Sacred Function of Christian Architecture, was translated
into English and published in 1958 with Mies's help. In the Foreword,
Mies wrote:

This book was written in Germany's darkest hour, but it throws light for the first
time on the question of church building, and illuminates the whole question of
architecture itself.

Rudolf Schwarz, the great German church builder, is one of the most profound
thinkers of our time. His book, in spite of its clarity, is not easy reading — but he
who will take the trouble to study it carefully will gain real insight into the
problems discussed. I have read it over and over again, and I know its power of
clarification. I believe it should be read not only by those concerned with church
building but by anyone sincerely interested in architecture. Yet it is not only a
great book on architecture, indeed it Is one of the truly great books — one of
those which have the power to transform our thinking.^'

A difficulty with Mies Is that what he said often seems to be at odds with
what he did. But this is because he is easily taken too literally — both his
words and his work. He set out to teach architecture as poetry. First the
building had to be based on the clarity of its structural elements. To Mies
this did not mean that the building had to express its structure in the
literal sense of the functionalist school.

Mies's architecture was rooted in tradition, and developed in the Berlin
of the 1920's. He saw clearly the nature of the era he lived in, and his
work confirmed, interpreted and commented on someof the viable and
meaningful thoughtsof that era. He had the strength of his convictions,
and the leadership to put them over.

Everyone looked at Ludwig Mies van der Rohe hoping he would tell
them what to do — but he could only show them how to do it.

NOTES

1 Excerpts from Mies van der Rohe's Inaugural Address to the Armour Institute of
Technology, Chicago. 1938 (complete text in Philip Johnson, Mies \/an der Rohe. 1978.
pp 196-200)

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 "Uber Kunstkritik," Das Kunstblatt. 14, 1930, p. 178. translation in Johnson, p, 196.

5 Peter Carter. "Mies van der Rohe, " Architectural Deslgh. March 1961, p 97.

6 "Mies Speaks," Architectural Review. December 1968. p 451

7 Carter. AD.

8 "Hochhausprojekt fur Bahnhof Friedrichstrasse in Berlin," Fruhllcht. No. 1, 1922. pp.
122-124, translated in Johnson, p. 187.

9 "Baukunst und Zeitwille," Der Ouerschnitt. No. 4, 1924, pp. 31-32.
10 "Burohaus," G, No. 1, 1923, p. 32.

1 1 Peter Carter, Mies at Work. 1974. p. 18.

12 "Industrielles Bauen, " G, No. 3, 1924, pp. 8-1 1. (Mies illustrated his article with a station
building by Breest Sc Co., Berlin, and a factory building by Behrens, in collaboration with
the same firm.)

13 "Rundschau: Zum Neuen Jahrgang. ' Die Form. Vol. 2. No 1. 1927, p. 1.

14 "Die NeueZeit: Schlusswortedes Referats Mies van der Roheauf der Wiener Tagungdes
Deutschen Werkbundes," Die Form. Vol. 5, No. 15, 1930, p. 406, (slightly different
translation in Johnson, p. 195).

15 J. Walter Gropius, Idee und Aufbau des Staatllchen Bauhauses Weimar, Munich &
Weimar: Bauhaus Verlag, 1923, p. 12; reprinted in Staatllches Bauhaus Weimar 1919-
1923. Munich & Weimar: Bauhaus Verlag, 1923, p 226.

16 Pius Pahl, "Experiences of an Architectural Student." Bauhaus and Bauhaus People. Ed
Eckhard Neumann, 1970, p. 229.

1 7 Howard Dearstyne, "Mies van der Rohe's Teaching at the Bauhaus in Dessau. ' Bauhaus
and Bauhaus People. Ed. Eckhard Neumann, p 213.

18 Pahl, p. 228.

19 Philip Johnson, "Architecture and the Third Reich," Hound and Horn. VII. Oct -Dec.
1933, pp. 137-139. (reprinted in Philip Johnson, Writings. 1979, p. 53.)

20 Romano Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit: EIn Versuch zur Orlentlerung. Basel, 1950.

21 Rudolf Schwarz (Cynthia Harris, translator). The Church Incarnate: The Sacred Function
of Christian Architecture. Chicago. 1958.

48

ORDER, SPACE, PROPORTION-MIES'S CURRICULUM AT NT

Kevin Harrington

When Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969) arrived in Chicago in
1938 to begin his career as the director of the architecture program at
Armour (later Illinois) Institute of Technology, his experience in educa-
tion was both extensive and brief. As with his architecture up to that
time, his educational experience showed very great promise and rela-
tively little actual achievement.

Nonetheless, when he took up his duties in Chicago, he had already
been the first choice to be head of architecture at Harvard University,
and his importance was eloquently acknowledged by Paul Cret of the
University of Pennsylvania and inelegantly confirmed by Frank Lloyd
Wright.

Mies proclaimed his importance and ideals to Americans initially in two
key statements: the speech he gave at a welcoming dinner in October
1938, and in the curriculum he had earlier developed and begun imple-
menting that same fall at Armour. The speech, which Mies saw as an
occasion similar to the address given in many universities when a new
professor takes his chair, was stirring and quickly and widely reprinted.
The curriculum was revolutionary. It established a method of work,
analysis, and design which sought to imbue brick, glass, steel and space
with a coherent and rational expression. Juxtaposing an architecture of
space and frame, Mies wanted to create a curriculum which would
always yield excellent craftsmen and occasionally produce or encour-
age those with the gifts to make the expression of technique an act of
high art.

Reflecting his interest in crystal structure, Mies was after a curriculum
which would encourage students to seek and find that moment when
the crystalline essence of a problem or idea was revealed. Thus stu-

dents began by drawing lines, to learn their weight, shape, space and
nature; then they began studying intersections of lines, learning the
complex set of interrelationships among the parts; then they began
studying materials in order to search out the moment when two bricks
might become architecture; then the intersecting lines of two dimen-
sions would be extended to three dimensions in an effort to understand
space, the most important and difficult element of the entire esthetic.
Only then, when a student had mastered the elements of architecture,
from the particularity of a single well drawn line to the ineffable de-
velopment of the perfect space, would a student attempt to solve the
problem of an actual building.

This idea — to create a line, a plane, a space, a building so complete that
nothing could be added or subtracted — marks Mies's adherence to one
of thecentral ideasof what iscalledtheclassicaltradition. Vitruviusand
Alberti defined beauty in such terms and their presence in Mies's
thought demonstrates the broad circle of tradition upon which he drew.
While Mies expected his undergraduates to be able to leave school
knowing how to speak the language of modern architecture, in the
graduate program he hoped to attract and teach those whose gifts
might allow them occasionally to make poetry of that language.
The hiring of Mies by Armour Institute in 1937 followed a two year
courtship which was interrupted by the attraction of Harvard. Several
elements combined to bring Armour to make itself an acceptable posi-
tion for the world renowned architect.

Armour's architecture program had been without effective leadership
for sometime. Earl H. Reed directed a program organized around the
competitions of the Beaux-Arts Institute of Design in New York. Also

49

MIESS CURRICULUM AT IIT

offered were a number of courses that took Chicago's distinctive char-
acter for its subject, including steel structure, the tall building, and the
local building code. Competent to instruct and criticize the students,
and handle the day to day management of the program. Reed could not
lead. From the late 1920"s when asked to reshape the curriculum. Reed
acknowledged the usefulness of such an action, yet proved unable to
develop any sure analysis and program for the future.
During this time, members of the administration discovered two things
as the depression continued. First enrollment was actually rising, and
second, they had a larger enrollment than any other urban engineering
school. Of special interest were the comparable enrollment figures for
the Massachusetts and California Institutes of Technology, which were
lower than those at Armour. Within the Armour administration were a
number of relatively young and ambitious men who sought to create in
Chicago a technological center the equal of the two more prestigious
Institutions on the east and west coasts.

Armour had already spent some years exploring transforming itself. In
the 1920's. Armour reached an agreement with Northwestern Univer-
sity to become its engineering school and move into its new Lake Shore
Drive campus. When Armour could not secure its share of the funding,
the administration decided to rely no longer on the gifts of a few private
donors and instead sought funding from industrialists through their
corporations. This decision rested in the belief that the Institute and
Industry could work cooperatively to their mutual benefit, and that the
research and development the Institute offered would have rapid and
profitable impact on the industries and their competitiveness.
Although the corollary of this decision for architecture would be to
focus the school on the Chicago region, and although in its earliest days
the school officially had been called the Chicago School of Architecture,
there was not any parallel discussion of Chicago's special architectural
character. Students described the enervation of the architecture school
as weak leadership and desultory teaching.

In July 1935, Burton Buchhauser reported to Dean Henry Heald the
conversations of four students.

. . . every man of worth, every genius, and intellectual giant had a great person
for his guiding light, his teacher or close friend. Frank Lloyd Wright had Louis
Sullivan. Sullivan had H. H. Richardson, and A.I.T. Arx graduates have heavy
hearts. . . . Instructors at A.I.T. have laughed at me for suggesting F. L. W.'sname
and principles as my Inspiration.

1 am starting at the top and working my way down through the group, and all
those I criticize 1 have had personal contact, and felt the shallow influence of.
The head of the department is the perfect example of what we can do without.
... He frequents the drafting rooms ... as a floor walker overlooking the mer-
chandise.

... He is a diplomat to the nth degree, accomplishing absolutely nothing for
anyone, reaping his yearly harvest, and at the same time performing a peculiar
hiding act .... He, Is nothing buttheold charlatan creeping Into a field too honest
to approve his dealings.

I have received a statement made by him that no power could move him from his
position if he saw fit to remain — his drag with the trustees Is to hold him secure.
How do I know so many peculiar details? 1 worked for one year in his office as
student assistant and know the dally rape he has made on the school and its trust
in him.

The junior crlt lacks the same qualities that the senior crlt forgot to acquire. Lack
of Interest for a young man's problems; lack of time spent in the class rooms;
criticisms which are of little use becauseof the short time spent with each man; a
mind on outside pleasures; a wild glare in his eye which tells of distant thought;
and last but not least a personality too distant to be reached by the trying
student.

To close, I shall say It possible to create the things I demand and expect for the
future Arx, as they all existed under the leadership of Professor Campbell, a
former dean at A.I.T.'

Heald's sympathy towards the students developed from his own ex-
perience and teaching. He had taught concrete construction both to
engineers and architects, and he described how much he enjoyed
teaching the architects.

In September 1935, Heald prepared a "Memorandum Regarding
Architecture at Armour Institute of Technology." In it he identified three
areas of concern. The first two, dealing with curriculum and faculty, he
recognized asthe responsibility of the Institute, although it would not be
easy to reform the curriculum quickly. His third proposal, to form a
committee of outside professional architects to observe and advise the
department and administration, initiated an analysis of the current
program to determine the best future for the school.
The architects selected for this committee, all in practice in Chicago,
were Alfred Alschuler, C. Herrick Hammond, John Holabird, Jerrold
Loebl, and Alfred Shaw. Alschuler, Hammond and Loebl were Armour
alumni. As an Armour Trustee, Alschuler was the Mr. Inside, while
Holabird was Mr. Outside. Further, each was loyal to and supportive of
Earl Reed, so that, at least at the outset, neither Reed, nor his faculty,
need have felt disconcerted by the formation of the committee.

50

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT NT

Asked for an analysis of the situation, Reed prepared a very long
description of a fairly typical architectural curriculum, demonstrating
neither a grasp of the problem nor any clear ideas for the future. Early in
1936, Willard Hotchkiss, Armour's president, wrote Holabird that,

. . . the work ahead was both short range and long range and that we welcome
advice on the immediate matters pointed to in [Reed's] report, but that we are
particularly desirous of laying down the groundwork of a long-time program
which would result In a school of architecture much more worthy of Chicago
than at present .... I think you know, this is exactly my idea, and the reason for
creating a committee of cooperating architects, under your chairmanship . . .^

Hotchkiss included a new memorandum Heald had prepared. Heald
had concluded Reed was unable to address the problemsof the school.

. . . Mr. Reed's report summarizes in considerable detail the work of the Depart-
ment and will serve as the source of adequate information as to present condi-
tions, but the Committee can probably be of maximum service by approaching
the problem as a broad assignment to prepare complete specifications for an
outstanding Department of Architecture of from 75 to 100 students for Chicago.^

Holabird got to work in February, writing a number of architects for
advice." They responded by urging the selection of a strong, energetic,
young head with the ability and opportunity to implement his ideas. A
list of younger men was drawn up, and Holabird wrote them asking if
they knew anyone prepared for such a challenge.^
In iviarch he wrote to Mies, saying that Armour wanted,

. . . the best available head . . . with the idea of making it the finest school in this

Country.

I . . . have canvassed . . . various American architects . . . Amongst others . . .

Richard Neutra ... He suggested . . . Walter Gropius or Josef Emanuel Margold

as he felt the best was none too good for Chicago ....

In talking the matter over with the Advisory Committee, I thought that as we

were considering the possibility of a European heading this school that I would

like to ask if you would, under any conditions, consider such an appointment. I

am, of course, a great admirer of your work and if we are to consider the best I

would naturally turn to you first.*

Noting that Paul Cret in Philadelphia and Ellel Saarinen in Detroit had
combined teaching successfully with practice, Holabird assured Mies
of that opportunity in Chicago, suggesting a salary between $8,000 and
$10,000 per year.

In 1936 Mies's knowledge of Chicago was general and circumstantial.
On the general level would be Mies's professional knowledge of archi-

tects and architecture associated with Chicago. Erich Mendelsohn's
Amerika of 1927 or Richard Neutra's Wie Baut Amerika of 1926, which
presented Chicago and its buildings, or Mies's memory of Frank Lloyd
Wright would have reminded him of architecture of significance and
interest in Chicago.

Circumstantially the exhibition of "Modern Architecture" at the
Museum of Modern Art in 1932, treated Mies with great respect, rank-
ing him with Gropius, Oud and Le Corbusier. The exhibition catalog also
included a brief history of modern architecture which traveled through
Chicago by way of Richardson, Sullivan and Wright. Richard Neutra,
presented as an example of a European experiencing success in
America, had moved to that success through Chicago and the Holabird
& Roche office. The youngest native born American architects in the
exhibition, the Bowman brothers, Irving and Monroe, graduates of
Armour, had earlier worked for Holabird & Root, and the catalog com-
pared their work to Mies. His colleague and friend, Ludwig Hilber-
seimer, also discussed the work of Holabird a Root in his books.
When Mies received Holabird's letter, he recognized the name, firm,
school and city. In a cable of 20 April, followed by a letter of 4 May, Mies
expressed interest in the position, asking for more information on the
curriculum, facilities, and opportunity for private practice.
Armour replied quickly, with a letter of 12 May,' followed by cables from
Hotchkiss on 4 June and Holabird on 1 1 June. Armour's ardor derived
from learning that Joseph Hudnut, the new dean at Harvard, expressed
interest in Mies's taking the chair in architecture at the Graduate School
of Design. This effort coincided with an attempt to retain Mies as the
design architect for the Museum of Modern Art.^ Alfred Barr saw Mies
on 20 June 1936, bringing messages of Hudnut and the Museum of
Modern Art. Mies expressed interest in both opportunities. The other
architects Barr contacted on the matter, Oud and Gropius, answered
both questions, respectively, with a no and a maybe.
On the same day, 20 June, that Mies received Barr with enthusiasm, he
wrote Armour with reservations about its program, saying that no
simple reform of theexisting program would suit him, andthata proper
curriculum must address both the

. . . premises, nature and forms of expression of earlier cultures [and] the struc-
tureof ourown . . . inorderto makeclearthebasesandthepossibllltlesavailable
for our own cultural work.
You will understand that I hesitated to take the proffered position since so far

51

MIES'S CURRICULUM AT NT

reaching and extensive an expansion of the present organization seemed to me
difflcuit of execution. After thorough consideration i feel that I cannot accept
your invitation, but i would be giad. should you desire, to name distinguished
persons whom i consider valuable and capable to undertake the direction of the
Department of Architecture of your Institute.'

Mies closed the door, but offering to suggest other names left It un-
locked. In addition, his reply to Holablrd, suggested the door might even
be ajar:

I am very sorry to inform you that after thorough consideration 1 am unable to

accept your invitation to Armour Institute.

I am doing this because It seems Impossible to carry through In the available

framework of the school the complicated and thorough education of architects,

which nowadays seems necessary.

The changes in the system of education would have to be so fundamental that

they would greatly overstep the present limits of the architectural department. I

thank you very much for your efforts and hope your wishes and plans for the

Institute will be fulfilled.'"

As a fall back position, the second choice of the Advisory committee
was the head of design at the University of Illinois, Arthur Deam. He had
taught briefly at Armour before going to Illinois."
When Heald realized that Hudnut sought Mies he saw his own thinking
confirmed. Although Hudnut's curricularchanges at Columbia aroused
controversy, his proposals accorded with Heald's thinking and Mies's
statements of principle in replying to Armour. As Heald was attempting
at Armour, Columbia had established a committee of distinguished
professionals to study the architecture school as It was. It also studied
other programs, Including Saarinen's at Cranbrook, as well as other
American schools of architecture. This report concluded that.

These things we believe to be essential;

a. A flexible curriculum . . .

b. Elimination of competition . . .

c. Stimulation of creative Instinct and logical thought . . .

d. A true relation between the various branches of study. . .

e. Contact with leaders of Architecture and of other professions . . .
Realizing the fundamental changes indicated in this report, we recommend that
the Dean should have an absolutely free hand to effect them.'^

Hudnut developed Columbia's curriculum with six major elements.
First, the competition was abandoned and replaced by the "problem"
method. Second, Problems were of two types. The Major Problem was
individual, non-competitive and of open length, while the second.

Sketch, problems were to be done in groups on a competitive basis, of
short duration. Third, problems in construction were required. Fourth,
special talents of the student were recognized and encouraged. Fifth,
the thesis was retained. Sixth, students could enter only one outside
competition a year.'^

The parallels between Hudnut's proposals and Mies's later suggestions,
and their agreement with the thesis of these changes, confirmed Ar-
mour's desire to hire Mies.

The advisory committee saw some possibility of retaining Mies, for on
30 June, they rejected Deam, instead urging Armour to take another
chanceon Mies by inviting him to come to Chicago to study the situation
for one or two weeks, and permit both sides to meet. In the interim they
proposed conducting the school flexibly. They received Reed's resigna-
tion, leaving the school year 1936-1937. without a director, managed by
Jerrold Loebl and Louis Skidmore.

In writing Mies, Hotchkiss emphasized the freedom available if he ac-
cepted Armour's offer:

It would be difficult. I believe, to find an educational situation which is essentially
more flexible than ours. Our reason for wishing to interest you In becoming
Director of our Department of Architecture was the belief that you would be able
to chart a sound course for the future better than anyone else whom we had
considered.'"

Mies did not respond to Hotchkiss's letter until 2 September.

I have to Inform you that in the meantime I have received an offer from another
American university, which I am thinking of accepting.'^

Here is a rare case of Mies's overstepping, as subsequent events made
clear. Mies had not understood the conditional nature of his discussions
with Hudnut. It also suggests that Mies did not see his practice or his
person to be in any imminent danger in Germany. Although such Jews
as Mendelsohn and non-Jews as Gropius had left, Mies's rejection of
Armour indicates no need of an appointment for reasons of personal
safety.
Mies learned from Barr, Hudnut's initial emissary, on 19 July that,

I have tried very hard to have our Museum bring you to America as collaborating
architect on our new building, but I am afraid that I shall not succeed.
Believe me, I am very much disappointed in my defeat. It has been a hard battle.
In any case I hope most sincerely for a favorable outcome to your conversation
with Dean Hudnut.

52

MIESS CURRICULUM AT IIT

With kindest regards to you and Miss Reich — It was. believe me, a great pleasure
to see you again.'*

Barr continued to try to get Mies the job at the Museum, but he did not
write Mies again of this.

Mies could only have felt he had misunderstood Hudnut when he re-
ceived Hudnut's letter of 3 September. When Hudnut left Mies in Berlin
he may not have anticipated the effect Gropius, then in England, might
have. As is said of Deans. Hudnut was the victim of the last person
consulted, In this case Gropius. In writing Armour on 2 September that
he had received an offer. Mies did not expect this from Hudnut:

My visit in Europe is ending . . . and I wish again to thank you for your many
courtesies to me during my days in Berlin.

I should like ... to make a formal request to the President of the University In
respect to the appointment of a Professor of Design. I hope that I may receive
from you a letter telling me that you are able to consider favorably the ac-
ceptance of a chair should this be offered you .... I do not suggest that you
should accept the Chair before it Is offered, and I assure you that your letter will in
no way commit you to such a course.

It would be foolish to pretend that there will not be opposition to the appointment
of a modern Architect as Professor of Design. In Berlin I tried to make clear to
you the cause of this opposition — which Is based In part on ignorance and in
part on a difference in principles — and since my visit in Berlin, I have received
letters which promise an opposition even more serious than I expected.
The President suggests that my chance of success may be improved if he is able
to present to the Senate at least two names, each of which Is acceptable to me.
I should like, therefore, to propose not only your name but also that of Mr.
Gropius. If for any reason this does not meet with your approval, I hope you will
tell me so frankly.
Will you kindly give my regards — and those of my wife — to Frau Reich?"

A letter of Mies's on 2 September, outlining his willingness to accept a
Harvard appointment, and his interest in the conditions of professional
practice must have crossed Hudnut's letter in the mail, for Mies wrote
Hudnut on 15 September, that,

Your letter . . . forces me to the unpleasant decision to cut back the agreements I

made to you in my letter of 2 September.

I am willing to accept an appointment, but not to make myself a candidate for a

chair. If you stand by your intention to submit several names . . . kindly omit

mine."

To send this letter, Mies knew the Harvard position might be lost.
Whether Hudnut deceived him, or his ambition exceeded his calcula-

tion, the flight of Harvard and MoMA made him wonder why Armour's
offer escaped his grasp. As Mies considered Hudnut's letters of 28
September, 26 October, and 6 November he realized his chance had
escaped him. Hudnut's tone becomes more businesslike, his sugges-
tions of friendship disappear, and he reports secondary material. In the
28 September 1936, letter he declares:

It has not been, at any time, my intention to make it appear that you are a
candidate for an appointment at Harvard and I have been most careful not to do
anything which might lead any one to suppose that this was true."

If this were true, it is impossible to understand Mies's declaring to
Hotchkiss that he was considering accepting an offer.
In the 26 October letter, addressed to questions of practice, Mies
learned both Barr and Hudnut had spoken in ignorance on matters they
should have known. He had the choice of deciding them to be duplicti-
ous or stupid. Neither was attractive:

Among those states which will permit no foreigner to practice architecture
under any circumstances Is the important state of New York. I am greatly
surprised and greatly shocked by this circumstance which seems to me stupid
and unfair. . . [It is not clear if Mies knew that prior to taking his position at
Harvard, Hudnut had been dean at Columbia, and thus presumably in a position
to know something of licensing procedures in New York.]
In Massachusetts a citizen of a foreign country may obtain a license to practice
architecture, but such a license will permit him to undertake a commission for
one building only ...

The third state in [architectural] importance is Illinois. In Illinois, qualified men
from France. Germany, Austria, and Italy have been registered and been per-
mitted to practice, even though they were not citizens of the United States.
The information which I have outlined above has caused me very great disap-
pointment, not only because I am afraid that you will feel you cannot consider a
Chair In a city in which you cannot practice, but also because it would prevent
you from carrying on important work, wereyou to come here. It was not merely
my plan to give you opportunities for teaching: I was almost equally interested in
the service I might render the cause of architecture in this country.^"

As Mies considered the ambiguities of being offered and not being
offered the same job by the same person in the same letter, one view of
the last paragraph is that Hudnut wished Mies to withdraw his candi-
dacy, because Mies would not be in a position to realize Hudnut's
purposes. On 6 November Hudnut reports being -greatly distressed by

this delay, but I am not discouraged " He noted meeting Michael

(whom he recalled as Martin) van Beuren, a student of Mies's at the

53

MIESS CURRICULUM AT NT

Bauhaus, urging van Beuren to write Mies frankly of the situation.^'
The letter of 16 November delivered the final blow:

I am sorry to have to write to you, after conferences with the President and with
members of the Governing Boards, that I have not been successful in my plans. I
think it will be impracticable to Invite you at the present time to accept a Chair at
Harvard. I believe It will be necessary for me to consider what other men may be
available for appointment as Professor of Design. I feel that loughttotellyouthls
frankly.

I am very greatly disappointed, but I shall not give up the hope that, in the future,
there may develop a situation in which it will be practicable for me to take up with
you once more the plans which we discussed in Berlin.

Please be assured of my continued esteem and of my sincere gratitude to you —
not only for your many courtesies to me in Berlin, but also for the generous
consideration you have given me since the time of my visit there.'''

A cordial letter, except it is compromised by a letter Hudnut wrote to
Alfred Barr the same day:

I should like to tell you — of course in confidence — that it is highly probable that
Gropius will be appointed Professor of Design in our school . , . It seems to me to
be practicable, therefore, for you to make use of his services in New York, should
you wish to do so."

Hudnut seems not to remember what he wrote to Mies only three weeks
earlier:

I felt so strongly in respect to the information [that you would not be permitted to
practice even as a consultant in New York] given me by the Chairman of the
[National Council of Architectural Registration] Board that I went so far as to ask
my lawyers whether or not the position of the Board could be maintained in the
courts, and I asked my friend. Mr Barr, to address a similar question to his
attorneys. In both Instances we were informed that the law had already been
tested . . . and the Board's position upheld by the court. ^''

If what he said then was true, what he said to Barr issllly and would give
Barr pause, for he had attempted to have a foreign architect serve as a
collaborator and lost, as well as having made inquiries on exactly this
matter for Hudnut.
Despite Mies's rejection, Hotchkiss wrote back immediately:

I am pleased to know that you are likely to get to America in the spring, and shall
hope that we can at least have you in Chicago for a lecture and that the members
of our faculty and advisory committee will have the opportunity of your counsel,
which you have so generously offered to make available."

In acknowledging his copy of this letter, Holabird wrote Hotchkiss:

I am sorry to hear that he has decided to go to an Eastern university. I know that
we made the first offer but In all probability whoever It is in the East offered him
half again as much as we indicated. [Actually, Hudnut's memo on the subject set
salary at $10,000 or 25% more than Armour.]^* I had hopedthat he might spend a
year or two here before receiving such an offer.

I will gather the Committee together to discuss the matter of the lecture. It seems
to me much more Important to decide whom you can get permanently for Head
of the school. I must confess i hate to consider anyone but the top."

A more important letter from Holabird to Hotchkiss reported that Mies
was exploring whether the door that he again closed might be opened:

Yesterday Mr. Loebl introduced me to an American, M. Van Beuren, who has just
returned from Germany where he spent two or three years studying with Mies
van der Rohe. He said that he had translated our letters and knew all about his
possible connection in this Country.

Har vard was the other university that made a proposition to him but it seems that
there has been some hitch [I] and his status is, therefore, uncertain. He definitely
declined your offer as at that time he realized that you had to have a definite
answer although he as yet had not determined definitely the course he was going
to pursue.

[Holabird then reported asking Mies to come and lecture, accepting van
Beuren's warning that Mies could not speak English.]

Mr. Loebl had time to show him around the Art Institute and show him in detail
the work of the school. Van Beuren seemed to think that this would be a logical
place for him to come. Incidentally, he said that Mies van der Rohe was very
quiet, agreeable personality, modest and a fine instructor. In his opinion the
school here would be very successful.^'

Reporting to Mies on his visit, as well as the advice of former Mies
students, John Rodgers and William Priestley, van Beuren said,

[We] believe it is better for you in Chicago. The people have more initiative; they
get more naturally and directly to the point ....

At Armour . . . the people repeated their promise of absolute freedom ....
But the school is small, . . . and the location is miserable . . . what an example it is
of America's fantastic inconsistencies ..."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Armour, yet the opportunity might be
greater. Mies now had to consider whether he wished to create a school
and curriculum, a process that would take enormous thought and
work. At Harvard Mies would have been a not the professor of design.
Even with the prestige the position afforded, the curriculum was Hud-
nufs responsibility. Among the ironies, Harvard would afford the most
time for private practice, yet the Massachusetts laws prohibited it, and

54

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT NT

the responsibility at Armour would limit the time spent in private pur-
suits, although the licensing in Illinois permitted it.
Mies did not follow up on the inquiries made by van Beuren. He consid-
ered his options, refusing to make a precipitate move. Losing the op-
portunities at MoMA and Harvard, forced Mies to be deliberate in
making his next move.

For its part. Armour wished to avoid a second school year without a
director. Not having heard again from Mies, it negotiated with Deam of
the University of Illinois. Even as they sought Deam, Hotchkiss and
Holabird hoped to do better in the future.

When Deam declined the appointment, the Architect's Committee ex-
tended the pattern developed in the past year, with Charles Dornbusch
as Senior Critic, in place of the often traveling Louis Skidmore, and
Jerrold Loebl as Acting Director. As late as 22 July 1937, Armour
discussed the future of the department without mention of Mies. They
had heard neither from him nor such American contacts as van Beuren,
Rodgers or Priestley.

Following an initial contact in February and interviews early that sum-
mer, Mies accompanied Helen Resor to America In August to see the
site of the house they wished him to design. During the train layover in
Chicago on 23 August, on the trip to the Resor's Wyoming site, Mies
briefly saw the city, concentrating on Richardson. Sullivan and Wright,
in the company of Priestley and two other architects. Priestley spoke to
John Holabird who expressed keen interest in seeing Mies on his return
from Wyoming.

On 9 September, Mies had lunch with John Holabird, Alfred Shaw, C.
Herrick Hammond, Jerrold Loebl, Charles Dornbusch, Helmut Bartsch,
William Priestley and Henry Heald. He visited the Art Institute and the
33rd Street campus. Heald reported to Hotchkiss that, "Mr. Holabird
and the other architects are extremely enthusiastic about the prospect
of getting Mies to become a member of the staff of our Department of
Architecture."^"

The next day, a Friday, Mies left for Taliesen to meet Frank Lloyd
Wright. Intended as an overnight visit, the encounter extended until
Monday.^' At a luncheon on Tuesday with Heald and Armour's chair-
man of the Board of Trustees, James Cunningham, Mies was asked to
prepare a curriculum, which he intended to complete in Chicago, but
was forced to complete later in New York where he worked on the
Resor project.

Mies made a good impression, and Armour did not wish to lose him a
second time. Heald concluded his memo to Hotchkiss:

Mies van der Rohe appears to De a very excellent man. He has a pleasant
personality and a fine appearance At the present time, he cannot speak English,
but I presume that could be remedied reasonably soon. He Indicated that he was
Interested in our opportunity and that. In case something could be worked out,
he might be available within six months or so."

Hotchkiss wrote Mies on the 17th, requesting Mies to specify his cur-
riculum, prior to offering his appointment. Replying to Hotchkiss on the
22nd, already back in New York, Mies expressed interest in the problem
and the position. Instead of returning to Europe by mid-October, he
spent the winter in New York, with a brief trip to Chicago in February,
before leaving for Europe at the end of March.

On 10 December 1937, Mies sent Heald his description and chart of his
curriculum for Armour. He delayed this proposal,

... to give myself time to acquire sufficient insight into American conditions to
enable me to adjust my proposals more fully to the cultural situation here.
In contrast to the mastery of the material world and the high development In the
technical and economic fields, the lack of a determining force In the cultural
realm leads here to an uncertainty which can be overcome only through suffi-
cient insight into spiritual relationships.

It would serve no useful purpose, therefore, to add another educational method
to those already in existence, unless this, while providing as a matter of course
the necessary professional training, were to lead without fail to a clear and
unequivocal spiritual orientation.

For this reason I have undertaken to develop a curriculum which in itself incor-
porates this clarifying principle of order, which leaves no room for deviation and
which, through its systematic structure, leads [to] an organic unfolding of
spiritual and cultural relationships.

Inasmuch as the question is that of an organic principle of order, depending on
no definite presuppositions but reckoning with given American conditions, the
danger of grafting one form of culture on an environment of another character is
avoided.

Culture cannot be imported but results from the harmonious unfolding of one's
own powers.

The strength but also the difficulty in the American situation lies in the existence
of new problems of spiritual significance and new means for their solution. But
the strength of the existing organizational and technical forces assures the
possibility of an original and meaningful solution of the cultural question.
Culture as the harmonious relationship of man to his environment and architec-
ture as the necessary manifestation of this relationship is the meaning and goal
of the course of studies.
Accompanying program is the unfolding of this plan. Step I is an investigation

55

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT NT

Into the nature of materials and their truthful expression. Step II teaches the
nature of functions and their truthful fulfillment. Step III on the basis of these
technical and utilitarian studies begins the actual creative worK in architecture.
Step by step, as the training progresses, the architectural problem will reveal
itself in its fullness and monumentality.

The consistent execution of this plan, with the inclusion of the fine arts, termi-
nates logically in a Universitas Artis."

Insisting on the three step sequence from structure to plan to beauty,
iviies distanced his curriculum from Gropius and the Bauhaus on one
hand and the Beaux-Arts method on the other. For Gropius, architec-
ture (delight) inevitably resulted from the correct solution of plan and
structure." For the Beaux-Arts method, the architect's first responsi-
bility was to develop a clear form or parti, to which problems of organi-
zation and structure would be subordinate. If one assumed a masonry
tradition, allowing for great flexibility in the poche. to resolve conflict-
ing interests and forms, the Beaux- Arts system had great validity. Mies's
application of the insight presented by Le Corbusier in his Dom-ino
House, that the vertical frame and horizontal floor slabs were indepen-
dent, to problems distinct from issues of function or a priori form led
him to choose structure as the basis upon which architecture could be
developed. For much of his career Mies studied books on crystal
theory. In determining that structure, as idea and fact, provided the
basis of modern architecture, he saw structure as analogous to the
crystal structure at the base of all matter. Mies sought the crystalline
basis of structure to learn to give it expression. He followed the "road of
discipline from materials, through function, to creative work."^^ Archi-
tecture "is the crystallization of [time's] inner structure, the slow un-
folding of its form."^^ Focusing en a question of values. Mies attempted
to understand and communicate them reasoning by analogy.
In addition to his own ideas on education, Mies studied material in the
contemporary American discussion of education and values. Mies col-
lected and read several books on this debate in the late thirties.
Throughout, he attempted to understand the Americanness of the
problem. One of the key words which he emphasizes is organic. The
several days Mies spent with Frank Lloyd Wright in September 1937
gave Mies the idea that organic was an appropriately American word,
leading him to use it frequently to summarize his thinking about archi-
tectural education. Such was the case in preparing his prospectus for
the educational program at Armour in the winter of 1937-1938.^^ Here

organic is used to mean coherent, consequential, related to an order. It
does not assume a simple or primitive state.

Before making these points, Mies studied the debate in America about
the role of the professional school in university education. His claim for
a "universitas artis" at the end of his December letter is, in part, an effort
to counter the objections of such academics as Robert Hutchins of the
University of Chicago. Hutchins, whom Mies had studied to the point of
underlining key passages. ^= argued that a professional school was
training while a university should be concerned with values not tech-
nique, and so the two were inherently hostile. Mies's response, that the
two were crucially interconnected is summarized in Paul Valery's
Eupalinos. or the Arctiitect, where Socrates apologizes for his prior
emphasis on the mind,

If, then, the universe is the effect of some act; that act itself, the effect of a Being,
and of a need, a thought, a knowledge and a power which belongs to that Being,
it is then only by an act that you can rejoin the grand design, and undertake the
imitation of that which has made all things. And that is to put oneself in the most
natural way in the very place of the God.^'

Mies's ideas on the learning process reflected his experience and study.
At its core he believed one learned when one needed the material being
taught. In addition to a low level of curiosity, it assumes as well a short
time horizon. One learns the immediately useful or necessary, but has
difficulty learning what may be useful in the future. Mies further be-
lieved that college students were not sufficiently experienced to con-
sider larger questions in a meaningful manner. Instead, Mies sought to
train his students so they could make good, safe buildings, believing
they would not become creative until later when they began to question
and explore what they had previously taken for granted.
This does not mean that Mies was unconcerned with the teaching of
academic or non-professional subjects. In developing the curriculum,
he gave much of the first year to non-professional studies so students
would be aware of the role of and need for values in modern society. In
addition, he asked that they be taught the academic tools, mathematics
and physics, which he assumed supported his own architectural ideas.
Since Mies did not have an academic background, his knowledge of
physics and calculus was largely based on office experience and his
own assumptions, reinforced by his readings in philosophy and sci-
ence, that they provided a foundation for creative thought.

56

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT IIT

z

0

I-
<

u

D
Q
UJ

<

D
I-
U
UJ

\-

X

u

<

0)

z
<

LiJ

2

CREATION

OF ELEMENTARY BUILDING FORMS

WOOD-STONE BRICK STEEL CONCRETE

VARIOUS COMaJMATIONS OF TME ABOVE MATERIALS

to

ZU

<0 ^Dl~

i?i

5 SO

Sqo'

5» S5F

hl!^

I-

y
ir

UJ

K

111
h-
U
IT
U
Z

o
u

0)
LiJ
0)

O
Q_
IT
D
Q_

_ LJUJQ.*

q: i-ZqtC-
D <OdQ:
Li. 5ua.<

IT
O
an

hi

\-
z

ALVSIS OF VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF BUILDINGS

^8

!5 l^iOK
_l I < lU

_l
_l
llJ

Q

|Z

zS 2S

en

LU

z

D
O

u

Q
LJ

!t

z

D

Q
Z
<

If)

a.

(3 ""

a:
O

LJ

I
I-

sS

6SS«

is

UJ

t
u

z

UJ

z
z z

23

N

i<

z

0

- o

Ul UJ

O o

C5

Z

<
UJ

u

Q

z
<

o

z

z
z
<

_l

yl

I
u
o

Q.
UJ

UJ

I
I-

z
o

Q.

D

UJ
U

z

UJ

Q

z

Itl

q:
o

u.
0

Ul

_l

u

z

UJ

i

to

8

Q.

"in"

;5° o

^ ,5 <

5
q:
O
u.

_i
<

D
H
U
UJ

t
I
u

<

2
UJ

UJ

_l

UJ
Ul

I

H

q:

2
<

D
I-
U
UJ

h
I

<

1^

o
\-
u

I-

0)
UJ

I

ARCHITECTURA L

DRAWING

ARCHITECTURAL

DRAWING

FREEHAN D

DRAW I N G

AND

LIFE

DRAWING

STRUCTURA L

DESIGN

STRUCTURAL

DESIGN

M ECHAN I C AL

EQUIPMENT

AND

DESIGN

SPECIFICATIONS

ESTI M ATI NG

FINANCING LAW SUPERVISION OFFICE PRACTICE

MATHEMATI CS

AND

NATURAL SCIENCE

THE NATURE OF MAN

THE NATURE OF HUMAN SOCIETY

ANALYSIS OF TECHNICS

ANALYSIS
T U R E

OF CULTURE

CU L"

A S

OBLIGATORY

TASK

Program for Architectural Education,
Illinois Institute of Technology, 1938.
Courtesy of Brenner Danforth Rockwell.

Although less appareht in the first year than later, even here Mies
instituted a method of learning framed by intensestudy of opposites:the
highly specific and detailed and the highly abstract and general. In the
first year students learned to make architectural drawings as well as to
begin to use drawings as a means of seeing in life drawing classes.
From the precision of the carefully developed, inked line drawing to the

looseness of the life drawing, students began to grasp the range of
possibilities of expression and precision available to a thoroughly mas-
tered technique. Despite the tradition that the idea is more important
than the thing which represents it, Mies wanted his students to discover
that without technique they were without ideas. His preferred version
of this concept was through the metaphor of language: that the same

57

MIES'S CURRICULUM AT

I T

words and grammar, syntax and diction that allowed us to speak or
write a clear prose also permitted one to create poetry. There were
many possible sources for Mies to have encountered this idea. Among
them are Valery's Eupalinos. in which it is asked " . . .have you not
noticed, in walking about this city, that among the buildings with which
it is peopled, certain are mute, others speak and others, finally — and
they are the most rare — slng?"^°

Additionally, Frank Lloyd Wright wrote in his Autobiography of Victor
Hugo's digression in Notre Dame "The book will kill the building," in
which he argued that prior to the printing press the greatest poets had
been architects, but that now poets no longer needed to build. As with
Wright, Mies may have seen this as a challenge, while accepting the
premise: Ut architectura poesis. architecture is like poetry.
As with drawing, where Mies showed students the technical and the
lyrical, so too, poetry was the rare product of an absolute mastery of the
techniques of language. What began as measured, logical and rational
becomes the means by which one transcends reason to create poetry
or architecture. In the following years students studied subjects at the
edges of the technical and the abstract. In second year they began with
the disci pi ine of the brick and explored the means of seeing through the
abstraction of visual training. Even here, seeing is approached in a
measured and rational manner, in which decisions are made through
comparative study, constantly seeking to find a better expression of the
particular problem. When the curriculum moved from means to pur-
poses, the paired nature of problems continued. Here there was the
discipline of planning the elements of the dwelling: kitchen, bathroom,
bedroom, living room, set against the abstraction of the study of three
dimensional space, where the proportions, tensions and relations of
elements in two dimensions are extended into three, with the new realm
of architectural space to be understood.

In the final stage of undergraduate teaching, planning and creating, the
technical and the abstract merge in the development of a building. Not
only do students solve all the problems of making the building, they are
also prepared to consider its significance as the expression of a unified
work of art. The student discovers the idea that only with complete
technique are they able to deal appropriately with the concepts their
abstract thinking has prepared them to consider.

So far, the description has presented what Mies saw as the purpose of
the curriculum for the best students. Mies argued that with one out-

standing student a year, hecould transform architecture. He believed all
students should be exposed to the possibilities of architecture even if
they might not achieve them, while it was the school's responsibility to
make sure they were capable of doing whatever they attempted with
the best use of material, plan and expression. This accounts for his
devoting so much time to the precise and the abstract. Many students
were satisfied to master the precise. Nonetheless, they would also be
aware of the possibilities of the abstract in the hands of a truly gifted
architect.

A corollary of Mies's ideas about the learning process is his assumption
that one became intellectually engaged only in adulthood. Much, if not
most, university education has been predicated on the opposite as-
sumption, that late adolescence is the period in life when people are
most intellectually curious. Mies was struck by the idea that late adoles-
cence is a time of fear of the unknown and an interest in mastery and
control. Only with adult experience would a person become strong and
free enough to tolerate ambiguities, make judgments and develop

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. 1938.
Courtesy of Illinois Institute of
Technology.

Ludwig Hllberselmer, I., and John B.
Rodgers. 1938. Courtesy of Illinois
Institute of Technology.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Fourth Year
Studio Critique. 1939. Courtesy of Illinois
Institute of Technology.

58

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT IIT

Walter Peterhans. c.1940. Courtesy of
Thomas Burleigh.

commitment to particular values on the basis of understanding rather
than authority.

Mies further considered what could be taught as opposed to what could
be learned. In visual training, or in studying architectural space, the
school exercise provided an opportunity to learn about the subject.
Those conducting the course talked about the subject and demon-
strated with analogies some of the problems and issues to be consid-
ered, but were not expected to beable to teach such sensibilities. This is
suggested by our habit of speaking of a sense of color or proportion or
scale rather than knowledge. On the other hand, it is assumed that
certain skills, techniques, concepts and ideas may be taught. Through
demonstration, practice, study and effort, one can be taught to draw a
line, but not to learn what a line may mean. One can be taught to build a
structure but not how to learn what a structure may mean. One can be
taught how to analyze a room, but not how to learn the meaning of a
room.

Another factor influencing the curriculum is Mies's recognition that
students liked to achieve and demonstrate mastery. He organized the
curriculum so a student might feel pleased with a careful drawing,
model or analysis, in which all the factors were understood and incor-
porated in the solution. This sense of assurance would be balanced with
the continuing lack of ease students encountered in their more abstract
problems, where they were not shown the "right" answer, and in fact
were regularly told no such answer existed. Once again, the framing
method of the curriculum, the opposition of very specific and very
abstract topics, allowed the student confidence in achievement coupled
with experience of the continuing challenge of the subject.
This approach also benefitted from technical training capable of pro-
ducing competent professionals, making the education useful for stu-
dents of ordinary gifts. Only occasionally would students of extraor-
dinary capabilities be able to do truly creative work with such a cur-
riculum. Nonetheless, the abstraction of the most difficult aspects of the
curriculum would be able to earn the respect of weaker students and
provide open ended challenges to more gifted students.
Mies often referred to the benefits of teaching architecture in an engi-
neering school, but this was more the rhetoric of the logic of a situation
than a necessary, crucial or even central element of his curriculum. He
invested little time in learning the strengths of IIT's engineering school.
He never created a materials, structures or other engineering and

architecture laboratory to advance the technical state of the disciplines,
despite the fact that he expected such technical experts to develop
techniques to answer the demands his new ideas proposed. These
included problems of warming, cooling and ventilating his buildings.
When he made his proposals for buildings at IIT a number of engineers
criticized the solar gain that would result from the large areas of glass.
Mies made a few Inquiries i nto the possibi I ities of developing a glass that
would not be thermally transparent, but in the end he chose to rely on
Venetian blinds on the interior and trees for shade on the exterior. He
expected the engineers to develop techniques to solve these problems.
In his first few years at IIT, Mies taught the fourth year architecture
studio, while also working to develop and study the introduction of his
entire curriculum. At the outset, he continued the prior curriculum for
upper class students. This was less disruptive to the students' education
than the sweeping replacement of old methods with new ones in the
midst of their studies. This decision also allowed Mies time to study in
closer detail the problems he had begun, while preparing the cur-
riculum in New York the previous winter. Now, in actual classroom
situations and in later discussions with his col leagues whom he brought
to Chicago with him, Peterhans, Hilberseimer and Rodgers, he could
assess theapplicabilityofthecurriculumand what, if any, modifications
ought to be made in actual implementation.

His colleagues offered a useful range of experience against which he
tested his thinking. Walter Peterhans was an accomplished artist and
had trained in philosophy as well. Ludwig Hilberseimer demonstrated
the role of their comprehensive approach, in which courses in city
planning assumed both the skills of execution and powers of abstrac-
tion that formed the elements of the school. Hilberseimer taught at the
Bauhaus prior to Mies's becoming director, and he aided Mies in re-
structuring the Bauhaus curriculum when Mies took over. John Rod-
gers, an American who graduated from Princeton before he studied
with Mies in Germany, related the abstract ideas of the curriculum he
helped Mies prepare the previous winter, with his actual experience in
the studios. Overall, Rodgers was responsible for the technical aspects.
Peterhans for the abstract, architectural and aesthetic aspects, and
Hilberseimer for the cultural role of the program.
Students during this period included those already admitted, those
traditionally attracted by its location in Chicago, and a few attracted by
Mies. Not until after the war did Mies's presence, coupled with the

59

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT

I T

increasing fame and extent of his worK In America, begin to have a
significant effect on enrollment.

Possibly in his first studio in the fall of 1938, but certainly In the spring
semester of 1939, Mies began a pattern in his teaching that remained
until retirement. By giving students the problem of a university campus,
the architecture studio became a research laboratory for thinking
about the problems he confronted in his practice. As Armour moved
toward its merger with Lewis Institute, the possibility of a new campus
developed to the point that at least three architectural offices prepared
preliminary plans. Plans were prepared by Alfred Alschuler's firm, and
by Holabird & Root.

Although many sites were considered, the plans by Alschuler, Holabird
8c Root and by Mies were united by their assumption of the 33rd Street
campus of Armour as the site. Mies began to study the problem In his
fourth year studio, considering the Issue at a fairly abstract level by
selecting a real but flexible site In Chicago's Jackson Park. From the
outset. Mies assumed a campus of many, fairly small buildings. Al-
though only three of these plans have been published, several dozen
plans were proposed In the studio."'

While this work was going ahead In the studio, Mies also took office
space near the Art Institute to begin to study his own thinking for the
33rd Street site. For his staff he hired first John Rodgers and then
George Danforth, at that time a second year architecture student. Be-
cause of the secrecy necessary for the development of the design, Mies
was not provided with a programming document In which the actual
needs of the school were analyzed and quantified. Nevertheless, he
developed a fairly extensive list of needs for the campus, accommodat-
ing the needs for classrooms and laboratories of the existing depart-
ments, facilities for the allied Armour Research Foundation, support
facilities and what were from the beginning the buildings Mies called
■representational," the student union and the library/administration
building.

From the abstract. Imaginary slteof the student designs, Mies moved to
one driven by functional concerns, followed by one ordered around
structure. When Lilly Reich joined him In the summer of 1939, they
studied the latter two approaches simultaneously In order to test and
understand their ideas. Rodgers and Danforth would make drawings of
the Ideas, usually based on MIes's sketches. Atthis point the twenty-four
foot module, later used to set the design more firmly Into Its site, had not

^^^ 1^^^^^^^^

60

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT NT

Students Studying Courtnouse Problem.
C-1946. Courtesy of Illinois Institute of
Tecnnology.

Illinois Institute of Technology campus
model with I. to r. James C. Peebles. Mies
van der Rohe, Henry T. Heald, Courtesy
of Illinois Institute of Technology.

Illinois Institute of Technology.
Preliminary Scheme. 1939. Courtesy of
Museum of Modern Art.

Illinois Institute of Technology. Final Plan.
C.1940. Courtesy of Illinois Institute of
Technology.

/>.. .^ .-\-

been fixed. In studying what is usually referred to as the Preliminary
Plan and what, with modification would be the final plan simulta-
neously, one can see the same sort of abstract, comparative study and
analysis that was emphasized in the curriculum.
More important than the techniques he introduced into the curriculum,
with the design of the IIT Campus, Mies completed a major shift in his
thinking, consolidating the method that would dominate his American
career. This is the use of structure to order the design. Mies's funda-
mental architectural belief was that his work must incorporate the
imperatives of the spirit of the industrial age and give to it an order that
expressed the new conditions and provided a vocabulary for future
work.

Architecture has long been defined as the successful integration of
plan, structure and beauty. In his own work Mies had explored prob-
lems of each, but had not determined for himself that any one of the
three elements was in some way superior to the others. In many of his
works he had achieved a successful solution of two of the elements
(form and structure in the Glass Skyscraper Projects and the Barcelona
Pavilion, form and plan in the Brick Country l-House Project and the

Tugendhat House) In the 1930's, with the series of Court House Proj-
ects, he incorporated all three elements. Nonetheless, he remained
disturbed by the potential for work to seem arbitrary or without suffi-
cient rational and logical power. He desired to achieve something that
was not only new and different, but also necessary, unavoidable and
correct. This, he believed, gave the new age its special character.
When he began the IIT project, he had determined that form was not
sufficiently reasonable to use as the organizing element. In the IIT
projects, one, with the auditoriums projecting into the central space,
was driven by the Idea of the expression of function as the organizing
element, while with the other the structure was the central organizing
device. While plan and beauty, he believed, were liable to arbitrary,
even erratic choices and solutions, structure was clear, easily compre-
hended and able to order and accommodate the other factors with ease.
Structure was a constant inner check which rewarded reason and
punished willfulness. In rejecting the plan based solution, Mies called it
too'Tomantic.""^ With the plan founded on structure, Mies advanced his
thinking about space, the most intangible and abstract of architectural
elements, and structure, the most tangible and presumably most ra-
tional of elements, into a position of astringent reciprocity.
As students enrolled at IIT prior to his arrival graduated, Mies com-
pleted the transition to his curriculum. During this period he retained
theserviceof some of the earlier faculty, especially Alfred Krehbiel who
taught life drawing, Alfred Mell, an architect, and Charles Dornbusch,
an architect at Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill, who was interested in
modern architecture and, as Mell, had a good rapport with many of the
students. As enrollment picked up and Mies was able to teach his
curriculum at all levels, he moved Mell from first year to construction
and hired one of his earliest graduates, George Danforth, to conduct the
first year.

The program was not universally accepted. Heald's files contain a few
letters from students or alumni parents which question the wisdom of
the new curriculum. Because they were couched in the terms of xeno-
phobic a 1 1- Americanism, the value of their criticism of the curriculum Is
somewhat limited. Already, though, there is the perception that the
curriculum expressed a unified point of view so strong that other op-
tions were not allowed. Students were not allowed to express them-
selves or develop their own approaches. The school sought to develop
in them a method by which they could study a problem in a deliberate

61

M i E S'S CURRICULUM AT IIT

and rational manner through which they could arrive at an appropriate
solution. At this point in the development of the program Mies's reputa-
tion was not yet so great that his authority pushed criticism aside.
Already, the assumption of the curriculum was that the students must
first master its ideas before challenging them. Mies and his colleagues
were confident in the importance of their ideas and had come to them
only after long reflection. They assumed the roles of masters from
whom apprentices sought instruction at the rate and amount the
teacher deemed correct. Mies rejected the American tradition of the
university as a testing ground for the ideas of students. He did not
believe that the students could possibly be in a position to doubt and
criticize until they had mastered for themselves the logic of the method
and system he proposed. The positive resultof this would be students of
great intellectual and artistic drive and thoroughness, able to solve all
the aspects of very complex problems. The negative aspect would be
students cowed by the authority of the teachers who would unreflect-
ingly repeat the solutions learned as principles in school." Mies's belief
that most of the students would be in the latter position, reinforced his
attitude that he should teach sound solutions to those who could not
master and transform the principles, while at the same time presenting
to the best students an understanding of how the principles of a solution
could be abstracted.

As most schools during the war. IIT saw a decline in enrollment and a
reduction In the size of the staff because of military service. Mies,
Hilberselmer and Peterhans accelerated the curriculum, as teachers
throughout the country also did, and found themselves teaching virtu-
ally all the courses. They became involved with additional courses
designed to enhance the war effort, chief among them instruction in
camouflage and aerial reconnaissance. Since the war forced Mies to
study the curriculum in an abbreviated form, after the war he acceler-
ated an extension of the curriculum from four to five years. He had
learned that the kind of time needed for reflecting on the abstract
problems brought about by the expanded and then contracted cur-
riculum was very great and needed to be achieved at a slow pace. One's
consideration of alternatives could not be rushed.
The opportunity to expand the curriculum, begun as a study in his first
years at IIT, was not reached until after the war. In early 1940 Mies had
written all undergraduate architectural school members of the Asso-
ciation of Collegiate Schools of Architecture for their opinion on the five

year curriculum. He received the nearly unanimous opinion that the five
year curriculum was necessary, and where implemented, was a distinct
improvement in the prior four year program. In his letter to the admin-
istration on these findings he had concluded

If Armour were to change to a five year program we thInK the fifth year should be
added at the end of the curriculum to give the students further time to develop
their abilities by applying the fundamentals, which we feel are pretty well
covered In the first three years of the present curriculum, on more advanced
problems In Architecture.

We also think courses should be Introduced or substituted throughout the cur-
riculum to give the students a broader cultural background than they now
possess upon graduation.""

When the curriculum was expanded to five years in 1946, Mies's two
key points from 1940 were incorporated. Humanities, language, social
science and science courses and electlves were incorporated into the
first four years, while the fifth year devoted 60% of the student's time to
architectural studio. Although a formal thesis was never introduced,
this great emphasis on the study of one problem provided all students
the opportunity to pull together the threads of the curriculum and
construct a meaningful fabric. The students knew how to make a
building and now could consider what sort of building they ought to
make in light of both their architectural method and social philosophy.
The final presentation of the problem in terms of model and drawings,
finished as well as possible, might be considered equivalent to the
journeyman's piece in a traditional master/apprentice structure.
In addition to the development of the five year curriculum, the school
began to attract a number of older students, mostly veterans whose
education had been interrupted by the war. Their greater seriousness of
purpose and desire to form lasting values following the war prepared
them to accept the earnest desire of Mies and his colleagues to deter-
mine and achieve an architecture for changed conditions. Mies pro-
vided students with a sense of belief and purpose after the war in large
part because he remembered the sense of drift following World War I.
He became for his American students the mentor he had not found in
Germany in 1919. He had the further attraction of offering principles
rooted in an authentic tradition, while offering solutions based on such
principles reflecting the profound changes of the previous decades of
war and depression.
Simultaneously, Mies's practice began to expand. At first, he concen-

62

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT NT

Fifth year class with instructors Daniel
Brenner (left foreground) and A, James
Speyer (at Brenner's left). 1949. Courtesy
of L. J. Harrison.

trated on the new main campus builcdings at NT, while also beginning to
stu<dy a number of projects. Soon, though, his practice, especially
through the developer Herbert Greenwald, grew. As the interest of this
work spread and the difficulty of building the NT campus Increased,
Mies spent less time at school. He taught only In the graduate program.
As his practice, fame and reputation Increased, he was Increasingly
viewed as unapproachable. Some of his colleagues at ilT began to
protect him from students and as a result he became detached from the
day to day life of the school.

With the graduate students, many of whom were fairly sophisticated
and had been attracted by the opportunity to study with Mies, there was
the opportunity to study problems In depth and complexity. Problems
of space, structure, scale and the expression of material were fre-
quently addressed. In addition, many graduate students developed
these architectural studies In the context of analyzing a social problem
as well. At first these were frequently complexes of many buildings,
such as a university campus, or relevant problems, such as the nature of
the church In modern times. The question of value was Implicit even in
studiesof the effect of scale, while explicit In such studies as that for the
modern church.

While the graduate program developed a series of topics for study and
exploration, the undergraduate program, in part because of the addi-
tion of the fifth year, began to suffer from its success. As the various
courses were necessarily less experimental as faculty became more
familiar with what would and would not work, they also tended to
become more matter of fact, settled and less questioned. Although the
virtue and attraction of the school lay not only In its newness, butalso in
Its having a clear point of view, something attractive to students, the
faculty were not so critical of their own Ideas, seeking to discover
means to make the program stronger.

With the rise in enrollment there was a need for new faculty. Among
them was A. James Speyer, who in a letter to Mies provides an Insight to
the attractiveness of the curriculum, while containing a sense of the
potential for problemsof the future. Writing from Athens, where he was
a Fulbrlght exchange professor, Speyer reported that his Greek col-
leagues had asked him to remain another year, and asked Mies for his
support with the administration:

The school is a goo(J one; It is much better than the French equivalents. Actually,
it is base(J on German educational systems, which because of the general re-
lationship to your concepts, may be why I find it more coherent than the schools
of Italy and France. Most of the Professors were educated in Germany, and the
discipline is strong, and the work hard. The students are like blotters. They are
astonished at our way of teaching and criticizing them 1 1 say "our" in the sense of
yours, and our way of teaching at Illinois Tech.), and they have shown an
eagerness, enthusiasm, and comprehension which is very encouraging. I am
chiefly preoccupied with the 4th and 5th year students, a course which takes the
same area as mine and Dan Brenner's at home, and I have almost carte blanche
to develop the course now. The faculty are very cooperative.
I see, however, and there is no question in my mind at all, that there is no
comparison between a school where there are lacks In coordination of the parts,
and a school which is completely unified in idea such as ours. (I certainly do not
say this as flattery; it is absolutely clear. I have known it for a long time, but the
confirmation is always good).

What the students iand the architects) here need is an idea of what today's
architecture should be, fundamentally. The structural base of form is a thought
by no means understood. "Modern" architecture, here as most places, swims
along in terms of surface treatment, and it is exciting to see how the students
react to an emphasis on the structural derivation of architecture. Amazingly, it is
a new thing for them.''^

Daniel Brenner, to whom Speyer had referred, was one of MIess most
distinguished students, best known for the very beautiful collage of a

63

MIES'S CURRICULUM AT NT

concert hall in Albert Kahn's Martin Aircraft Factory. When he joined
the faculty at IIT, he taught the architecture studios in fourth and fifth
year. In these courses he conducted studies of space, as well as the
integration of the fundamentals taught in the first three years, merged
with the abstract problems also studied in those years, into the explora-
tion of the solution to actual building problems.

George Danforth rejoined the faculty in this period. Teaching in all the
years of the curriculum, Mies prepared him to direct a school of archi-
tecture by making sure that he had experience of the character of each
of the years of the program.

Also joining the faculty during the post war years was Alfred Caldwell, a
person who was to emerge as a force in the school equivalent to Mies
and Hilberseimer. Caldwell had entered the school to take a degree in
city planning under Hilberseimer. His thesis, "The City in the Land-
scape: a Preface for Planning," had impressed Hilberseimer tremen-
dously and a place on the faculty followed. Caldwell integrated the two
ends of the spectrum. He insisted on great technical proficiency and
attention to detail in his courses in materials and construction, and he
emphasized the broad cultural impact of architecture in his course in
Architectural History, in which the importance of the ethical basis of
action and the assumption of the inevitable tragedy of the misunder-
stood romantic genius were merged. The heroic courage of the ar-
chitect willing to act despite clear evidence of his necessary defeat
tinged all of Caldwell's lectures. Peterhans also offered lectures in
history, remarking to students who asked about the difference between
his and Caldwell's approach, that his students would understand what
he had been discussing in the future. Where Peterhans sought to dis-
cern the processes of history so that students could then have com-
prehension and possible affect on its future course, Caldwell assumed a
more mythic structure in which the individual was necessarily opposed
to the inevitable destructive forces of time.

When Mies had first developed his plans for IIT he did not give special
treatment to the plans for the architecture building. It occupied a posi-
tion at the periphery of the main plan as part of the ensemble that
framed the major buildings on the academic campus, the library and
administration building and the student union. In the late 1940's it be-
came increasingly difficult to undertake these buildings and Mies began
to think about the architecture building in representational terms. It
came to be not only the place where students would study architecture.

it became an illustration of his belief In the necessity to study architec-
ture as an extremely meaningful activity. At the dedication of this
building, Mies had a gold key made to give to the President of IIT, John
Rettaliata. In his remarks at that occasion he said,

But gold is not only bright. It has other more hidden qualities. I am thinking of its
purity and Its durability. Properties which very well could symbolize the char-
acter of the work which we hope will be performed in this building.
Let this building be the home of ideas and adventures. Real Ideas. Ideas based on
reason. Ideas about facts.

Then the building will be of great service to our students and in the end a real
contribution to our civilization.

We know that will not be easy. Noble things are never easy. Experience teaches
us that they are as difficult as they are rare.'^

Since Mies designed S. R. Crown Hall in the time when his retirement
from active teaching approached, it should be seen that the building
was in part the curriculum raised to three dimensions. The building is a
one room school house, in which the students are encouraged and
expected to observe the lessons of the other classes. Thus a first year
student might see the importance of line weight to expressing ideas in a
very abstract study in a fourth year studio, while a fifth year student

Alfred Caldwell with class in S. R, Crown
Hall. C.1956. Courtesy of Illinois Institute
of Technology.

64

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT IIT

Walter Peterhans. 1949^ Courtesy of L. J.
Harrison.

might see again the necessity of seeing clearly In a second year visual
training exercise being considered publicly. In addition to the school's
role of presenting to the students the steps and Ideas of the curriculum,
the physical openness of S, R. Crown Hall served also to invite the
public in to seethe work. The claims of the school and Its curriculum to
rationality and applicability to the problemsof modern society required
that it present its ideas to the public so that they might be assessed.
In addition to the abstract nature of the building's teaching the point of
view of the school, there was also the demonstration by the building
itself of what architecture might achieve. The parts of the building are
very clear. One may study the window frames and see the manner and
the reasons for assembling their elements as they are. One may study
the glass and understand the wide spectrum of expressive possibilities
so seemingly clear a material might have. One may study the space,
noting itsquality and definition and then study its relation to the space of
the surrounding campus. One may study its light and see the ways in
whichtheglass itself transforms the membrane that defines Insidefrom
outside and gives each an appropriate expression. When the setting or
rising sun transforms the space into a reliquary of tinted light, or when
the building in darkness is a glowing vessel of artificial light, students
and passersby experience the language of architecture as epic poetry.
What the student sees Is a demonstration of the range of the curriculum,
illustrated by oneof Mies's favorite aphorisms that "Architecture begins
when two bricks are brought together, carefully." That these two poles
of the architectural search were important are suggested by two lines
of Baudelaire that Mies noted in a letter, after having used them in
conversation:

Construction, the framework, so to speak, Isthesurest guarantee of the mysteri-
ous life of the works of the mind.
Everything that is beautiful and noble is the result of reason and calculation.'"

Mies expressed this concept in another manner when he gave a talk to
students at IIT In the mid 1950's on the design of the campus. He
concluded his remarks by arguing that the campus,

... is radical and conservative at once. It is radical in accepting the driving and
sustaining forces of our time .... As it is not only concerned with a purpose but
also with a meaning, as it is not only concerned with a function but also with an
expression. It is conservative as it is based on the eternal laws of architecture:

ORDER. SPACE and PROPORTION."

In the 1950's two external events dramatically affected the school. In
1950, IIT merged with the Institute of Design. ID was the heir of the
Groplus Bauhaus. Founded in Chicago as The New Bauhaus by a
Gropius protege. Laszio Moholy Nagy, in 1937, it changed its name to
the Institute of Design in 1938. The school struggled until after the war
when its enrollment expanded dramatically. Following Moholy's death
in 1946, the school then secured as Its director Serge Chermayeff, who
negotiatedthemergerof ID with IIT. Mies and his faculty unsuccessfully
opposed the merger and Chermayeff. ID was administratively a de-
partment In the College of Liberal Arts at IIT, just as Mies's school was
the Architecture Department In the College of Engineering.
In the early 1950's, however, it was proposed that ID and the Architec-
ture Department be joined in a separate College of Architecture and
Design. While this made sense to the administration at IIT, the funda-
mental difference In attitude between ID and Mies's curriculum was not
understood by them, or if understood, thought to be inconsequential.
Both Chermayeff at ID and faculty in the architecture department re-
ported their Inability to make clear the philosophical differences of the
two programs to the central administration.

As their proposal for the Dean of such a merged college, Walter
Gropius, who was an advisor to the ID from the time of Moholy until his
death, and Chermayeff proposed two individuals, both trained under
Gropius at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Leonard Currie,
later a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois in Chicago,
and Paul Rudolph, later the Dean at the Yale School of Architecture.
Fortheir part, the architecture faculty proposed two alternatives. At the
outset, it was clear that Mies was not himself In a position to be Dean.
However, he wished to remain as Director ofthe Architecture program.
If this were followed, and there were to be a separate Dean, the archi-
tecture faculty recommended Walter Peterhans, one of their col-
leagues, to be Dean. As a photographer who had himself taught at the
Bauhaus, it was argued that he could successfully bridge the differ-
ences between the two programs. If it was desired by the administration
to have a combined Dean of thecollegeand Directorof the Architecture
Department, the faculty then recommended that George Danforth, then
head of the architecture program at Western Reserve University in
Cleveland, be recalled.

The need for Mies's successor had been considered at least from the
early 1950's, for he was 65 in 1951, his arthritis became increasingly

65

M I E SS CURRICULUM AT NT

severe in the decade and his professional practice continued to grow.
Mies did not take a leading hand in finding his successor, probably
because he did not wish to shape too much the choices of that person. In
1953 Mies had said of Walter Gropius on the occasion of his 70th
birthday, that.

The Bauhaus was not an institution with a clear program — it was an idea . . , The
fact that it was an idea, I think, is the cause of this enormous influence the
Bauhaus had on any progressive school around the globe. You cannot do that
with organization, you cannot do that with propaganda. Only an idea spreads so
far."

While Mies believed that a school was even better if there were both a
clear program and clear ideas, and that it was hard to have one without
the other, still he recognized the importance of the idea. Later in the
decade, when he had retired from IIT, he wrote in response to a query
on how to establish a good school of architecture,

. . .you must first know what kind of school you want. This decision in itself will
determine the quality of your school. Your faculty should be as good as possible
to put over this direction, but the finest group of talented men pushing In the
wrong direction or in different directions means not only nothing, but chaos.
Most architectural schools today are suffering from this lack of direction — not
from a lack of enthusiasm, nor from the lack of talent.

If we could only show the schools and faculties that individuality is inevitable and
that it, too, has its natural place. To try to express individuality in architecture is a
complete misunderstanding of the problem, and today most of our schools
either intentionally or unintentionally let their students leave with the idea that to
do a good building means a different building, and they are not different — they
are Just bad.

I believe that in buildings you must deal with construction directly. You must,
therefore, understand construction. When you refine this structure and when it
becomes an expression of the essence of our time, it will then and only then
become architecture. Every building has its position in a strata — every building
is not a cathedral. These are facts which should be understood and taught. It
takes discipline to restrain one's self. I have many times thought this or that
would be a wonderful idea, only to overrule this impulse by a method of working
and thinking, if our schools could get to the root of the problem and develop
within the student a clear method of working, we would have then given him a
worthwhile five years.

Five years is a very short time when you remember that in most cases these are
the most formative years to the architect. At least two things should have been
accomplished: Mastery of the tools of his profession, and development of a clear
direction. Now it Is quite impossible to accomplish the latter when the school
itself is not clear.

You have, in fact, two possibilities: ( 1 ) To set up a school curriculum and find a
man who would best carry this out, or (2) find a man who has a clear Idea and let
him have a free hand In setting the curriculum up In the school. 1 have never seen
the first idea really work out as a strong school. The second Idea has worked
several times."

Following Mies's retirement, the school was directed by George Dan-
forth. After his tenure, the College of Architecture, Planning and Design
was formally implemented in 1975, with James Freed as Dean. Institu-
tionalizing an idea is difficult, and the success at IIT has been mixed.
Many factors contributed to the difficulty: personal as well as institu-
tional. Yet these difficulties are not appreciably different from similar
problems in any academic bureaucracy. For a time these were over-
come by the power of the initial thinking of Mies and his colleagues.
However, as Mies had, they too left. Peterhans died during a trip to
Germany in 1960, and Hilberseimer retired from teaching in 1967.
When the founding generation was replaced by its students, there
emerged the problem of maintaining the excitement of the initial explo-
ration while respecting the importance of their insights. The problem
for the school was to honor the form and keep vigorous the idea. The
danger appeared in the belief that the form might be so clear that the
idea was self evidently Implicit. The difficulty for the faculty who taught
after Mies is that they had learned what they had been taught, but they
had not taught themselves how to learn.

It has been well known that Mies read widely in philosophy, religion and
the sciences. In speaking to students once he described the process by
which he came to hold his belief in the power of reason:

Little by I ittle one thought Is put to another. One is doubtful of a thousand things in
this process but by experience and logic you may build upon these thoughts,
until you achieve a real conviction and In the end you have such a strong
conviction that no one or anything In the world could change it. That is the way it
has to be. 1 don't know if I told you about the time I had 3,000 books in Germany. 1
spent a fortune to buy these books and i spent a fortune to read them, l brought
300 books with me to America and I can now send 270 books back and l would
lose nothing. But I would not have these 30 left If I would not have read the
3,000.^'

Among the reasons he gave his personal library to the University of
Illinois, Chicago, was to prevent his successors the ready access the IIT
library might have provided to the 300 books Mies brought to America
and the equal number he acquired here. The selection of 3000 books
which one might, in a lifetime, winnow to 30, must be identified by the

66

MIES'S CURRICULUM AT NT

individual, not determined by someone else. Just as the curriculum
sought to teach what could be taught and point to what one should
consider learning, Mies assumed that his successors would do their
own exploring. Yet the strength of his own convictions, and the persua-
siveness of his reasoned conclusions, have made it difficult for them to
determine the means by which they can direct the school. Clearly the
legacy is very great, but its weight of authority is also a burden which
many are unable to carry.

In 1949, at the request of Nikolaus Pevsner, who was editing a special
issue of The Architectural Review on architectural education, Mies
wrote:

An architectural curriculum Is a means of training and education. It is not an end
In itself, but depends on and serves a philosophy. The absence of a philosophy is
not a virtue. It Is a weakness. A curriculum without a philosophy is not broad and
wide, not even neutral, but nebulous.

At the Illinois Institute of Technology we are concerned, among other things,
with the idea of structure, structure as an architectural concept. We do not
design buildings, we construct them, develop them. We are for this reason
concerned with the right use of materials, clear construction, and its proper
expression.

Since a building is a work to be done and not a notion to be understood, we
believe that a method of work, a way of doing, should be the essence of ar-
chitectural education."

Implicit in this assertion of the need for clear philosophical thinking is
Mies's belief in the appropriate. Whether in terms of material, scale,
proportion or expression, Mies constantly sought to teach the impor-
tance of understanding the relation of the various elements of either a
building or the building's place in the community.
In recent years, as his successors struggle to understand and teach the
curriculum in a changed environment, there has emerged the problem
of distinguishing the principle and the solution. When Mies taught, this
analysis proposes, his general principle was perfectly matched by the
actual solution to the problem: material, technique, expression and idea
were all located at the leading edge of architecture. Today, when the
general principles are advanced in studio, they are illustrated with the
same solutions of two generations ago. Such solutions are no longer at
the leading edge, and that distance then calls into question the validity of
the principle itself. Rather than faculty challenging the students, stu-
dents now challenge the faculty. Despite the acknowledgement that
what he would do was often a surprise, many faculty continue to

consider what Mies would have done today. When the school deter-
mines the means to solve this problem, it may be able to reclaim its
place at the pinnacle of architectural thought. It has been the site of a
great and influential revolution in architectural education, thought and
practice. Now it must learn the lessons it has taught so well, to teach
them to new generations of students, architects and society.

NOTES

1 Burton Buchhauser to Henry Heald. 12 July 1935, Heald Papers, NT Archives. (IIT).

2 Wlllard Hotchkiss to John HolaDIrd, 10 January 1936. Heald Papers, IIT,

3 Henry Heald, Memo for Advisory Committee for Department of Architecture, nd, Heald
Papers, IIT.

4 Paul Cret at the University of Pennsylvania. Ralph Walker and Ely Jacques Kahn in New
York. William Ralph Emerson at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carroll
Meeks at Columbia.

5 Minutes of the Advisory Committee for Department of Architecture, Armour Institute of
Technology, meeting of 12 February 1936, IIT Archives, Richard Neutra. Charles Dorn-
busch, Noel Flint, Donald Nelson, Louis Skldmore. Harry Bleg. Perclval Goodman,
Wallace Harrison. James Mackenzie. Otto Teegan, Henry Richardson Shepley,
Shephard Vogelgesang, Arthur Deam. and John Howard Raferty were the young men
listed.

6 John Holabird to Mies van der Rohe, 20 March 1936, Mies Archive. Library of Congress.
(LCI.

7 On the same day, 12 May 1936. Earl Reed had reported to Dean Heald on his recent
attendance at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture meeting In
Richmond. Virginia. Attempting to make clear his attitudes, he recorded making "many
discreet inquiries regarding possible schemes of reorganization of our Department and
found everyone, In view of the disastrous Columbia experience, exceedingly shy of a
Swedish or German connection . . ." following shortly that "On the other hand you are
well aware how easy it would be to secure the Illinois man . . ." meaning Arthur Deam.
Reed to Heald, Heald Papers. IIT.

8 Rona Roob. "1936; The Museum Selects an Architect, Excerpts from the Barr Papers of
The Museum of Modern Art," Archives of American Art Journai. Vol 23. 21. 1983, pp.
22-30.

9 Mies van der Rohe to Wlllard Hotchkiss, 20 June 1936. Hotchkiss Papers, Architecture.
IIT,

10 Mies van der Rohe to John Holabird, 22 June 1936. Hotchkiss Papers, Architecture. IIT.

1 1 Henry Heald to Wlllard Hotchkiss. 26 June 1936. Hotchkiss Papers. Architecture, IIT.

12 Charles Butler. Wallace K. Harrison. William F, Lamb. Ralph Walker, and C. Grant
LaParge. chairman, "The Architects' Committee reports on Columbia's School of
Architecture, " Architectural Forum. February 1935.

13 "Columbia Changes Her Methods." Architectural Forum. February 1935,

1 4 Wlllard Hotchkiss to Mies van der Rohe. 2 July 1936, Hotchkiss Papers. Architecture. IIT,

15 Mies van der Rohe to Wlllard Hotchkiss, 2 September 1936. Hotchkiss Papers. Archi-
tecture, IIT.

16 Alfred Barr to Mies van der Rohe, 19 July 1936, Mies Archive, LC. [Apparently, a copy of
this letter does not survive in the Barr papers of the Archives of American Art, for it Is not
mentioned in the Rona Roob's article].

17 Joseph Hudnut to Mies. 3 September 1936, Mies Archive. LC.

18 Mies to Hudnut, 15 September 1936, Mies Archive, Museum of Modern Art (MoMAl, also
quoted in Schulze. p. 207.

19 Hudnut to Mies. 28 September 1936. Mies Archive. LC.

20 Hudnut to Mies, 26 October 1936, Mies Archive, LC,

21 Hudnut to Mies. 6 November 1936. Mies Archive. LC.

67

M i E S'S CURRICULUM AT IIT

22 Hudnut to Mies. 16 November 1936. Mies Archive. LC

23 Hudnut to Alfred Barr. 16 November 1936. Alfred Barr Papers, MoMA, also in microfilm
In the Archives of American Art, quoted In Roob, p. 29.

24 Hudnut to Mies, 26 October 1936, Mies Archive, LC.

25 Hotchkiss to Mies. 21 September 1936, Hotchkiss Papers, Architecture, IIT.

26 "Confidential Memorandum, Proposed Appointment of a Professor of Design in the
Graduate School of Design, Harvard University." nd, Mies Archive, LC.

27 John Holabird to Hotchkiss, 23 September 1936, Hotchkiss Papers, Architecture, IIT.

28 Holabird to Hotchkiss. 30 October 1936. Hotchkiss Papers, Architecture, IIT.

29 Michael van Beuren to Mies. 3 November 1936, Mies Archive, MoMA, quoted in Schuize,
pp. 207-208.

30 Heald to Hotchkiss. 15 September 1937. Heald papers. Dean file, IIT

31 Schuize, p. 211. reports that Wright himself brought Mies back to Chicago In order
personally to show him his work In Racine, Oak Park, Riverside and Hyde Park.

32 Heaid to Hotchkiss. 15 September 1937. Heald papers. Dean file, IIT.

33 Mies to Heald, 10 December 1937, Mies Archive, LC.

34 Walter GropI us. The new architecture ana the Bauhaus. Cambridge. MA: The MIT Press,
1965, esp. pp. 19-44. Groplus wrote this text in 1937.

35 Mies, 1950 speech at IIT,

36 Mies, 1938 speech at Armour.

37 Mies, "Explanation of Educational Program," undated statement. Internal evidence
suggests [for text, see Appendix] Winter 1937-1938 Mies Archive, LC.

38 Robert Maynard Hutchins, No Friendly Voice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1936.

39 Paul Valery. 1871-1945. Eupallnos: ou. larchitecte. Paris: Galllmard. 1924; Eupallnos
Oder Uber Die Archltektur. Leipzig; Insei-Verlag, 1927; and Eupa//nos, on the Architect.
London: Oxford University Press, 1932. Mies owned a copy of the German edition.

40 Valery, Eupallnos. or the Architect.

41 Johnson, pp. 136-137. The other plans are In the Mies Archive. MoMA.

42 George Danforth. MIes's draftsman at the time, recalls this as the term Mies used to
summarize his rejection of this plan.

43 An Indication of this attitude is confirmed by the following letter from John B. Rodgersto
Linton Grinter. Dean of Armour College. 6 April 1940. Heald Archive, IIT.

"We are returning herewith the list of books in the library of the Chicago Architectural
Sketch Ciub which you and President Heald gave us ten days ago. Since then we have
had our faculty members check over the list. We have had copies of the books which
seem to come in question set out for us in the Burnham Library and have gone through
them.

"We are of the opinion that it would not be worth Armour's while to purchase any of
these books because they are quite expensive and each such book has only a few plates
which would be useful for instruction purposes. It would be far less expensive to have
slides of such plates made from the copies of these books in the possession of the
Burnham Library."

44 Mies to Linton Grinter. Dean of Armour College. 26 February 1940, Heald Archive. IIT.

45 A, James Speyer to Mies, 28 April 1958, Mies Archive, LC.

46 Mies van der Rohe, Dedication Ceremonies, S. R. Crown Hall, Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago, Illinois, 30 April 1956, Mies Archive, LC,

47 MIestoEugenio Batista. 12 March 1959. Mies Archive. LC. [In Miessown library, now at
the University of llilnols. Chicago, there are no titles either of Baudelaire or modern
poetry].

48 Mies van der Rohe, notes to a talk given early to mid 1950's, Mies Archive, LC.

49 Mies van der Rohe, [Speech in Honor of Walter Groplus], 18 May 1953, in SIgfried
Giedion, Walter Groplus: Work Teamwork. New York: Reinhold, 1954, pp. 17-18.

50 Mies to Douglass V. Freret. 8 February 1960. Mies Archive, LC,

51 "6 Students Talk with Mies, February 13, 1952," Master Builder. North Carolina State
College, Raleigh, School of Design, Student Publication, Volume 2, S3, 1952, pp, 25-26,

52 Mies van der Rohe, [Architectural Education], The Architectural Review. 1950,

68

CATALOGUE OF THE EXHIBITION

Items 4-13 lent by Bauhaus Archiv, Berlin.

Items 11 on, if not otherwise indicated, are courtesy of the student.
Asterisk (*) denotes the property of the College of Architecture,
Planning and Design, Illinois Institute of Technology.

I

WRITING. LECTURING AND
BUILDING 1919-1929

During these years Mies addressed ttne complex issues of modern
arctnitecture in order to find a clear expression for them. To do this he
made many efforts which showed the problems and their complexities
fully resolved. The finished work — strong, uncompromising and as-
sured — suggested that it was the finest possible response to the prob-
lem. In similar fashion, his writing and lecturing explored the central
issues of the era to find their real meaning and implications. As Mies
made his own position clear, in his architectural projects and worl^, he
explored the implications of these ideas for practice. The project for the
Brick Country House typifies this effort, showing Mies's interpretation
of the material. The project shows great understanding of and fondness
for brick, an ancient and handy material. Mies used it to explore the
ideas of the new age, without denying its ancient character. In every
case Mies showed the difficulty and necessity of simplifying a problem
to its essence. This required a careful study of the problem, treating it
with the attention it deserved.

70

WF?ITING, LECTURING, AND BUILDING

1.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Two Panels. Glass Skyscraper Study

for the Frledrichstrasse. Berlin. 1921.

Collage.

27" X 39V4'(70 -^ 99.8 cm) each.

Lent by Edward A. Duckett.

2.

"G"

[Zeitschrift fur elementare

Gestaltung]

a. Volume I:
pub. 1923.,

2 sheets (photostat).

17y2" X 22" (44.5 X 56 cm).

b. Volume II:

pub. 1923. Original.

18" X 11 Vj" (45.7 X 29.2 cm).

c. Volume ill:

pub. 1924. Original.

Also Xerox of pgs. 8. 9, 15. 16,

17, 20, 22, 24.

10" X 6%" (25.4 X 17.1 cm).

d. Volume iV:

pub. c. 1924. Original.
Also Xerox of pgs. 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9.
10" X 63/4" (25.4 X 17.1 cm).
Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

3.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

a. Wolf House, Guben 1926.
Photographs

Courtesy of Museum of IVlodern
Art.

b. Weissenhofsiedlung: Werkbund
Exposition, Stuttgart. 1927.

1. Site Plan.

2. Aerial View.
Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

c. Concrete Office Building, Project.
1922.

Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

d. Brick Country House, Project.
1922.

Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

e. Concrete Country House. Project.
1923.

Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

f. Hermann Lange House, Krefeld.
1928.

Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

g. Esters House, Krefeld. 1928.
Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.
h. Glass Skyscraper, Project. 1922.
Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

71

2

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE
TEACHING 1930-1937

When Mies became Director of the Bauhaus in 1 930 his thoughts about
architectural education shifted from informal speculations to practical
application. The initial consensus between the school and the local
authorities had deteriorated and Mies attempted to stabilize the school
by focussing on problems of the curriculum. For his own teaching he
conducted an architecture school, malting no claims to the universality
of such training in relation to other design disciplines. The principle
object of study was the dwelling, usually a court house, although varia-
tions existed. The problems explored the organization and expression
of architectural space. The difficult decisions necessary to express the
simplest of ideas dominated the student's time. While forcing students
to think in detail and at length of the most abstract of architectural
problems, Mies also expected them to demonstrate their ideas in
graphically elegant detail. Drawings done for Mies are invariably better
than drawings prepared by the same student for other teachers. Mies
inherited an existing faculty, including Walter Peterhans and Ludwig
Hilberseimer. Through his Berlin colleague, Lilly Reich, he introduced
course work in interiors.

Mies's authority derived from his strength of character and, possibly
even more, from his status as an architect. This status had been recently
confirmed by the critical acclaim accorded the Barcelona Pavilion of
1928-1929 and the Tugendhat House 1928-1930, regarded then as
now great masterworks of architecture.

72

■• '. ik'-^v'^'' ;^-j^ ^■^-' *'>^

Ernst Louis Beck

Course: WorKing Drawings.

Bauhaus, Berlin.

a. Seven Construction Sketches of
Different Window Types. 1933.
Pencil and colored pencil on
transparent paper.

11 ¥4" X 9'/8" (30 X 25 cm) and
10y2" X y/s" (26.8 X 18 cm).

b. A Single Family Housing Estate
In Berlln-Welssensee. 1933.

Ink on paper.

16'/2" X 23ys" {42 X 60 cm).

A Small House for Max Tichauer

In Berlln-Welssensee. 1933.

Ink on paper.

leVj" X 235/8" (42 X 60 cm).

A Small House In

Berlln-Welssensee. Construction

Details. 1933.

Ink on paper.

16'/2" X 235/8" (42 X 60 cm).

c.

d

30a

'-■»•••/=■/"" ■- '■'■.■■I-'-'-

aleaU I : 1000

ue:™—

^«ileirnizJ»proJ-ll

J J Lu e »^o f-* 3 "=*"• ''

eintorntlie'^'

how39l©cJlL.

^.^ A«« ...**Wx> -*"*-^- •*»•* --o*--*

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

Ar u n d t

kJi

ergeschoss

m 1 MOO

b uorraTskeller h tuoKn-u essroum

c kol-ilenraum I kocf^n rsclie

cJ LfOSctntSuclne k had U. HJ- C.

e nicnT unrerkellerr ( hol«u-^«fd+«sctiwpp«r>

T scnloTz.! mmer m forrosse

erdgeeckoss

ansichren:

n o >- J

v^

nieinhaus

|ur herrn mtH Tichauer in b«rlin-u/«iss«nsee, fiit{oriuash»sie )3, l«^eLuck 3)22/35

Qt/erscnnift -''

sud

J;;--! t; ~7r~I

1

CI

a=ESl E3IES

Jor t>«uKerr. J^, arcK.lekf u ueronfiu kauleite

-wid hJii(Mjf~

Konei'^'M'L'eb enKwer^n 3 3«mo»/»f3i

74

Gunter Conrad

Instructor: Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe

a. House C:

1. Floor Plan.

2. View Into Living Room and
Court.

b. House D:

1. Floor Plan.

2. Living Room.
Mounted Photographs.

133/4" X 17%" (35 X 45 cm) each.

fi'Y^-'r>r-vfir4

5a2

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

3 EINFAMILIENWOHNHAUSER

M. 1 : 100

LINKS
MIHE
RECMTS

HAUS A
MAU5 B
HAUS C

Ernst Hegel

Instructor; Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe

Three Single Family Houses.

a. Plans for House A, B, C. 1933.
8y2" X 11 Ve" (20.7 X 28.3 cm).

b. House A:

view from the Street.

AVi" X 113/4" (11.3 X 29.8 cm).

c. House B and C:
View from the Street.

5%" X 1iy8"(9.3 X 29.4 cm).

d. House B:
Entrance Hall.

7W X 8Ve" (18.7 X 22.3 cm).

e. House C:

Living Room and Library.
17y2" X 8ye" (19 X 22.2 cm).
Mounted photographs.

6a

76

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

77

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

ziueigesdiossioes reihenhQus fnitdQdiQQften.

lelMfiigerbQuuieise. sdiuiemmsteindeiKe fniteiseneinloge.

■■/„/, ...•!■■../ k

;■ . •>/, 'f.f

7a

V /. V-

"'/''■/' ■"

7b

78

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

7.

Wllhelm Jakob Hess

a. Seminar: Ludwig Hilberselmer
Two Story Row House with Roof
Garden. 1931. Construction
Drawing.

Various media in collage on

paper.

23%" X 16%" (59.5 X 42.5 cm)

each.

b. Seminar: Ludvylg Hiiberseimer
Two Story Row House with Roof
Garden. 1931. Construction
Drawing.

Various media in collage on

paper.

233/8" X 16%" (59.5 X 42.5 cm)

each.

c. Course: Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe

Apartment House Plan. 1932.

ink on paper.

16'/2" X 233/8" (42 X 59.4 cm).

d. Instructor: Liiiy Reich
Two Room House

(with C. Vanderlinden). Plan.
16'//' X 233/8" (42 X 59.4 cm).

d. instructor: Lliiy Reich
Two Room House (with C.
Vanderlinden). Plan.

16-/2" X 233/8" (42 X 59.4 cm).

e. instructor: Lilly Reich

1. Adjustable Couch.

2. Combination Secretary
Dresser.

3. Clothes Closet

(aii with C. Vanderlinden).
Pencil, ink on paper.
lIVs" X le'A" (29.6 X 42 cm).

»

•

rn

i

U — i_ — .•—-■■■ .

r.

i ■ - ; : ~ :

t

i. .-.. • . ■

-

1 :. ^:

-

iizrr:

E

J

!• •

s -"^

1

3

7el

7e2

79

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

111 -.-^--l-ll ''- k\\

:J-rr — : Hr-H-=' I- "t

~.4. .V,

80

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

I

=^

V

- /

V?

'■I

-^'

\

'^

1^

f. For a Ludwig Hilberselmer
Publication.

1. Single Family Housing.
leVa" X 23%" (42.1 X 59.2
cm).

2. Two Story Row House.
16%" X 23V8" (42.1 X 59.2
cm).

3. Eleven Story Building with
Enclosed Corridor.

16%" X 23%" (42.1 X 59.2
cm).
Ink and colored Ink on board.

g. Critique by Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe. 1932.

Pencil on paper.

16y8" X 20%" (41 X 52.9 cm).
h. Critique by Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe. 1932.

Pencil on paper.

16'/8" X 20%" (41 X 52.9 cm).
I. Instructor: unknown.

Bauhaus, Dessau.

Regional Site Plan of Group

Project "Workerhousing for the

Junkers Works" (with

C. Vanderllnden). 1932.

Printed City Map. 1930.

Various media, mounted on

board.

23%" X 16%" (59.2 X 42.3 cm),
j. Instructor; Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe

Apartment House Project. 1932.

1. Elevation and Floor Plan.
Ink on board.

23%" X I6V2" (59.2 X 42 cm).

2. Isometric Interior study (color
by H. Scheper).

Pencil, ink and gouache on

paper.

leVs" X 23y4" (41.6 X 60.3

cm).

A132

7J2

81

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

1 llllllllll

1 llllllllll

U [| ' c

1 llllllllll

D

1= c

1

2.. e ruje I -te rung f

1 llllllllll

L 1 1 1

—t —

n

8.

Hubert Hoffman

Expandable House Project. 1932.
Ink on transparent paper.
173/8" X 22W' {44.: X 56.9 cm).

Ludwlg Mies van der Rohe
Bauhaus. Berlin.

a. Remodeling of Floor Plan in
Factory Building for Bauhaus,
Berlin. 1932-33.

b. Remodeling of Second Floor Plan
In Factory Building for Bauhaus,
Berlin. 1932-33. Location:
Slemensstrasse 27, corner
Lulsenstrasse In Berlin-Steglltz.

Drawing on linen.

12y4" X 40y2"(31 X 103 cm) each.

3 . erujei terung

82

<+, ^/ .-f/j.k^t' 'jf '/>c;>

\^-

.J

10.

Helnrlch Neuy

Instructor: Ludwlg Mies van der

Rotie

a. Apartment for a Bachelor.
Floor Plan. Interior Perspective
and Elevation. 1931-32.

inK on paper.

17" X 24V8" (43.4 X 61.1 cm).

b. Third Exercise.
Floor Plan. 1931-32.
InK on paper.

MVa" X 24'/8"(43.6 x 61.1 cm).

c. Third Exercise.

Interior Perspective. 1931-32.

Ink on paper.

14V4" X 24V8"(36.2 x 61.1 cm).

d. Fourth Exercise.

Floor Plan with Corrections.
Pencil on transparent paper.
10" X IS'/z" (25.5 X 47 cm).
Instructor: Lilly Reich

e. Room of a Lady.

Interior Elevation. 1931-32.
Pencil and watercolor on paper.
17" X 24y8" (43.4 X 61.1 cm).

f. Grade School.
Perspective Elevation. 1932.
InK on paper.

17'/8" X 24" (43.5 X 60.8 cm).

g. Grade School.
Floor Plan. 1932.
InK on paper.

171/8" X 24" (43.5 X 60.8 cm).

J-'w i-oVM. i'c.-.f-

10d

a iite4|^^:irm(

rrr i

m

gtrru

Sm=cL

1

f

■

[

■

-WlU

i

L

lOe

Zimmer dvr dame ,

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

12a

84

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

11.

Rudolf Ortner

Summer House Project. 1932.

a. Floor Plan.

b. Interior Entrance.

c. Isometric Interior.

d. Elevation.

Ink, watercolor, collage on paper.
2 - 2SW X 19V8" (65 X 50 cm).
2 - igvs" X 255/9" (50 K 65 cm).

12.

Plus Pahl

a. For Ludwig Hllberselmer

Das wachsende Haus. 1932.

Housing Development Project.

Ink on paper.

16Ve" X 23%" (42.3 x 59.4 cm).
P. For Ludwig Hllberselmer

Das wachsende Haus. 1932.

Housing Development Project.

Ink on paper.

leVe" X 23%" (42.3 x 59.4 cm).

c. Instructor: Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe

Garden View of L-shaped House.

1931.

Ink on paper.

d. ■Boardinghaus."

Aerial View. Project. 1930.

Ink on paper.

lev*" X 23%" (42.6 X 60.7 cm).

e. Instructor: Hinnerk Scheper
House "C." Color study. 1931-32.
Pencil, tempera and ink on paper.
21" X 28'/4" (53.5 X 71.7 cm).

— i'^tttS — r^FFrrm — T^rrnT?! — <^iin4r- /iTi'Ti^rVTrTiifr — A\ \\\"^ — Aww^ — A\ i n^r— »^rTir*T— t'rn

m

hi

Ittt^Miat;

'-^;"v^^

kr

r"H^

m

85

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

12gl

86

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

Instructor: Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe

House "C" Project. 1931-32.

1. Floor Plan.
Ink on paper.

16%" X 7.3V%" (43 X 60.7 cm).

2. Entrance Perspective.
InK on paper.

IIVi" X 39V8" (70 X 99.5 cm).

3. Living Room and Bedroom
Perspective.

Ink on paper.
27%" X 39y8"
(69.7 X 99.5 cm).

4. Sun Room.
Perspective View.
Ink on paper.
27-/2" X 39%"
(69.8 X 100 cm).

Beach House, Gardersee Project.
1932-33,

1. Aerial View from Northwest.
Ink on paper.

27%" X 385/8"
(69.6 X 98.2 cm).

2. Plans and Elevations.
Ink on paper.

27 '/2" X 38%"
(69.8 X 98.8 cm).

i

j^T'^ilr-

i4

M.

tIS?

::x:m

g

trtt

'-f

1»

wrr

j::.i

TTH-m i ' Hi)

M

■m/fi.>/,.wL.um.ujUFnt

.(Hgr,- -VA>-;. ;J«(>L-J tS',-Jt

»^K(F->,*^^^f*, ,.-.

;'K.'- ■:. '-.I ..

C
D D

?E

Vi/

L

'^?^-- f"-"'"^-^

r^''^

M

1 'ii 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1

i;

, ~

1 1 II 11 1 II

1

1

1

L^i^CmULLLU
LU-UrTTT II I I I I

I II I i

J 1

"TT

^ir~iiT

TG

I I II I I I I ITTTI

Ill i-m

n

ii/.W. ^ ■' •, / C /rt ^f *

DA u(_
■ 51( It,

12g2

87

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

i

13a

88

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHI

N G

13.

Frank Trudel

Master Class with Ludwlg Mies van

der Rohe

Three Court Houses with Common

Kitchen Court Project. February

1935.

a. Plan.

b. Elevation.
Ink on board.

19%" X 27" (49.3 X 68.5 cm) each.

"-f

m

'.^^ ■

pi I ItLJUIH^

F«^^)-.,.,

m ■ "PM

i;^I®*N»:^k

..y, ^- IJ!:^.>.

sk»

r

m ^-♦-

■ »

Ji.

liT

13D

89

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

T

! i

_

90

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

14.

Eugen Batz

Discards with Net and Pieces of

Wood. 1930.

Photograph.

10'A" X 7%" (25.9 X 19.8 cm).

Lent by Rudolf Kicken Galerle,

Cologne.

15.

Hajo Rose

Self Portrait. (Photomontage). 1931.

Photograph.

8V2" X 6'A" (21.6 X 16 cm).

Lent by Rudolf Kicken Galerle,

Cologne.

16.

Ellen Pitt Auerbach

Sewing Thread, c. 1930.

Photograph.

4" X 5" (10.2 X 12.9 cm).

Lent by Rudolf Kicken Galerle,

Cologne.

17.

Grete (RIngI) Stern

Paper In Waterglass. 1931.

Photograph.

6%" X 5%" (16.2 X 13.7 cm).

Lent by Rudolf Kicken Gaierie,

Cologne.

18.

Horacio Coppola

Egg and String. 1931.

Photograph.

8%" X 10ye"(21.3 X 25.7 cm).

Lent by Rudolf Kicken Gaierie,

Cologne.

19.

W. David Feist

Man with Pipe. (Kurt Stulp). 1929.

Photograph.

9'/8" X 7y8"(25.2 X 18.2 cm).

Lent by Rudolf Kicken Gaierie,

Cologne.

20.

Michael Van Beuren

Five studies for Court Houses.

1934-35.

Pencil and colored pencil on tracing

paper.

a. 12%" X 11 Vz" (32.4 X 29.2 cm).

b-d. 8%" X 11" (22.2 X 27.9 cm).

e. 8%" X 19y4"(21.9 X 48.9 cm).
Three studies for Court Houses.
1934-35.

Pencil and colored pencil on tracing
paper.

f. 123/4" X 29" (32.4 X 73.7 cm).

g. llVa" X 27%" (29.5 x 72.2 cm),
h. llVe" x 24" (28.3 x 61 cm).

21.

Ludwig Hilberselmer

a. Mixed Housing Development,
c, 1920-30.

Ink on paper.

13" X 20ye" (33 x 51.5 cm).

Lent by The Art Institute of

Chicago.

b. Mixed Housing Development,
c. 1920-30.

Perspective rendering.

Ink on paper.

14%" X 20" (36.5 x 51 cm).

Lent by The Art Institute of

Chicago.

c. City Planning Proposal. Traffic
Level. 1925.

insert in lower right-hand corner:

variation introducing three levels

of traffic.

Ink on heavy paper.

23%" X 33" (59.5 x 83.8 cm).

Pub.: Entfaltung einer

Planungsldee. p. 17, III. 6.

Lent by The Art Institute of

Chicago.

d. Central Railroad Station, Berlin.
Perspective, c. 1927.

Pencil on heavy paper.

20y2" X 28%" (51.2 X 72.8 cm).

Pub.: Entfaltung eIner

Planungsldee. p. 124. Ml. 102.

Lent by The Art Institute of

Chicago.

21c

91

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

22.

Das Kunstblatt

September, 1927.

Paul Westhelm, Publisher.

Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft:

Athenaion M.B.H.

Wild park -Potsdam.

Haus Hilberselmer: Floor Plan,

p. 337.

Ludwig Hilberselmer: Single Family

House, p. 338.

Lent by George Danforth.

23.

Ludwig Hllberseimer
Hallenbauten. 1931.
J. M. Gebhardt's Verlag, Leipzig.
Lent by George Danforth.

24.

Ludwig Hllberseimer
Groszstadt Architektur. 1927.
Verlag Julius Hoffman, Stuttgart.
Lent by George Danforth.

25.

Ludwig Hllberseimer
Internationale Neue Baukunst. 1928.
Verlag Julius Hoffman, Stuttgart.
Lent by George Danforth.

26.

Walter Peterhans

Untitled. Combs & Ping Pong Balls.

Prior to 1938.

Photograph.

ISVa" X 1iy8"(39 X 29.9 cm).

Lent by Brigitte Peterhans.

27.

Walter Peterhans

Untitled. Grapes, Lace & Magnifying

Glass on Glass. Prior to 1938.

Photograph.

11 'A" X 11%" (29.2 X 30.1 cm).

Lent by John VIncl.

28.

Walter Peterhans

Untitled. Wire and Lemon on Wood.

Prior to 1938.

Photograph.

10%" X 13" (27.6 y 33 cm).

Lent by George Danforth.

29.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Group of Three Court Houses.

1930's.

Model (reconstructed) by George

Sorich, 1986.

30.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
a. Barcelona Pavilion, Barcelona.
1929.

Photograph by Berliner
Bild-Bericht, Berlin.
Courtesy of Museum of Modern-
Art.

92

BAUHAUS AND PRIVATE TEACHING

b. Tugendhat House, Brno. 1930.
View from Garden.
Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

c. House at the Berlin Building
Exposition. 1931.

1. Floor Plan.

Pencil on transparent paper.

2. Dining Room.
Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

d. Court Houses. 1931-40.

1. Aerial Perspective View,
House with Two Courts,
c. 1934.

Ink on transparent paper.

2. Floor Plan, House with Three
Courts. 1939.

Studio drawing, pencil on

drawing board.
Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

e. Gerlcke House, Berlin-Wannsee.
1932.

1. Floor Plan (upper floor).
Pencil on board.

2. Floor Plan (main floor).
Pencil on board.

Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

f. Mountain House, Tyroi. 1934.
Perspective view.
Charcoal and pencil on
transparent paper.
Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern
Art.

Sketch for a Glass House on a

Hillside, c. 1934.

Pencil on transparent paper.

Photograph.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

Hubbe House Project,

Magdeburg. 1935.

1 . Perspective view of court
(view from terrace).

2. Perspective view of terrace
(view from llvlngroom).

3. Model.
Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

Ulrlch Lange House, Krefeld.

1935.

1 . Two elevations, preliminary
version.

2. Floor plan, preliminary
version.

3. Site plan with floor plan, final
version.

4. Three elevations, final version.
Pencil on transparent paper.
Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

Administration Building for the

Silk Industry Project, Krefeld.

1937.

1. Main Hall.

Pencil on transparent paper.

2. Model.
Photographs.

Courtesy of Museum of Modern

Art.

Lemcke House, Berlin. 1932.

Photograph.

Courtesy of George Danforth.

Relchsbank Project, Berlin. 1933.

Photograph. Courtesy of Heldrlch

Blessing.

V \

30g

93

3

NT CURRICULM
19 3 7-1958

In his private teaclning after closing the Bauhaus, Mies considered at
leisure the problems he had observed in teaching there. When he
accepted the appointment in Chicago in the fall of 1937, his thoughts on
the curriculum had matured, and he instituted them. Although Mies's
curriculum is based on the actual problems of architecture, it is not a
version of an office or actual practice. The problems Mies introduced,
such as the court house, are simple, clear and highly abstract, and were
developed further in the school. Students studied architectural tech-
nique to be capable of building simply and clearly. But, the study of
technique is also abstract and the lessons learned are In the nature of
problems in particular, and problem solving in general.
In bringing Peterhans and Hilberseimer to Chicago, Mies drew on the
skills of his former colleagues Both, however, taught courses that had
evolved from their teaching in Europe. While visual training was recog-
nized as a need at the Bauhaus, at NT Peterhans developed it into a
course which taught students visual perception. In America, Hilber-
seimer's highly abstract analyses in planning characteristic of his Euro-
pean teaching, expanded to include an ecological approach, addressing
itself to the particularities of the individual site in addition to the appli-
cation of general principles.

94

IIT CURRICULUM

31.

Albert Goers

Archeo Design Problem, c. 1936.

Ink wash on watercoior paper.

38" X 24y8" (96.5 x 62 cm).

32.

Albert Goers

Archeo Design Problem, c. 1936.

Sepia wash and pencil on Watman's

watercoior paper.

22'/2" X 29'/8" (57 X 74 cm).

33.

Albert Goers

Architectural Drawing, 1st Year.

Art Institute Doorway, East Facade

overlooking McKllntock Court.

c. 1934.

Elevation.

Ink wash on watercoior paper.

26ya" X 20%" (67.5 x 52.5 cm).

34.

Ivar Viehe-Naess, Jr.

Class B - III Project.

An Open Air Museum, c. 1937.

Ink wash on watercoior paper.

39V8" X 28^/8" (100.5 x 72.5 cm).

Lent by Raymond Kliphardt.

35.

Raymond Kliphardt

Class B - Project II.

A Country Restaurant, c. 1937.

Watercoior on watercoior paper.

28" X 39" (71 X 99 cm).

36.

Raymond Kliphardt

Class B — Project III.

A Book Store, c. 1937.

Ink wash on watercoior paper.

27%" X 38" (70.5 x 96.5 cm).

~3

A . t-.r.l -ill-t
1- 1 . 1 — ir;-rf-

fr

1 _:i - il-Jti-

imm '^

[- Jf-^m-

T ..:

3

I 5ECOND FLOOH,
CLA-MCAL !.C1EN':E, TRAVEL, LA.NC^VA.T^E, PHILOSOPHY

A'

LT

(- i ^\

• fvlEZZANINE ~^- n-^

■ FIRST FLOOR
MAGAZINES, POPv'LAp PhNI

kWMri'ii' i-iJi'MAitOT

CLA5^ b v-k&lETnr

95

IIT CURRICULUM

37.

Raymond Kliphardt

Class B - Project IV.

A Cinema Lobby, c. 1936-37.

Watercolor on watercolor paper.

28%" X 39y4" (73 X 99.5 cm).

38.

R. Smith

Applied Descriptive Geometry 102.

Revolution of Triangular Plane to

Determine True Size and Angles of

Sides. 1950.

Ink on Strattimore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

39.

Robert Kissinger

Applied Descriptive Geometry 102.

Intersection of Solids. 1950.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

40.

Donald Wrobleski

Perspective 108.

Perspective Projection, c. 1949-50.

Ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

41.

Richard L. Svec

Applied Descriptive Geometry 104.

Development of an Ellipse. 1951.

Ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

42.

Edward Starostovic

Axonometric Projection 103.

Revolution of Line and Plane. Spring

1952.

Ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

38

40

96

IIT CURRICULUM

43.

Anonymous

Applied Descriptive Geometry 104.

Two Lines Intersecting.

Late 1950s.

Ink and colored Ink on paper.

29" X 20" (73.6 x 51 cm).

Lent by John Vincl.

44.

W. Kosterman

Elementary Drafting 103.

Line Weight Exercise, c. 1961-62.

Ink on paper.

29" X 20" (73.6 X 51. cm).*

45.

Vernon Gelsel
Elementary Drafting 103.
Line Weight Exercise. 1963.
Pencil on paper.
29" X 20" (73.6 x 51 cm).*

46.

Peter Lewis

Elementary Drafting 103.

Exercise with Tangential Circles.

1968-69.

Ink on paper.

29" X 20" (73.6 x 51 cm).*

47.

Freeze

Elementary Drafting 103.

Exercise with Tangential Circles.

c. 1963.

Pencil on paper.

29" X 20" (73.6 x 51 cm).*

48.

Mary Elizabeth (Droste) Spies
Materials and Construction 207.
Horizontal Log Construction. 1939.
Pencil on Strathmore board.
30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).
Lent by R. Ogden Hannaford.

42

97

NT CURRICULUM

49.

Richard E. Johnson

Materials and Construction 207, 208.

Brick Bearing Wall House. Cut-Away

Perspective. 1948-49.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

50.

Anonymous

Materials and Construction 213, 214.

BrIcK Bonding Exercise, c. 1956-57.

Isometric.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

Lent by John VIncl.

51.

M. Von Broembsen

Materials and Construction 213, 214.

Brick Courthouse Construction.

1958.

a. Elevations/Sections.

b. Perspective.

Pencil on Strathmore board.
30" X 40" (76 X 101.6cm).
Lent by John VIncl.

98

IIT CURRICULUM

52.

Gene Maloney

Materials and Construction 213.

Brick Bearing Wall Construction.

January 1961.

Plan and Section.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

53.

David Spaeth

Materials and Construction 214.

Wood Frame House on Stone Base.

3 June 1961.

Perspective.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

99

NT CURRICULUM

54.

Katherlne Barr

Materials and Construction 213.

Brick Bearing Wall Construction.

19 January 1967.

Perspective Section.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

55.

Carter H. Manny, Jr.
Architectural Construction 311.
Courthouse Problem. 1947.

a. Sections.

b. Full Scale window Details.

c. Perspective.

Pencil on Illustration board.
30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm) each.

55

100

NT CURRICULUM

56.

Edmond N. Zlsook

Architectural Construction 311, 312.

Brick Crosswall House. 1948-49.

Perspective.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).

^-^'S'ff

»i, ' '1 'I

^2,;,»i- n ',;

>«

'S¥. •■'fv

0?

.'li

•'¥%,

•' '(?

»'

^Qq pV-pd

56

101

NT CURRICULUM

57.

Donald WrobleskI

Architectural Construction 311, 312.

BrIcK Bearing Wall with Concrete

Roof Using Elementary School Plan.

1951-52.

Perspective Section.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6. cm).

102

IIT CURRICULUM

58.

Kenneth Folgers

Architectural Construction 311, 312.

Shell Construction Using Elementary

School Plan. 1955-56.

Perspective Section.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).

59.

Anonymous

Architectural Construction 311. 312.

Brick Wall and Roof. c. 1957-58.

Full Size Detail.

Pencil and colored pencil on

Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).

Lent by John vincl.

60.

Thomas Burleigh

Architecture 407, 408.

Steel Skeleton HIghrlse Curtain Wall

Study, c. 1942-43.

Pencil and Ink on back of blueprint.

39y2" X 30" (101.3 X 76 cm).

8igli!lMiJii;'-li:L.L^.jJLlJiJljg^

58

103

61.

Joseph Fujikawa

Architecture 407, 408.

Concrete Skeleton HIghrise Curtain

Wall Study. 1944.

Photograph by Hedrlch Blessing.

62.

Bruno Cohterato
Architecture 408.
Courthouse Problem. 1948.
Interior Perspective.
Collage on Strathmore board.
30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

63.

Robert Reeves

Architecture 407, 408.

Brick Bearing Wall Bachelor's

House. 1949-50.

Plan and Elevations.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

64.

Allen Marske

Architecture 404.

Wall Problem with Two Sculptures.

Collage on grey board.

15" X 20" (38.1 X 51 cm).*

65.

Walter Romberg

Architecture 404.

Wall Problem with Two Paintings

and a Shelf, c. 1965.

Collage on grey board.

15" X 20" (38.1 X 51 cm).*

66.

J. Spacek

Architecture 404.

Wall Problem with Painting and

Sculpture. 1970.

Collage on grey board.

15" X 20" (38.1 X 51 cm).*

61

104

IIT CURRICULUM

67.

Gil Walendy

Architecture 403.

Wall Problem with Painting and

Shelf. 1968.

Collage on grey board.

15" X 20" (38.1 X 51 cm).*

68.

Donald SIckler

Architecture 444.

A Campus Plan. 1953.

Perspective.

Pencil and Ink wash on Strathmore

board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

69.

Anonymous

Architecture 444.

A Campus Plan. 1955-57.

Two Perspectives.

a. Conte pencil on Strathmore
board.

b. Conte pencil with lipstick on
Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm) each.*

70.

B. Babka

Architecture 444.

HIghrise/Lowrise Waterfront

Development Project, c. 1956.

Site Plan.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

71.

Marcia (Gray) Martin

Architecture 444.

Highrise/Lowrise Waterfront

Development Project. 1956.

Elevation Study.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

lO'A" X 40" (26 X 101.6 cm).*

..A

m

105

IIT CURRICULUM

72.

Cynthia (Bostick) Lenz

Architecture 444.

HIghrlse/Lowrlse Waterfront

Development Project. 1956.

Perspective.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

^^^^^m^s

i„iiisasasKa^

73.

R. Linke (Designer)

B. Samuels (Draftsman)

Architecture 444.

Highrise/Lowrise Waterfront

Development Project. 1956.

Site Plan.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

74.

G. Osako

Architecture 444.

Highrise/Lowrise Waterfront

Development Project. 1956.

Site Plan.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

lO'A" X 40" (26 X 101.6 cm).*

75.

Marilyn Ternovits
Architecture 405, 406.
Hlghrise. 1 May 1967.
Elevation Studies.
Collage on Strathmore board.
30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

76.

Thomas Burleigh

Visual Training 211.

Exercise with Textures. 25 January

1941.

Collage on illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

75

106

IIT CURRICULUM

77.

H. Seklemlan

visual Training 211, 212.

Exercise In Proportion, c. 1943-44.

Collage on board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

Lent by the Chicago Historical

Society.

78.

L. Bllnderman

Visual Training 211. 212.

Exercise In Proportion, c. 1944-45.

Collage on board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

Lent by the Chicago Historical

Society.

79.

J. Somers

Visual Training 211, 212.

Exercise in Proportion, c. 1945-46.

Collage on board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

Lent by the Chicago Historical

Society.

80.

J. Somers

Visual Training 211, 212.

Exercise in Proportion, c. 1945-46.

Collage on board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

Lent by the Chicago Historical

Society.

81.

David J. Tamminga

Visual Training 212. 1947.

a. Exercise with Textures.

b. Exercise with Textures.

c. intersecting Planes.
Collage on Illustration board.
30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm) each.

76

107

IIT CURRICULUM

82.

John Munson
Visual Training 212.
Planes In Space. May 1954.
Collage on Illustration board.
30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

83.

Edward Starostovic

Visual Training 212.

Exercise with Warped Planes.

January 1953.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

108

84.

John VIncI

Visual Training 211, 212.

Exercise In Proportion. 1956-57.

Collage on Illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

85.

John Munson

Visual Training 306.

Exercise with Textures. January

1955.

Ink and colored Ink on paper.

28'/8" X 19%" (71.5 X 50 cm).

Mounted on Illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

86.

David Sharpe

Visual Training 306.

Exercise with Natural Textures.

1958.

Colored inks on illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

87.

John Vinci

Visual Training 305, 306.

Exercise with Created Textures.

1957-58.

Ink wash on iliustratlon board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

NT CURRICULUM

re K^i

85

109

NT CURRICULUM

88.

Thomas Burleigh

Freehand Drawing 205.

Figure Studies. 6 November 1940.

Pencil on paper.

24" X 18" (61 X 45.5 cml.

89.

Terry Imamuro

Lawrence Kenny

Albert Roupp

Mel Skavaria

Life Drawing.

Four Studies of Plant Life.

c. 1959-60.

Pencil and Ink on paper.

11" X 8y2" (27.8 X 21.5 cm).

Mounted on Illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

90.

Tolee

Freehand Drawing.

Seated Male Figure.

Ink wash on paper.

23y2" X 17%" (59.7 X 45.1 cm).

Mounted on Illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

91.

Michael Helder

Life Drawing.

Seated Male Figure. 1966-67.

Pencil on paper.

24" X 17%" (61 X 45.1 cm).

Mounted on Illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

m

IIT CURRICULUM

92.

Eric Anderson

City Planning 201.

City Block Density Studies.

22 January 1948.

InK on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

93.

Anonymous

City Planning.

Housing Detail of Settlement Unit.

InK on Illustration board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

94.

Anonymous

City Planning.

Housing and Community Buildings,

Sun Pentratlon Studies.

Ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

95.

Alfred Caldwell

City Planning.

Density Studies, Comparison of

Building Shapes.

Ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

96.

Anonymous

City Planning.

Housing and Community Buildings,

Sun Chart.

Ink on Strathmore board.

20" X 30" (51 X 76 cm).*

WINTER LATITUDE 42 N,

1

^

1

J

i

\-

1

1

WK

i>^i^^Fgt>.:>^-;p :-. >;h

■;J

ijijE

si

t^

3=;5^~

I^^SC

111

NT CURRICULUM

97.

C. S. Stanfield
City Planning.
Settlement Unit Project.
Ink on Illustration board.
29%" X 7.IV1" (75.7 X 57 cm).*

98.

Anonymous

Regional Planning.

City Along a River.

Ink and wash on Strathmore board.

30" X 22 '72" (76 X 57 cm).*

99.

Shields

Regional Planning.

Rock River Valley. Plan and

Variation.

Ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).*

100.

Architectural Construction.

a. Traditional Timber-Framed
Building. Scale Model; Oak.*

b. Traditional Timber-Framed
Building. Scale Model: Oak.*

c. Prototype Balloon Frame
Construction.

Model: Wood House on Stone

Walls.

Basswood and Travertine.

Scale: 'A" = r-0".*

d. Steel Skeleton Medium Rise
Building. Scale Model: Metal.*

e. Long Span Open Truss System,
200' X 400'. Model: Metal.
Scale: 1/16" = 1' 0".*

101.

Anonymous

Architecture 453-454.

Model of Building Groupings.

Late 1950's.

Photograph.

Courtesy of George Danforth.

102.

George Danforth

House with Three Courts, c. 1940.

Perspective of Bedroom Wing.

Photograph by Hedrlch Blessing.

103.

George Danforth

Architecture 407. 408.

Notebook of Design Sketches with

Critiques by Mies. 1939-40.

Notebook with pencil on tracing

paper.

9" X 14y2"(23.9 X 36.8 cm).

104.

Thomas Burleigh

Student File with Problems and

Information Handouts Given to

Students. 1947-48.

File.

1 1 %" X 9'/2" (29.8 X 24.1 cm).

105.

Exhibit In Skylight Space Outside

Architecture Department Offices,

Top of The Art Institute of Chicago.

c. 1941.

Photograph by Thomas Burleigh.

106.

Eight Images of the Open House

Exhibit, Alumni Memorial Hall,

Illinois Institute of Technology.

c. 1947.

Photographer unknown. Courtesy of

George Danforth.

107.

Four Views Open House Exhibit,

Second Floor, Armour Mission,

Armour Institute of Technology.

1942.

Photograph by George Storz.

108.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Five Views of the Mies Exhibit at the

Renaissance Society. 1947.

Photographs by Hedrlch Blessing.

109.

Open House Exhibit at Lakevlew

Building, Chicago. Model of 10-Story

Apartment House by James

Michaelson and R. Ogden

Hannaford. 1940-41.

Photograph by R. Ogden Hannaford.

110.

Open House Exhibit, Alumni
Memorial Hall, Illinois Institute of
Technology, c. 1948.

a. City Planning Model.

b. NT Campus Model.

c. Elevations Studies.

d-f. General Views of the Exhibit.
Photographs by Thomas Burleigh.

112

IIT CURRICULUM

107

113

IIT CURRICULUM

wl'^

St^v^nS

St^w^nS

ir ^ 1

\ \

\^ \

112

''<■

^ / /^rr

V^c

\

111.

Five Images of Faculty Lecturing at
Alumni Memorial Hall, Illinois
Institute of Technology, c. 1949.
a-c. A. James Speyer and Daniel
Brenner Holding a Class.

d. Peterhans at Podium.

e. Brenner Critiquing Drawings.
Photographs by Lawrence J.
Harrison.

112.

Alfred Mell or John Rodgers

Six Sketches of Freshman Drawing

Exercises, Working Out the Courses

with Mies and Peterhans.

C. 1938-39.

Pencil on hotel stationery.

S'/z" X 5V2" (216 X 13.9 cm) each.

113.

Lawrence J. Harrison

Caricature Sketch of A. James

Speyer, Faculty of Architecture,

Illinois Institute of Technology.

c. 1949.

Pencil on note paper.

5%" X 8 %■' (15 X 21.1 cm).

114.

Hilberselmer Giving a Critique to

Students, The Art Institute of

Chicago, c. 1941.

Photograph by R. Schneider.

Courtesy of Thomas Burleigh.

115.

Hilberselmer with Students, c. 1955.

Photograph by R. J. Martin.

Lent by Marcia Gray Martin.

116.

Hilberselmer with Junior Students,

John Randall and Henry Boles (r.).

c. 1941.

Photograph by Thomas Burleigh.

117.

Two images of Mies at

Hllberseimer's Day Party,

Art Institute of Chicago, Corridor.

21 December 1942.

Photograph by Thomas Burleigh.

118.

Mies Giving a Critique to Student,

Drafting Room at The Art Institute of

Chicago, c. 1941.

Photograph by R. Schneider.

Courtesy of Thomas Burleigh.

119.

Four Images of Hllberseimer's Day in
the Loop, Chicago, c. 1941.
Photographer unknown.
Courtesy of Thomas Burleigh.

120.

Image of Hilberselmer, Signed by the

Class of 1949 on the Back. c. 1949.

Photographer unknown.

6%" X 4y4" (17.2 X 12.2 cm).

121.

Hilberselmer Giving a Critique to
Students, c. 1949.
Photographer unknown.
Courtesy of Lawrence J. Harrison.

122.

Mies at Open House Exhibit, Alumni

Memorial Hall, Illinois Institute of

Technology. 1949.

Photographer unknown.

Courtesy of Lawrence J. Harrison.

123.

Mies in S. R. Crown Hall, Illinois
Institute of Technology. Mld-1950's.
Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

124.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

a. Resor House. Second Scheme.
Model, c. 1938.

Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

b. Hi-Way Restaurant Project,
Indianapolis. Model. 1946.

1 . Photograph by Hedrich
Blessing.

2. Photograph. Courtesy of Feico
Glastra van Loon.

c. 860 and 880 Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago.

Under construction, c. 1951.
Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

113

114

117

/nf-C^i^zuAs^

^ ^^C^M./^^^^o^'^sJ^

r /: .<„--6.

^^^^

118

4

NT AS A MODEL OF

A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

The alternative plans for the NT campus which Mies studied beginning
in 1938, show how he worked comparatively in seeking to discover the
best solution to a problem. One proposes a campus in which the ex-
pression of function is the dominant issue, while the other presents a
campus based on regular structure. In choosing the design ordered by
structure Mies believed he had achieved a plan which would be clearer
for users, better able to guide and accommodate later additions and
more expressive of the values of a modern university in relation to the
city.

In the sketches for S.R. Crown Hall exhibited here Mies shows the
Inventiveness that characterized his entire career. Although the final
form, structure and expression of the building had been suggested and
explored in projects which he had studied for some time, his studies of
stairs for the building show Mies considering various possibilities. Not
only do these sketches show him dealing with the horizontal plane in
terms similar to a wall, they also show a flexibility of approach which at
the outset rejects ordinary habits and assumptions.

116

NT AS A MODEL OF A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

125.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

S. R. Crown Hall, Illinois Institute of

Technology. Chicago.

Under construction, c. 1955.

Photograph by Hedrlch Blessing.

126.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Joseph FujlKawa

a. Eight sketch studies for S. R.
Crown Hall. Illinois Institute of
Technology.

Early 1950's.

Pencil on note paper.

6"'x 8'A" (15.1 X 21.1 cm).*

b. Six sketch studies for

S. R. Crown Hall. Interiors.

Early 1950s.

Pencil on note paper.

5" X 7V4" (12.5 X 18.5 cm) and

6" X B'A'MIS.I X 21.1 cm).*

Eight sketch studies for S. R.

Crown Hall. Early 1950s.

Pencil on note paper.

6" X 8V4- (15.1 X 21.1 cm)*

Eight sketch studies for S. R.

Crown Hall. Early 1950's.

Pencil on note paper.

6" X 8'/." (15.1 X 21.1 cm).*

-WHtfTl

t\^dvm^^^^:

117

NT AS A MODEL OF A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

I •!'

l^-V

4^-^^

N \

*;^

M

^^.

y o-

-m.

.>3f:

f~.-.l

i 1

K— --.

'M

-■C7^

■ :<t

^x -•

( - '■

-*.^..->

' '-^>;

^.

..--■m^'

i/T

-.::--^

I.'

•:-T"

r:.

-\

-.- ■ V

r/'

s -^j^:- ■■:■■

J'

126c

1 18

IIT AS A MODEL OF A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

127.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Pace Associates
S. R. Crown Hall. Construction
Drawings. 1955.

a. Sheet A3 — ground floor plan.

b. Sheet A4 — elevations.

c. Sheet A5 — t)ulldlng sections,
roof and penthouse.

d. Sheet A6 — exterior wall detail.
Pencil on linen.

Lent by the Chicago Historical
Society.

128.

S. R. Crown Hall Dedication. Illinois
Institute of Technology.
30 April 1956.

a. Speaker Walter A. Bletcher, City
Planning Consultant.

b. John Rettaliata, President of IIT
with Mies.

c. Mies Giving Rettaliata the Gold
Key to S. R. Crown Hall.

d. Luncheon Preceding Dedication.
Mayor Richard J. Daley with John
Rettaliata and Members of the
Crown Family.

Photographs by Arthur Siegel.

129.

Three Images of the Illinois Institute

of Technology and Environs.

Early 1940's.

Photograph by Thomas Burleigh.

130.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Buildings on Illinois Institute of
Technology Campus.

a. Metals and Minerals Building.
1943.

b. Alumni Memorial Hall. 1946.

c. Wlshnlck Hall Under
Construction. 1945-46.

d-e. Perlsteln Hall Under
Construction. 1945-46.

f. S. R. Crown Hall Under
Construction. 1955-56.

g. S. R. Crown Hall. Interior. 1956.
Photographs by Hedrich Blessing.

131.

Secretaries

Architecture Department. Illinois

Institute of Technology. Diaries of

the Architecture Department,

Including Visitors, Prospective

Students, Lectures, Publications and

Exhibitions.

a, 6 April 1948-21 July 1950.

b. 1 August 1950-2 December 1954.
3 ring binder with typed entries and
business cards.

9" X 7" (22.9 X 17.8 cm).

128b

119

IIT AS A MODEL OF A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

> -■
■5 -s -

^! :

132a

^f^

■V-J.

120

132.

Adrian Gayle

Two Drawings of Mies.

a. Mies on Slelghrlde.

b. Mies Walking In the Snow.
Photostats of cartoon drawings.
eVe" X 8" (15.3 X 20.3 cm)
and 6" X eVs" (15.1 X 16.7 cm).
Lent by George Danforth.

133.

Mies with Sculpture of Himself by

Hugo Weber, c. 1961.

8%" X 13y4"(22 X 33.5 cml.

Photograph by Richard Nickel

Lent by Richard Nickel Committee.

134.

Four Images of Werner Graeff with

Mies and George Danforth in

Chicago. October 1968.

Photographer unknown.

Lent by George Danforth.

135.

Experimental photograph of Mies

van der Rohe. c. 1954.

Signed by Mies.

Photographer unknown.

14'/8" X 1iy4"(36.4 X 29.8cm).

Lent by Edward A. Duckett.

136.

Inland Architect

American Institute of Architects,

Chicago Chapter. November 1963.

"Mies van der Rohe Twenty-Five

Years of Work in Chicago."

Lent by John Vinci.

137.

Mies and Hilberseimer in Farmer's

Field, Dorchester and 49th, Chicago.

c. 1940.

Photographer unknown.

5" X 4" (12.7 X 10.2 cml.

Lent by George Danforth.

138.

Mies and Alfred Caldwell on ilT

Campus.

c. 1947.

Photograph by Thomas Burleigh.

139.

Mies on a Bench at the Beach. 1949.
Photograph by E. Campbell.
Courtesy of Lawrence J. Harrison.

IT AS A MODEL OF A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

140.

Three Images of a Class Picnic at the
Indiana Dunes. 1949.
Photographs by MarK Flnfer.

141.

Three Images of Mies at WTTW-TV,

Chicago, for the Heritage Series.

Early 1960's.

Photographer unknown.

Lent tjy George Danforth.

142.

Walter Peterhans at a Louis

Armstrong Concert at the Blue Note

Nightclub, Chicago, c. 1950.

Photographer unknown.

7" X 5" (17.6 X 12.5 cm).

Lent by George Danforth.

143.

Norman Ross

■Mies van der Rohe." c. 1957.

Edited version.

Film by Ross-McElroy Productions,

Chicago.

134

121

5

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER
MIES 1938-1958

In his early graduate teaching, Mies directed students towards abstract
issues at the juncture of architectural practice and social values:
schools, churches, museums. Problems were studied comparatively
and historically to understand the relation between expression and
values in other places at other times. Later students became increas-
ingly interested in problems of actual building, and spent less time
considering them in terms of their social function. At about the same
time these projects became refinements of worK iviies had already
explored, rather than investigations of ideas that he was then consider-
ing. The problems of very large structures received greater attention.
They were studied with respect to the most advanced structural tech-
niques available and to the questions of scale. It was assumed that the
nature of the problems suggested an appropriate structural order. The
architectural solution then became the expression of that order. The
major means in solving the question of scale emerged through studies
of proportion. These issues have been pursued principally through the
influence and teaching of Myron Goldsmith, David Sharpe and the late
Fazlur Khan.

il ■ III III' ' f!

122

111 'Jijiiiiiii.'

-III

192h

I imiii II II nil I

r ■' j«:;,r"! iin'

I ' "I «•'• i"!."! 8

Mil II II Tf lirir i

j ■■■■ •*•<!■■■ '■■•>•'

II 11

IM I Hl'ir

III ' %

llii4HII g. I 11
- |||>«>*! -^'^

I iiiiiiiniii il
^lir'i'iii I I iiijiif _

iiiV" I.,! • :_i L ■

Jill illl 11 II I pr

3;^'— iiiiiiir ■ fi^ il '
li^ !• •■•iiiirvL _iii i ii|^;

iiiii"i!iir ■•— "■■••III'
ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiirr III III
i ii'ii tiiiiiir'iiiiiij Ml?

ill iMiiriiiii' Miih
.fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifijiiii?f .
>iiii!iiiiiri!Vfrfiiiiiiiiiiii
• liiiiin iiiiiijiiiiiii"*

■•■ "•Hill ■■■lililltlll

- ?;: ..L ... imiiiimiiH
...... liiiii*. iif „||i... ji

V iiii iiii iiiiiir*'"'iiiiii
iiiiiiiir'^f ■•

i. iillllHIIIMIIIIillllllllli

mmm

jnjKr:^"::"-'

!',:jkBiite.-'«

.■us

^»jffjrrryi

WW^tWtffiiMPMMJ^tT'

irimiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiii

A

144.

Anonymous

Graduate.

Regional Planning.

Part of a Replanned City on Hilly

Ground.

Colored Inks and wash on

Strathmore board.

40" X 30" (101.6 X 76 cm).*

145.

Anonymous
Graduate.
Regional Planning.

a. Chicago, View from Lake
Michigan to Fox River.
Proposed Study.

b. Chesapeake Bay/Potomac River
Area.

Proposed Study.
Air brush, Ink on Strathmore board.
40" X 30" (101.6 X 76 cm) each.*

146.

Donald Munson

Warren Spitz

Graduate. Regional Planning.

Regional Study of Chicago, c. 1931.

Four panels a/b/c/d. Existing

Conditions.

Four panels e/f/g/h. Proposed

Solution.

Ink and wash on Strathmore board.

40" X 30" (101.6 X 76 cm) each.*

»&i

,s*^'

/

'-Ji.'r.!U< . - -_ >Jsa

i-SS^

^^

S.JI

^«s^

CHICAGO VIEW FROM LAKE MICHIGAN TO THE FOX RIVER

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

148a

124

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

147.

A. James Speyer

Graduate. Advanced Architecture I

501, 502.

Courthouse Problem. Perspective.

1939.

Collage witti pencil on Strathmore

board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).*

148.

George Danforth

Graduate. Advanced Archiltecture I

501, 502. 1941.

a. Wall Problem Composition.
Collage on Strathmore board.
20" X 30" (51 X 76 cm),

b. Residence with a Court.
Perspective done under Mies and
Peterhans.

Collage with pencil on

Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).

149.

George Danforth (Layout)

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

(Delineation and Composition)

Graduate. Advanced Architecture I

501, 502.

Residence with a Court. Perspective.

Collage and pencil on illustration

board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm).

148b

125

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

126

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

150.

Reginald Malcolmson

Graduate. Advanced Architecture I

501, 502.

a. Concert Hall In a Factory. 1947.
Photo collage on Illustration
board.

15" X 31 'A" (38 X 79.5 cm).

b. Skyscraper Studies of Curtain
Wall. 1948.

Ink on Strathmore board.
30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm).

151.

Jose Polar

Graduate. Advanced Architecture I

501. 502.

Courthouse Problem. Plans.

1949-50.

Collage on Strathmore board.

20" X 30" (51 X 76 cm).*

152.

Gene R. Summers

Graduate. Advanced Architecture

501, 502.

Courthouse Problem. Plans.

8 December 1949.

Collage on Strathmore board.

20" X 30" (51 X 76 cm).*

-:j^44--^-r|^^r-hj-ix-

! i \ \ 1

1 i • 1 !

1 { ' j 1 i

-r-r-f— -. : [ -N-j [4

M ' : II i

.1 1 i ' '

■ 1 1 i ' ■

! i 1 j i 1 ! ' '

; ; i i 1 :

! !~ ' i ^ ~t i i ' '

ill ! :

; ' 1

II 1

^^> ^ . 1 it

^^ ' ' ' J ^ it

! i III

i , • 111

' ! 1 1

I

-\i\\ 1 [ ui.^

-- - - - 1 1 1-

1 L 1 i

r [ I r

.-1 1

■ 1 — -i ^ *-' '-' — ' — ■

152

127

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

fflS^^^^

' s

1

^^

Imiijiii^^

^s^

iipiw^WiSwmiiiiBisii

128

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

153.

Gene R. Summers

Graduate. Advanced Architecture

501, 502.

Three Story Skeleton Structure.

Elevation Studies.

a. Steel Structure. 13 March 1950.

b. Concrete Structure. 4 April 1950.
Collage on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm) each.*

154.

Anonymous

Graduate. Advanced Architecture I.

Courthouse Problem, c. 1950's.

a. Series of three plans.

b. Series of three plans.
Collage on Strathmore board.
20" X 30" (51 X 76 cm) each.*

155.

A. James Speyer

Graduate Thesis. "The Space

Concept In Modern Domestic

Architecture." Various Illustrations

from thesis. 1938. Photographs.

153b

129

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

156.

Charles Worley

Graduate Thesis. "A School for Art

and Architecture." 1941.

a. Building Types Investigated and
Rejected.

b. Front Elevation of the School.
Photographs.

157.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

George Danforth

Thirteen Sketches: Museum for a

Small City. c. 1939-42.

a-d: 6" X 8'A"(15.2 x 21 cm).

e-j: 6" X 7" (15.2. x 17.8 cm).

k-m: aVi" X 13" (21.5 X 33 cm).

158.

Charles Genther

Graduate Thesis (unfinished).

"Towards a New Architecture."

1942-43.

Various illustrations from thesis.

Photographs.

156a

--1-

1

! 1.

J _.[ :''m I

•>^ I

rr r

• /

.].... .L..,

k4

'I li

9'^-fcjSk

I '■/■w <-

. .,!. ..L,-i..

-A

4X

156b

130

■T

\M.'ljji.-».im'i''L,

If S

1 !L„,,

1

i . --,,..^

.-'^

157c

S^

-,;f-.

157d

■4

) ,

4. L^Ji.,...

■^- /. i

/4

■ /

131

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

•<-'-^--i*A.':-

159

^v

161a

132

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

159.

Daniel Brenner

Graduate Thesis.

"An Art Museum." 1949.

Model-Exterior View.

Photograph.

160

James Ferris

Graduate Thesis.

"The Replanning of a University

Campus." 1951.

Model-View of the Campus Looking

West Along University Avenue.

Photograph.

161.

Wei Tung Lo

Graduate Thesis.

"University Administration Building.'

1951.

a. Model-Perspective.

b. Administration Building with
Surrounding Buildings.

Photographs.

162.

Jose Polar

Graduate Thesis.

"The Student Dining Hall." 1951.

Model-Perspective.

Photograph.

163.

Gene R. Summers

Graduate Thesis.

"A Fieidhouse." 1951.

a. Plan.

b. Elevation.
Photographs.

\

i

1

n

+ s t

. .r

. i- • -

*•

r -^

! 1--

--

._(_ r

-„_

—

i — ~

"

jjf»

1

1-i

i

i^i\ir-i^'/- -^ V ^
",^'^V:'i -■■■•■

163b

133

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

IS

._x

^i^jRaysR^^i^ M->»»^ I

Hi.

\\\ i^^ 'ir

II I ^aik

1

165a

134

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

164.

David J. Tammlnga

Graduate Thesis.

"Student Housing for a University

Campus." 1951.

a. Tall Concrete Structure.

b. Tall Steel Structure - Study I.

c. Dormitory — General View.

d. Dormitory Grouping.
Photographs.

165.

Yau Chun Wong

Graduate Thesis.

"The Student Union." 1951.

a. Model — Side (south or north)
View.

b. Model — General View.
Photograph.

166.

John Sugden

Graduate Thesis.

"An Industrial Exhibition Hall." 1952.

Model — Front Elevation.

Photograph.

167.

Edmond N. Zisook

Graduate Thesis.

"A Recreation and Social Center for

Neighborhood Community." 1952.

Model — Front Elevation.

Photograph.

168.

Joseph Fujikawa

Graduate Thesis.

"A Suburban Shopping Center."

1953.

a. Store — Ground Floor Plan.

b. Perspective.

Pencil on Strathmore board.
30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cm) each.

^T- ir tr «,•«».„

0~ tf/^^^^^_

:^3v

Rae-jgsV3?..tTas-jj>.ia^f».-»v^^.of.^

■^^^;^r^'-A-.

168b

135

ilHIi

0 oD Eg
9 m m

I i

m

169.

Myron Goldsmith

Graduate Thesis.

"The Tall Building: The Effects of

Scale.' 1953.

a. Plans.

b. Elevation.

c. Perspective.

d. Alternate Elevations,
ink on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" (76 X 101.6 cml each.

169a

169b

^

.fr/yv

169d

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

137

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

138

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

170.

David Hald
Graduate Thesis.
•An Art Center." 1953.

a. Model Exterior.

b. Model Interior.
Photographs by Hedrlch Blessing.

171.

Jacques Brownson

Graduate Thesis.

"A Steel and Glass House." 1954.

a. Floor Plan.

b. Roof Hanger Section.

Ink on Strathmore board. Redrawn
by Elizabeth Kunin. 1986.
30" X 20" (76 X 51 cm) each.

c. East Elevation.
Photograph.

TRANSVERSE GrRDER

1

-

-- - - —

n

1 ■

-

I

«n..,iv.. -

\^^

~l i

C

^

Dcr-

u

QJUL

□miZD

T 1

I- 5

D

\\\^^\\^\

\^~^~^~^"^^^

T

S WF ROOF HANGER
^ 6" LONG

. -r ...ril.'l.i i .l.Jrf^

■ ' ' ■ - ■ ' 8"SQ PITCH POCK
ROOF FLASHING

t,;;,:ia ', :;:„i ,.,,, .!.Ll iJi IjilLl.,.,

\ I 1 , : ■ . ] . ' !■ ^ '! !' " ','■ 1 v]:'','",J'l'^]^l l^)^|

^ t

X

T

A

s STEEL DECKING

s^^-^^-<^-^

XX,\\V^^\;

V///>/}/}/}/}/y

>/}///)/}/ //////A

10 WF 21 BEAM

CHANNELS 4-0" OC,

x//////////y/////7/y/// ////// /A

PLASTER CEILING

ROOF HANGER SECTION

171b

139

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

^

L

u

172b

172c

140

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

172.

Pao Chi Chang

Henry Kanazawa

Yujiro Mlwa

Graduate Thesis.

"A Convention Hall." 1954.

a. Model — Bird's Eye View.

Model — Exterior Corner Detail.

Model — Interior Corner Detail.

Structural System. Perspective

Section.

e. Preliminary Studies of BlacK,
Brown and Tan Granite.

f. Elevation Studies In Two and
Three Colors.

Photographs a-c, by Hedrlch
Blessing.

b.
c.
d.

173.

Antonio Caslmir Ramos

Jacob Karl VIks

Graduate Thesis.

"Interior Studies of a Large Hall."

1955.

A Concert Hall — Interior View.

Photograph.

— 7r — /t- " ^ — T^ — 7' — T7^ — y — - /' — gr"-„^.-^J' z-^"-

~^

..F

-\-

172d

141

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

174.

Jan Llppert

Graduate Thesis.

"A Museum." 1956.

Model — Exterior View.

Photograph.

1 1 !

! 1

I

'"^

i I

1 1

1

t~i

1 1

t 1 !

!

1

1

^/i"" "^

1

i

! ( '

__ _ J

1 i

^

1 "^v

I !

1 ^^^^^_ i

i

1

i^V

1

^^^^^^^^^^

i

1

1

\[ i ! 1

1

i 1

P"

^^^^

!

r i

1 1

1

1 fl

^^^^^^^^

_j

i

i ^ ..

!' { ■ 1 "^^^^

1

1 1 1 ■< 1 1 . -^^^^^

1

175

142

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

175.

Reginald Malcolmson

Graduate Thesis.

■•A Theatre." 1957.

Elevation.

Collage on Strathmore board.

30" X 40" 176 y 101.6 cm).

176.

Peter Carter

Graduate Thesis.

"An Art Museum." 1958.

a. Structural Framing. Perspective.

b. Model — Exterior Vlev\/.
Photographs.

143

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

^4. Ah -

^».

4-;^^ VA

\^

v->^

fir \^^

^^^4^

A«#/-

*» A*

>s J -»

177.

Alfred Caldwell
Regional Park Plan. 1957.
Pencil on Strathmore board.
igVs" X 24" (48.7 X 60.9 cm).
Collection: American Friends of the
CCA on loan to Centre Canadien
d'Architecture/Canadian Centre for
Architecture, Montreal

178.

Alfred Caldwell

A Proposed Plan for Chicago. 1942.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

29%" X 39%" (76 X 101.5 cm I.

Collection: American Friends of the

CCA on loan to Centre Canadien

d'Architecture/Canadian Centre for

Architecture, Montreal

179.

Alfred Caldwell

Landscape Perspective of Small

Houses and School. 1959.

Pencil on Strathmore board.

17%" X 23%" (45 X 60.8 cm).

Collection: American Friends of the

CCA on loan to Centre Canadien

d'Architecture/Canadian Centre for

Architecture, Montreal

144

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

180.

Phil Hart and others

Advanced Architecture I.

a-b. 50' X 50' House Problem, c.

1951.
Model In Landscape Setting.
Photographs by Hedrlch Blessing.

181.

Abdel-Monhelm Hassan Kamel

Graduate Thesis.

"Concert Hall." 1949.

Model In Open House Exhibit.

Photograph.

Courtesy of George Danforth.

182.

Convention Hall Project, Chicago.

1953.

Color photograph of collage In the

collection of Museum of Modern Art.

180b

145

GRADUATE STUDIES UNDER MIES

183.

Open House Exhibit, Alumni

IVlemoriai Hall, Illinois Institute of

Technology, c. 1947.

Photograph by Feico Giastra van

Loon.

184.

Open House, Senior Rooms, Alumni
Memorial Haii, liiinois Institute of
Technology. 300' x 300' Long Span
Structure (Brenner, Duniap and
Malcoimson). 1947-48.
Photograph by Reginald
Malcoimson.

185.

Open House Exhibit, Aiumni

Memorial Hall, Illinois institute of

Technology. Kamei's Model.

1947-48.

Photograph by Reginald

Malcoimson.

186.

Hilberseimer's Graduate Seminar.

1948.

Photographer unknown.

Courtesy of Reginald Malcoimson.

187.

Two Images of Mies Studying Model

With Students, c. 1948-49.

Photographer unknown.

Courtesy of Feico Giastra van Loon.

188.

Three images of Hilberseimer's Day

Party. 21 December 1961.

Color photographs.

2%" X 3%" (6.6 X 8.7 cm).

Lent by George Danforth.

189.

Eight Images of Mies's 75th Birthday

Party at Charles Genther's

Apartment, 860 Lake Shore Drive,

Chicago. 1961.

Polaroid photographs.

Lent by George Danforth.

190.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Philip Johnson

The Seagram Building, New York.

1957.

Photograph by Malcolm Smith.

Lent by John Burgee Architects with

Philip Johnson.

191.

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Ludwig Hilberseimer

Alfred Caldwell

Lafayette Park. c. 1958.

Model — Bird's Eye View.

Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

188

146

192.

Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe

a. Promontory Apartments,
Chicago. 1949.

Photograph Py Hedrich Blessing.

b. Farnsworth House, Piano, Illinois.
1950.

Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

c. 860 and 880 Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago. 1951.

Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

d. National Theatre of the City of
Mannheim, Project. 1953.
Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

e. S.R. Crown Hall. Illinois Institute
of Technology. 1956.
Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

f. Bacardi Office Building Project,
Santiago de Cuba. 1957.
Model.

Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

g. The Federal Center, Chicago.
1964.

Photograph by Hedrich Blessing.

192b

1920

"jy^'^^n

192f

APPENDIX

IIT COURSES IN ARCH ITECTURE, 1938-1958

Note: Odd numbered courses usually indicate the Fall Semester and even numbered courses usually indicate the Spring Semester.

■38-'39 SQ-MO ■40-'41 ■41-42 '42-'43 '43-44 •44-'45 '45-'46 AB-Al ^/-^S

107
108
109
110
201
202
203
204
205

207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216

■48-'49

•54-'55

■55-'56

■56-'57

■57-'58

101
102
103
104

105

-nt- Freehand Drawing
1Ub ^^^^-— ^— ^

Applied Descriptive Geometry

Applied Descriptive Geometry

Freehand Drawing

Arch,

Elementary Drafting

Arch

Elementary Drafting

Arch Theory
and Visual Training

Arch Const,

Arch Const.

Architectural History

Architectural History

Freehand Drawing

„P„ Freehand Drawing

luiaterials and Construction

IVIaterials and Construction

Architectural Theory
and Visual Training

Arch, Theory
and Visual Training

Axonometric Geometry

Perspective Drawing

Visual Training

Visual Training

Life Drawing

Life Drawing

Life Drawing

Life Drawing

Architectural History

Architectural History

Materials and Construction

Materials and Construction

Life Drawing

Life Drawing

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216

151

NT COURSES IN ARCHITECTURE

•38-39

■39-'40

■40-'41

■41-'42

'42-'43

•43-'44

■44-45

'45-'46

■46-'47

■47-'48

■48-'49

313
314
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414

Architectural History

Architectural History

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

Visual Reinf. Cone.

o^lP Training Const Architectural Construction

Freehand
Drawing

Theory and Design of
Dwellings and Housing

■49-'50

•50-'51

■51-'52

■52-'53

'53-'54

•54-'55

•55-'56

•56-'57

•57-'58

Arch Practice i

Arch Practice

Architectural Practice

Architectural Practice

Visual Training

Visual Training

Dwellings

Housing

Theory and Design of Community and
Dwellings and Housing Public Buildings

Visual
Training

Architectural Construction

Arch

Cons'

Arch,
Const

Analysis of Art
; Analysis of Art

—

Architectural Practice

Architectural Practice

Architecture

Architectural History

Architectural History

\ 1

I

i

i

i

Architecture

Architecture

Architecture

Housing and Community Buildings

Housing Development

Seminar

Seminar

City Planning

Theory of City Planning

City Planning

Analysis of Art

Theory of City Planning

Analysis of/

Arch Theory and
Arch and Culture

! 1

J Arch. Theory and
Arch, and Culture

Analysis of Art

History and Analysis of Art

Ut

History and Analysis of Art

Analysis of Art

301^^
302

303
304
305
306

307 c
Z

308 o
31

309

310

311

312

313

314

401

402

403

404

405

406
W

407 t^

Z

408 O

409
410
411
412
413
414

152

IIT COURSES IN ARCHITECTURE

■38-39

'39-'40

•40-'41

■41-'42

'42-'43

■43-'44

'44-'45

■45-'46

■46-'47

'47-'48 •48-'49

'49-'50 'SO-'SI

415

416

417 i

418

420

443

444 I

453

454
455
456
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
493
494

Seminar

Seminar

'51-52

Hist and Analysis
of Art

52-'53 ■53-'54 ■54-'55
Analysis of Art

■55-56

Hist and Analysis
of Art

! Architecture

■ Arctiitecture

Architecture

Architecture

Analysis ol Art

Technics and Architecture
Technics and Architecture
Applied City Planning

Architecture

Architecture

Theory of Regional Planning

Theory of Regional Planning

Applied Regional Planning

Physical Factors of Planning
Analysis and Representation

Physical Factors of Planning
Analysis and Representation

History and Analysis of Cities

Architecture of Cities

City Planning Practice

City Planning Practice

'56-'57 ■57-'58

415

1

416

1

(J)

417

m

z

418

0

3)

420

-

>

443

:a

o

T

444

H

m

453

0

H

454

C

JO

m

45b

456

458

459

460

w

r^

461

z

0

462

7}

463

—

U

r

464

>

z

465

z

z

466

G)

493

494

153

IT COURSES IN ARCHITECTURE

501

502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
521
522
591
592
593
594
595
597
599
600
691
692
699

■38-'39 39-40 , ^O-^l

j I

Advanced Architecture I

•41-'42 '42-'43

i '

I i

■43-'44

■44-'45

•45-'46

'46-'47

■47-'48

■48-'49

■49-'50

■50-'51

■51-'52

Advanced Arctiitecture I

Ttieory of Dwelling and Housing

Ttieory of Dwelling and Housing

Theory of City Planning

Theory of City Planning

Theory of Regional Planning

Theory of Regional Planning

Applied City Planning

Applied City Planning

Applied Regional Planning

Applied Regional Planning

Thesis

Thesis

'52-'53

•53-'54

■54-'55

■55-'56

■56-'57

■57-'58

Advanced Architecture

Advanced Architecture

Special Problems

Special Problems

Special Problems

Thesis

Special Problems

Ph 0

PhD

PhD

PhD

501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510

511

O

512 a

>

521 O

>

522 -\
m

591
592
593
594
595
597
599
600
691
692
699

154

NT ARCHITECTURE FACULTY AND STUDENTS, 1938-1958

Compiled by Donna J. Junkroski

FACULTY

COURSES TAUGHT WITH DATES IN PARENTHESES.

ANSCHUETZ, KLAUS (55-57) 461 , 462

BAR, NELLIE (50-51) 215. 216. (50-58) 109.110

BLUESTEIN, EARL (46-52) 308. (48-52) 307, (46-49) 410;

(52-55) 409, 410; (53-55) 420, 461 , 462

BRENNER, DANIEL (48-50) 407, 408; (48-51 ) 493, 494;

(50-63) 403, 404; (53-59) 417, 418; (55-56) 413. 416

BROWNSON, JACQUES (48-52) 409. 410, (52-55) 103, 104,

107, 108; (55-58)309, 310

CALDWELL, ALFRED (45-50) 203, 204, 207, (45-60) 311 ,

312; (46-47) 208; (47-48) 208, (50-58) 209, 210. 213, 21 4

DANFORTH, GEORGEE. (40-43) 101,102, 107, 108; (46-47)

102, 108; (46-49)207, 208; (49-52)211 , 212; (50-52)305,

306,(52-53)403,404

OEARSTYNE, HOWARD (57-58)413, 414, 415, 416. 443.

444

DORNBUSCH, CHARLES (38-39) 201 . 202. 203, 313,31 4;

(39-40)307,308,312,402,410

DUCKEn, EDWARD (45-49) 101 , 107; (46-49) 1 02, 1 08

DUNLAP.WILLIAME. (49-50) 207; (50-51) 103, 104, 107,

108

ERNST, HENRY (55-58) 303, 304

FORSBERG, ELMER (45-50) 105. 205; (46-50) 106, 206

HARPER, STERLING (38-39) 102, 402; (38-40) 401 ; (38-39)

101,107,204

HILBERSEIMER, LUDWIG (38-42) 409; (38-50) 307. 308.

410: (39-40) 303, 304; (40-43) 507, (41-42) 504, 506. 512,

591 ; (41 -43) 503, 505; (43-44) 31 3,411; (43-45) 312,31 4;

(43-50)409,(44-45)107,108,311,412.509,510,(44-46)

503, 508, (45- 46) 102, 505. 506, 591; (45-47) 501 ; (46-47)

51 0; (46-48) 592; (46-49) 504; (47-48) 506. 51 2; (47-49)

507, 594; (47- 55) 508; (47-58) 509. (47-59) 505; (48-49)

503, 591 ; (49-50) 510; (49-51 ) 511 , 595; (49-54) 699;

(50-51 ) 593; (50-53) 455, 456, 458, 594; (51 -52) 512, 599;

(52-53) 51 0 , 51 1 ; (53- 60) 560; (53-61 ) 459; (54-55) 599;

(55-57) 51 0; (55-58) 51 2; (55-59) 511. (56-57) 591 , (56-58)

508.599.(57-58)506,692

HOFGESANG, JAMES (49-50) 101, 102; (49-52) 107, 108;

(50-52)103,104

HOSKINS, TOM (42-45) 402. (43-44) 401

KREHBIEL, ALBERTA. (38-40)305; (38-45) 105, 106, 205.

206

KROnA, JOSEPH (55-56) 104. 108; (56-58) 409. 420

LILIBRIDGE, ROBERT (55-58) 465. (55-58) 466, (57-58) 408

MALCOLMSON, REGINALD (49-50)307, 308, 311, 312;

(52-53) 307, 308; (53-55) 309, 310; (53-60) 464, (53-61 )

463; (54-55) 405, (55-56) 420, 462, 501 , 521 , 522, 591 .

(55-58) 409; (57- 58) 420

MELL, ALFRED (38-39) 207; (39-40) 101 , 102, 107, 108;

(40-41) 308, (40-42) 307, (40-43) 312; (40-44) 311 , (41-43)

204, 208; (42-44) 203, 207

MIES VAN DER ROHE, LUDWIG (38-39) 107; (38-47) 407,

408; (39-55) 501 ; (39-55) 502; (42-43) 401 , 409, 411 , 506,

508, 509, 51 1 . 592, (42-46) 591 , (43-44) 412, 503, 504;

(43-45) 211 , (43- 46) 505; (44-45) 101 . 102, 203, 204. 207,

208, 21 2, 401 ; (45-46) 503, 508; (46-47) 592; (47-55) 591 ;

(48-54) 521 , 599, (49-53) 522; (53-54) 597; (55-56) 597,

599; 599; (56- 58) 501 , 502, 521 ; (56-57) 522; (57-58) 503,

510,591,592,599,600

OSBORN, ADDIS (45-46) 106. 206

PETERHANS, WALTER (38-39) 108, 311 , 312; (39-41) 109;

(39-42) 210, 403, 404, 411 ; (39-43) 211,412; (40-42) 303,

304; (41-43) 212; (42-43) 313, 314; (42-45) 102; (44-45)

101 ; (44-50) 411 . 412, (45-59) 211; (46-50) 314; (46-59)

212; (48-52) 593, (49-51 ) 594; (49-59) 305, 306; (50-55)

413, 41 4; (51 -55)415,416; (55-56) 593. 594; (56-57) 414,

415. 416; (56- 58) 597

PRIESTLEY, WILLIAM (41-42) 203. 207; (54-56) 521 ;

(55-56)502,522,591

ROCKWELL, MAHHEW (53-55) 465, 466

RODGERS, JOHN B. (38-39) 202; (38-41 ) 208, (38-42) 207;

(39-41 ) 203, 204; (40-42) 401 , 402; (41-42) 407, 408

SHUMA, WILLIAM F. (46-49) 401 , 402

SPEYER, A. JAMES (46-47) 501 ; (46-50) 407, 408; (47-51 )

495; (48- 51 ) 493; (50-51 ) 403, 404; (51 -53) 453, 454;

(53-57)443,444

STOPA, WALTER (49-50) 301 , 302, 402, (50-55) 303, 304

TAMMINGA, DAVID J. (50-52)213, 214

TURCK (HILL), DOROTHY (54-58) 103, 107; (56-58) 104,

108

WALKER, ROBIN (57-58) 462

WIEGHARDT, PAUL (50-58) 215,216

STUDENTS

COURSES TAKEN WITH DATES IN PARENTHESES

AARON, L. (51-52) 103, 104. 107, 108; (52-53) 209, 210,

211, 212, 213, 214. 215; (53-54)309, 310, 311. 312; (54-55)

403. 404, 409. 413, 414, 420; (55-56) 415, 416, 417, 418,

443, 444

ABE, T. (44-45) 106, 204. 206, 208, 212; (45-46) 205, 307,

311,313;(46-47)407,409,411

ABELL, J. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107. 108; (50-51)

209. 210. 211, 212, 213, 214, 215 216; (51-52)303, 305,

306. 307, 308, 311 , 312; (52-53) 403, 404. 409. 410, 413,
414; (53-54)459. 460. 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466
ADAMS, W. (46-47) 102. 106, 108, 203, 205, 211 ; (48-49)

307, 308, 311 . 312, 313, 314; (49-50) 301 . 302. 407, 408,
409, 410, 411 . 412. 493. 494, (50-51 ) 211

AHERN, T. (42-43) 101 , 102, 107, 108, 204

AIKENS, W. (49-50) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)

209, 210, 211. 212, 213. 214. 215. 216; (51-52)303, 304,

305, 306, 307. 308, 311, 312; (52-53)403, 404, 409. 410,

413, 414; (53-54)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466

AKERMAN.R. (57-58) 502. 597

ALBANO, J. (44-45) 21 2; (45-46) 311

ALBERS, G. (48-49)407, 408, 409. 501 . 502, 505, 506, 510;

(49-50)508,511,521.591.593.595

ALBERT, A. (50-51) 103. 107, 109, 215

ALLEN, 0.(39-40) 108

ALONGI, F. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107. 108; (49-50)

203,204,205,206,207,208,211,212

ALPER, Z. (45-46) 101 , 102, 107, 203, 205, 207, 211 ;

(46-47) 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314, (47-48) 402. 408, 410,

412,494

ALROTH,F. (52-53) 110

ALSCHULER, J. (38-39) 201 , 203, 205, 207, 202, 204, 206,

208,312

AMES, H. (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 212, (48-49) 307, 308, 311 ,

312, 313, 314; (49-50)301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411,

412,493,494

AMES, R. (47-48) 102, 108, 206. (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

207, 208. 211. 212; (49-50)301. 302, 305, 306, 307, 308,

311, 312, 313. 314; (50-51)403. 404. 409, 410, 413, 414.

(51-52)453,454

ANANTASANT, V. (54-55)462, 464, 505, 508, 509; (55-56)

461 , 463, 464. 466, 510, 51 1 , 51 2. 591 ; (56-57) 599

ANASCHUETZ, K. (54-55) 462, 464, 466, 501 , 505

ANDAYA, M. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

ANDERSON, B. (44-45) 101 , 102. 105, 106, 108, (45-46)

203, 205, 207, 211. (46-47)307, 311. 313, 314

ANDERSON, C. (38-39) 101. 105. 107. 202, 203, 204, 205,

206, 207. 208, 312; (39-40) 205; (41-42) 303, 304, 307, 308.

311 . 312; (46-47)307. 308. 311. 312, 313, 314; (47-48)212.

402.408,410.412,494

ANDERSON, 0. (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 212; (48-49) 106,

307, 308, 311. 312, 313, 314; (49-50)301 , 302, 407, 408,

409,410,411,412,493.494

ANDERSON, E. (44-45) 102, 106; (45-46)203, 205. 207,

211;(46-47)307.308. 311.312, 313, 314; (47-48) 402,

408,410,412,494

ANDERSON, HAROLD(48-49) 101,102, 105, 106, 107, 108;

(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211,21 2; (50-51 ) 303,

304, 305, 306, 307, 308. 311 . 312; (51-52) 403, 404, 409,

410,413,414

ANDERSON, HARRY (48-49) 101, 102. 105, 106, 107, 108;

(49-50) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211.212; (50-51 ) 303,

304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (51-52) 403. 404. 409.

410. 413, 414; (52-53)415, 416, 453, 454, 455, 456, 458

ANDERSON, JOHN I. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109;

155

IIT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

(57-58)209,210.211,212,213,214.215

ANDERSON. JOHN K. (52-53) 103, 104. 107, 108, 109. 215.

(53-54)210. 211 . 212. 213. 214, (54-55)303. 304, 305, 306,

309, 310, 311, 312; (55-56)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420,

(56-57).415, 417, 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466

ANDERSON, J. M. (42-43) 101, 105, 107

ANDERSON, K. (46-47) 207, 208, 211 , (47-48) 308, 31 2,

314: (48- 49) 401 , 402. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411 . 412. 493.

494

ANDREWS, C. (46-47) 501 , 502, 503, 506

ANGUS,J, (47-48)506, 507

ANSCHUETZ, K, (55-56) 464. 51 0. 51 1 . 51 2, (56-57) 521

522, 597

ARQUILLA, A, (45-46) 101 , 105, 107

ARTHUR, P. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (50-51 )

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (51-52)303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410,
413, 414; (53-54)415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444
ASARI,R. (56-57) 110

AYERS, J, A, (55-56) 103, 107, 109

BABBIN, R. (47-48)102, 106, 108: (48-49)203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (49-50)301, 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414; (51-52)453, 454

BABKA, B. (51-52)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (52-53)
209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (53-54)303, 304,

309, 310, 311, 312; (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420,
(55-56)415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

BACOURIS,T. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108; (57-58)209, 210,

211,212,213,214,215;

BAER, F. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50) 203,

204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (50-51 ) 303, 304, 305,

306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (51-52)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414; (52-53) 455456, 458

BAGAMERY, F. (42-43) 101, 105, 107; (46-47)203, 204,

205,206,207,208.212

BAKER, 0.(38-39)312. 407. 408

BAKER, W. (45-46), 102, 106, 108; (46-47) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 212; (47-48)308, 312, 314; (48-49)401 , 402,

407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

BALAVAN, 7.(44-45)308,312,314,311

BALDWIN. R. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 215;

(51-52)211.212.213, 214; (52-53) 303, 304,305,306,307,

308,311,312

BALLETO. J. (52-53)103,107

BALLEW,T. (48-49)101,105,107

BALODIS. L. (54-55)303, 304. 306. 309. 310, 311 , 312;

(55-56)403 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (56-57)305, 415,

417 416 443, 444; (57-58)465, 508, 408, 509

BANKS. C. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48)204,

206,208.212

BARCLAY. J. (45-46) 101, 105, 107

BARKER. R. (50-51)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (52-53) 303, 305,

306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (53-54) 304, 403, 404, 409, 413,

414, 420: (54-55) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466

BARNES, J. (51-52)103, 104, 107, 108

BARNES, R. (56-57) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (57-58)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215

BARTHEL, E, (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (54-55)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56) 209, 303,

304, 305, 306, 309. 310. 311 . 312, (56-57)403, 404, 409,

420, (57-58) 459, 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464, 465, 466

BARWICK.R. (38-39) 107

BASELE0N,H.(46-47)313,314

BASTAIN, A. (40-41) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

(41-42) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, (42-43)

307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (43-44) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ;

(44-45)402,408,410,412

BAUER. J. (52-53) 216; (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 209,

210; (54- 55) 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 216; (55-56) 303,

304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, (56-57) 403, 409, 463

BEAL, D. (57-58)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

BEARD. 1.(45-46)101, 105, 107

BECK. R. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50) 203,

204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212: (50-51 ) 303, 304, 305,

306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (51-52)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414,(52-53)415,416,453,454

BEELER. D. (43-44) 101 , 105, 107; (44-45) 208, 212

BEHNKE. M. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (57-58)

209,211,213,215

BEHNKE. R. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (57-58)

209.211,213,215

BEIN. J. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 107, 108, 109

BELENA,J.(43-44)105

BELL. C. (43-44) 502, 504; (44-45) 501 , 503

BELZ. J. (55-56) 104, 108, 110; (56-57) 209, 210, 211 , 212,

213,214,215

BENDER. H. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108. (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (50-51 ) 303, 304,

305,306,307,308,311,312

BENNET.F. (46-47) 510

BENNEn.R. (57-58)215, 305

BERENSON. A. (47-48)102,106,108,(48-49)203,204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212; (49-50)301 , 302, 305, 306,

307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410,
413, 414; (51-52)455, 456, 458

BERGER, D. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (57-58)
209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216
BERGESON.J. (47-48)102,106,108, (48-49)203,204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306,
307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410,
413,414;(51-52)455,456,458

BERGMANN, B. (38-39) 101 , 105, 107. 202. 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 312; (47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402,
407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

BERLOW, L. (45-46)105, 108; (47-48)204, 208, 212, 313;

(48-49) 307 , 308. 31 1 . 312. 31 3. 401 , 402, 41 1 . (49-50)

407,408,409,410,412.493,494

BERNASCONI, C. (49-50) 101 , 105, 107, (50-51 ) 104, 108,

110, 215: (51-52)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 216, (52-53)

210, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54)304, 403,

404, 409, 413, 414, 420: (54-55)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463,

464,465,466

BERNHARDT. F. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;

(50-51)209, 210, 211. 212, 213, 214. 215. 216; (51-52)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (52-53)403, 404,

409, 410, 41 3, 414, (53-54) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464,

465, 466

BERTHOLD. T. (44-45) 204, 206, 208, 212

BERTICH.L. (42-43)101,105,107

BICIUNAS. A. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

BIELENBERG. D. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

BIERDERMAN, E. (38-39) 201 . 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,

207, 208, 312; (39-40)303, 304, 307, 308, 312

BILLMAN. D. (42-43) 101 , 105, 107, (45-46) 102, 106, 108,

203, 205, 207, 21 1 ; (46-47) 204, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 31 3,

314; (47-48) 402, 408, 410, 412, 494

BINGMAN. C. WM. (54-55) 104, 108, 110, (55-56) 209, 210,

21 1,212, 213, 214, 215, 216. (56-57) 303. 304. 305, 306,

309, 310, 311 , 312: (57-58)216, 403, 404, 409, 413, 414,

420

BINKLEY. L. (40-41) 109, (41-42)203, 204, 205, 207, 208,

210,212, (42-43)307,308,311,312, 313, 314; (43-44) 401,

407, 409, 411: (44-45) 402, 408, 410, 412

BISKUP.M. (53-54) 103, 107,109

BLACK. A. (55-56) 103, 107,109

BLACK. 0. (45-46) 102, 203, 205, 207, 21 1 , (46-47) 307,

308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314, (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412, 494

BUCKEn. D. (53-54)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215,

216, (54- 55) 109, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, (55-56)303,

304,403,404,409,413,414,420

BLANDA. L. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

BLANKSTEIN, M. (50-51 ) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593, 594.

(51-52)591,599

BLINDERMAN. L. (44-45) 102, 106, 108

BLINICK, R. (47-48) 102, 106, 108: (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212: (49-50)301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,
308,311,312,313,314

BLUESTEIN, E. (38-39)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;
(40-41)203,204,205,206,207,208,210,211,(41-42)
303, 304, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (42-43)402, 408, 410, 412:
(46-47) 507, 508, 509, 510; (47-48) 512, 592; (48-49) 501 ,
512, 591 , 593, 594 (audit), (49-50) 521 , 593, 594, 599;
(50-51)599,(51-52)599

BLUHM, N. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;
(45-46) 206, (46-47) 207, 212, 313, 314; (47-48) 402, 412
BLUMBERG, L. (38-39) 102, 201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,

207, 208, 312, (39-40)303, 304, 307, 308, 312; (40-41) 401 ,
402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 412

BLUME, A. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

312; (39-40) 303, 304, 307, 308, 312; (40-41 ) 401 , 402, 403,

404,407,408,409,410,411,412

BOBZIN, J. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48)204,

206, 208, 212; (48-49)307, 308, 311, 312, 313, 314. (49-50)
301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 412, 493, 494
BOCKUS, R. (56-57) 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216;
(57-58)303,305,309,311

BOFFERDING, C. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

BOHNEN, 0.(44-45) 307

BOLES, H, (39-40) 106. 107, 108, 109; (40-41) 203. 204.

207, 208, 210,211; (41-42) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312.
(42-43)205,402,408,410,412

BOLUN, K. (48-49) 102. 106. 108; (49-50) 207

BONNET. F. (44-45) 506 (Audit)

BORKAN, M. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49)203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (49-50)203, 207, 208, 211 , 212,

313.(50-51)303,304,305,306,307,308,311,312,(51-52)

403, 404, 409, 410, (52-53)455, 456, 458

BORRE, G. (39-40) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

(40-41)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, (41-42)

303, 304, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (42-43)402, 408, 410, 412
BORVANSKY. R. (52-53) 103. 104, 107, 108, (53-54) (209,
210, 211. 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (54-55)303,304, 305,

306, 309, 310, 311, 312, (556) 210, 403, 404, 409, 413,
414, 420, (56- 57) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463. 464, 465, 466
BOTERO. H. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (52-53)
209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (53-54)303, 304,
309, 310, 311, 312, (54-55)403, 404, 413, 414, 409, 420;
(55-56)415,416,417,418,443,444
BOTHAGARAY,J.(52-53)501

BOULANO. C. (38-39) 401 . 402. 407, 408, 409, 410

BOVIE.M. (44-45)102 106, 108; (45-46) 203, 205, 207, 211

BOWMAN. J. (57-58) 501 , 502, 505, 506, 597

BRADT, R. C. (38-39) 401 , 402, 407. 408, 409, 410

BRANDSETTER. R. (44-45) 307, 308, 312, 314, 401 ; (45-46)

408,409

BRAUN.R. (45-46) 101. 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 212: (47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402,

407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 41 2, 493, 494

BRENNER. D. (46-47) 501 , 502, 503, 506, (47-48) 502, 591 ;

(48-49)521,522,591

BRINK, E. (45-46) 207, 211

BROOKER, R. (48-49) 101. 102. 105, 106, 107, 108, 203,

204, 21 1.212; (49-50) 205, 206, 207, 208, 313; (50-51 ) 303,

304, 305. 306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (51-52)403, 404, 409,
410,415,416.(52-53)453.454

BROUN. R. (52-53) 108, 209, 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215;
(53-54) 303, 304, 309, 310, 31 1,312: (54-55) 403, 404,

413, 414, 409, 420; (55-56) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464.
465, 466

BROWN, J. (46-47) 102, 105, 108, 203, 205, 207. 211;
(47-48) 307, 31 1 , 31 3; (48-49) 308, 31 2, 31 4, 401 , 407.
409, 411. 493; (49-50) 106, 402, 408, 410, 412, 494
BROWNSON, J. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;
(42-43) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211,212; (46-47)

307, 311,31 3, 314. 401 , 402, 409. 41 1 ; (47-48) 408. 494;
(48-49) 501 , 502, 507. 508. 593, 594; (49-50) 591 , 593;
(53-54)597

BRUDZINSKI. W. (48-49) 101 .102, 105, 106, 107, 108;
(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 212
BRYAN, W. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (53-54)
209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (54-55)303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312; (55-56) 403, 404, 409, 413,

414, 420; (56-57)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466
BRYANT, A. (49-50) 501 , 505, 594, (50-51 ) 502, 509, 593,
595

BUCCOLA, C. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109
BUCH.W. (40-41)501, 502
BUKTENICA. J. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;
(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2
BULKLEY, J. (55-56) 209. 210.211.212. 309. 310,311,

312; (56- 57) 305, 306, 403, 404, 409, 465, 466, 420:

(57-58) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464

BULLARD. M. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (55-56)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (56-57) 303, 304,

305,306,309,310,311,312

BURKE, E. (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 212: (48-49) 106, 203,

307, 308, 311, 312, 313, 314; (49-50) 105, 301 , 402, 407,

408,409,410,411,412,493,494

BURKE. J. (40-41)101,105,107

BURLEIGH, T. (40-41) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210,

211: (41-42) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2, (42-43) 401 ,

402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411. (46-47)501 , 502. 503, 504,

505, 506; (47-48)591

BURNEn,J.(51-52)501

BURR, D. (42-43) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (43-44)

203,205,207,211

CALDWELL, A. (41-42) 407. (45-46) 508: (46-47) 51 2. 591

CALEF, J. (42-43)101,105,107

CALLAS. G. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (52-53)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,(53-54)303,304,

309, 310, 31 1 , 312; (54-55) 403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420:

(55-56)415,416,417,418,443,444

CAMPAGNA, P. (40-41 ) 501 . 502; (54-55) 501 , 505; (55-56)

521,591

CAMPBELL. E. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107, 203; (46-47) 205,

206, 207, 208, 211,21 2; (47-48) 308, 312,31 4; (48-49) 401 .

402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 493, 494

CAMPBELL. W. (49-50) 101.102, 105, 106, 107, 108,

(50-51) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (52-53)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54) 304, 403,

404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (54-55) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463.

464,465,466

CANDIDO. A. (50-51) 110, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,

216; (51-52) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312.

(52-53) 109, 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54)415,

416,417,418,443,444

CARDNO, C. (52-53) 209, 211 , 213, 215, (55-56) 209, 210,

212,213,214,215,216

CARLSEN, A. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211;

(47-48) 307, 31 1 , 31 3: (48-49) 308, 312, 31 4, 401 , 407,

409, 41 1 , 493; (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 41 2, 493

CARLSON,D.L.(49-50)101,102,105, 106,107, 108

CARLSTEDT.R. (39-40) 401

CARMICHAEL, A. (55-56) 501 , 502, 505, 508, 593

CAROW. J. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10; (57-58)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216

CARPANELLI, F. (51 -52) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593

CARROLL,J. (38-39) 102. 106, 108

CARROLL, K. (57-58) 103, 107, 109

CARTER, P. (57-58) 501 , 502, 510, 591

CARTER, R, (42-43) 101 , 102, 107, 108, 204

CASASCO, J. (49-50) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 594, 595; (50-51 )

521, 591, 593. 595. 599; (51-52)599

CASATI, R, (47-48) 204. 206, 208. 212, (48-49) 307, 308,

311 . 312, 313, 314; (49-50) 301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411,412,493,494

CASSIDY.W. (53-54) 103, 107

CATLIN. R. (57-58) 103. 104. 107, 108, 109, 110

156

NT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

CAYNE, D. (48-49)207, 208, 211, 212, 313, 314

CECCONI. D. (45-46) 102, 106, 108, (46-47) 204, 313. 314;

(47-48) 401 , 402, 409, 41 1 , 494, (48-49) 205, 402, 408,

410,412,493

CEISEL.E.(47-48)102, 106, 108

CEROVSKI. J. (38-39) 203, 204, 307, 308. 312. 313, 314;

(39-40) 305, 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407. 408, 409, 410. 411 .

412

CENTER. E. (38-39)101.102,105.106,107,108.(39-40)

203. 204. 205. 206, 207, 208, 210, 211. (40-41)303. 304.

307. 308. 31 1 . 312. (41-42) 401 . 402, 403, 404, 407, 408.
409.410.411,412

CHALMERS. H. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107. (46-47) 203. 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 212; (47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 ,
402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

CHANG, P. (52-53) 501 . 502. 505. 508. (53-54) 521 , 591 .

599

CHASE, R. (39-40) 102, 106. 108. 109; (40-41) 203. 205.

207.210

CHATY, R. (47-48) 102, 106, 108, (48-49) 203. 204. 205.

206. 207. 208. 21 1 . 212. (49-50) 301 . 302. 305. 306. 307.

308. 31 1 . 312. 313. 314. (50-51 ) 403. 404. 409. 410. 413.
414.(51-52)453.454

CHAU, C. (42-43) 501 . 505; (44-45) 502. 506

CHESTERFIELD, A. (46-47) 102. 106, 108, 203, 205. 207.

211, (47- 48) 307, 31 1,313, (48-49) 308. 31 2. 31 4. 401 .

407, 409, 411, 493; (49-50)402, 408, 410, 412, 494

CHEZ. E. (49-50) 101, 102. 105. 106, 107, 108. (50-51)209.

210,211,212,213,214,215,216

CHRISTENSEN, G. (47-48) 102, 106. 108; (48-49) 203, 204,

205, 206. 207. 208. 211. 212; (50-51) 303. 304, 305. 306,

307. 308. 311 . 312; (51-52)403. 404. 409, 410, 413, 414;

(52-53)416.456.458

CHRISTENSEN, J. (45-46) 101 . 105. 107

CHRISTENSEN, R. (54-55) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109, 110;

(55-56) 209, 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215. 216, (56-57)

303. 304, 305. 306. 309. 310. 311 . 312; (57-58) 210. 403,

404,409,413.414.420

CHRISTENSEN, W. (39-40)101.102.105.106.107.108.

1 09, (40- 41 ) 203, 204. 205, 206. 207. 208. 210, 21 1 .

(41-42) 303. 304. 307. 308. 31 1 . 312; (42-43) 402, 408,

410.412

CHRISTIANSEN, C. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 107. 108. 203.

204, 205; (50-51 ) 211 . 212. 213. 214, 216; (51-52) 303, 304,

305, 306. 307. 308, 311. 312; (52-53)403, 404, 409, 413.

455; (53-54)415, 417, 443; (57-58)415. 416, 444. 420

CHRISTOFANO, R. (39-40) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108.

109

CHRISTOPHERSON. B. (55-56) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109,

110,303,304

CHUNG. R. (50-51 ) 501 , 502. 505. 509. 593. 594

CHURCH. R. (50-51) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110; (51-52)

209,211,213

CLAERHOUT, J. (45-46) 101 , 105. 107; (46-47)203. 204.

205, 206, 207, 208. 212; (47-48) 308, 312, 314. (48-49) 401 .

402, 407, 408, 409. 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

CLARK, P. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105, 106, 107, 108, (52-53)

209.210,211,212.213.214

CLARK, R. (47-48) 102, 106, 108, (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212, (49-50)301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,
308, 311, 312, 313, 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414,(51-52)455,456,458

CLARKE, P. (55-56)303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312;

(56- 57) 403, 404, 409, 414. 416. 417. 418. 420; (57-58)

415.416.443.444

CLEVENGER, D. (54-55) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110. 303.

304.(55-56)209.211,213,215.413

CLIFFER. H. (46-47) 203. 204, 205. 206. 207, 208; (47-48)

308, 312, 314, (48-49) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410. 41 1 .

412,493,494

COCCONI, D. (46-47) 205, 207, 21 1 , 308, 31 1

COFFMAN, G. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

COLBURN.M. (55-56)210

COLEMAN, F. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, (55-56) 104, 108,

110; (56-57) 209, 210, 211 , 212. 213. 214, 215, 216, (57-58)

303,304,305,306,309,310,311,312

COMER, C. (55-56) 103. 107, 109

COMFORT. W (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108. 109.

(41-42) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212

COMPRAn, P. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108

CONLON, C. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211;

(47-48) 307, 31 1,313; (48-49) 308, 312, 314, 401 , 407,

409, 41 1 , 493, (49-50) 21 1 , 402, 408, 410, 41 2, 494

CONSIDINE. J. (46-47) 102. 105. 106. 107. 108.(47-48)

204. 206. 208. 212; (48-49)307. 308. 311 . 312. 313. 314.

(49-50) 301 . 402. 407, 408, 409, 410. 41 1 . 412. 493. 494

CONTERATO, B. (45-46) 206, (46-47) 203, 212. 307, 311 ,

313, 314; (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412, 494, (48-49)501 , 502,

505, 506; (49-50) 521 , 522; (50-51 ) 591

CONWAY, S. (54-55) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109, 110. (55-56)

209,210.211,212,213.214.215.216

COOLEY, W. (42-43) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108; (43-44)

307. 31 1 . 31 3; (44-45) 203. 204. 205. 206. 207, 208. 211,

212

COONS, J. (46-47) 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2;

(47-48) 308. 312; (48-49) 401 . 407. 409. 41 1 . 494; (49-50)

313.402,408.409.411.494

COOP, I. (51-52) 501 . 502. 505. 509. 593; (52-53) 591 . 599

CORAZZO, A. (46-47) 204, 208, 307. 308. 31 1 . (47-48) 402.

408. 412. 494; (48-49) 501 , 502. 505, 51 0. 593. 594; (49-50)
591.599,(50-51)599

COROES, H. (39-40) 303. 304, 307. 308, 312
CORDNO, C. (51-52) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109. 110
COSTIKAS. A. (57-58) 463. 464. 465. 501 . 502, 505, 506
COURSER, H. (46-47)105.107
COWPERTHWAIT, W. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108. 1 10.
(55-56)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213. 214. (56-57) 303. 304.

305. 306. 309. 310. 311 . 312; (57-58) 403. 404, 409, 413,
414,420

COYLE, J. (38-39) 101 , 102, 105. 106. 107. 108; (39-40)

203. 204. 205, 206. 207. 208. 210. 211

CRUZ, J. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49)203. 204, 205. 206.

207. 208, (49-50) 207 , 208, 301 , 302, 313, 31 4; (50-51 ) 305.

306, 307. 308. 31 1 , 31 2; (51 -52) 306. 308. 31 2. (52-53) 403.

409. 415. (54-55) 404. 420, (55-56)459. 460. 461 . 462. 463.
464.465,466

CUNNINGHAM. R. (46-47)307. 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314,

(47-48)402,408,410,412,494

CWIAK, R. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

(41-42) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210. 212. (42-43)

307, 31 1 , 313. (46-47) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1

412

DALEY, J. (57-58) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 303

DALRYMPLE, D. (56-57) 103. 107, 109

DALY.W. (40-41)101,102, 105,106,107, 108,109,(41-42)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, (42-43) 307, 31 1 ,

313; (46-47)308, 312. 313. 314; (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412,

494

DANFORTH, G. (38-39) 203, 204. 407, 408, 409. 410;

(39-40) 305. 401 . 402, 403, 404, 407. 408. 410. 41 1.412.

(40-41 ) 501 . 502. (41-42) 502. (42-43) 591 , 592. (46-47) 592

DANIEL.A. (57-58)210. 212, 214

DANIELS, C. (47-48) 102. 106. 108. (48-49) 106. 203. 204,

205,206,207,208,211,212

DANLEY, R. (51-52) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216.

(52- 53) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311,312

DAPIRAN. J. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (55-56)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57) 303, 304,

305,306,309,310,311,312

DASWICK, P. (46-47) 207, 208. 21 1 ; (47-48) 308. 31 2. 31 4.

(48-49)401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

DAVIDSON, J. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107, 108

DAVIS, M. (49-50) 203. 208

DAVIS, R. (38-39) 407. 408. 409. 410

DEBRECHT, G. (49-50) 105, 106. 203. 204. 205. 206, 207.

208. 21 1 , 21 2. (50-51 ) 303. 304. 305. 306, 307. 308. 31 1 .
312. (51-52)403. 404. 409, 410, 413, 414. (52-53)455. 456.
458

DEDINA, A. (45-46) 1 01 , 1 05. 1 07, (46-47) 204. 205. 207.

211

DEGORSKI, J. (52-53) 209, 21 1 , 213, 21 5

DEHAAN, N. (44-45) 204. 206. 208. 212; (48-49) 313

D'EUA, P. (50-51 ) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110; (51-52)

209. 210. 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (52-53)212. 303,

304. 305. 306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (53-54) 403, 404, 409,

413, 414, 420. (54-55)415, 416. 417. 418, 443, 444
DEKOVIC. C. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109. 110, (54-55)
209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. (55-56)303, 304.

305. 306. 309. 310.311.312, (56-57) 403. 404. 409. 420;
(57-58)415.416.417.418.443,444

DENYES, H. (39-40) 303. 304. 307. 308. 31 2

DEPONDT, P. (51-52) 103, 104. 107, 108, 109, 110. (52-53)

209, 210,211,212, 213. 214. 215, 216. (53-54) 303. 304.

309.310.311,312

DESENS, R. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49) 203. 205. 207.

211

DESTEFANO.J. (56-57)103. 104. 107. 108; (57-58) 209.

210.211.212.213.214,215

DEUBLE, D. (50-51) 103, 104. 107. 108. 109. 110. (51-52)

209. 210. 211 , 212. 213. 214. 215. 216; (52-53) 303. 304.

305. 306. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (53-54)403, 404, 409, 413,

414. 420; (54-55) 459. 460. 461 . 462, 463, 464, 465. 466
DICKEL, G. (38-39) 201 , 202. 203. 204. 205, 206. 207. 208,
312, (39-40)303, 304, 307, 308. 312; (40-41) 401 . 402. 403,

404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1,412, (41-42) 501 , 507

DIFAZZIO. R. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108

OISILVESTRO. N. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10,

(51-52)209,211,213,215

DOBBINS. R. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 209,

303,304

DODEREAU. D. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108.

(49-50) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212. (50-51)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (51-52)403, 404,

409, 410, 413, 414, (52-53)455, 456, 458

DODGE, R. (38-39)201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

312, (39-40) 303, 304, 307, 308, 312, (42-43) 402, 408

DOMPKE. R. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

DONARSKI, W. (43-44) 101 . 105, 107, (44-45) 102, 106,

108. (46- 47) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212, (47-48)

308, 312, 314. (48-49) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 ,

412,493,494

DONCHIN, M. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 209,

(57-58) 209, 210.211. 212. 213. 214, 215, 216

DONNELL, D. (52-53) 103. 107. 109

DONNELLY, J. (48-49) 101 . 102. 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211,212, (50-51 ) 303, 305, 307,

311

DOUGHERTY, W. (53-54) 1 03, 104, 1 07 , 1 08, (54-55) 209,

210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, (55-56)209, 303, 305, 306.

309,310,311,312

DOWRICK, A. (48-49) 101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203,204,205,206,207,208,211.212

DOYLE, P (44-45) 101. 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

DRAKE, D. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212. (49-50)301, 302, 305, 306, 307,

308. 31 1.312. 313. 314. (50-51 ) 403. 404, 409, 410, 413,

414; (51-52)454, 454

DUCKEn, £.(44-45)204. 208. 212; (49-50) 31 1.312. 314.

402. 409. 410; (50-51)209. 403, 413, 493, 494
OUDAY,G.(48-49)101,102,105,106. 107, 108,(49-50)
203, 204. 205, 206, 207. 208. 21 1 . 21 2. (50-51 ) 303. 304,
305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312; (51-52) 403, 404, 409, 410.
413,414.(52-53)415.416,453.454
OUEMMLING.C. (49-50) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;
(50-51)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215. 216; (51-52)
303. 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (52-53)403, 404,
409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54)415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444
DUMROESE, E. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110;
(54-55) 209. 210, 211, 212. 213. 214. 215. 216; (55-56)
303.304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 31 1 . 31 2; (56-57)

403, 404, 409, 420. (57-58) 459. 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464,
465, 466

DUNAS.T. (48-49)101,102,105,106,107, 108; (49-50)
203, 204. 205. 206. 207, 208. 21 1.212; (50-51 ) 303. 304.
305. 306. 307. 308, 311. 312. (51-52)403, 404. 409. 410,
413.414.(52-53)415.416.453.454
DUNBAR. W. (47-48) 102, 108, 313. (49-50)203. 211
DUNLAP. W. (40-41) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107, 108, 109;
(41-42)203, 204, 205, 206, 207. 208. 210. 212; (42-43)
307. 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (46-47)401 , 402, 407, 408,
409, 410, 41 1 , 41 2; (47-48) 502. 508. (48-49) 521 . 522. 591 .
593; (49- 50) 522, 591

DURAN, R. (49-50) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 594, 595, (50-51)

521,522,591,593,594

DYBA. B. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 110

DYCKMAN.T. (50-51)212

EHMANN, R, (48-49) 204, 208, 212

EHRLICH, L. (44-45) 101 , 102, 105. 106, 107, 108

EK, C. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, (52-53) 209, 21 1,213,

215

EMBACH, J. (46-47) 105, 106, (47-48) 102, 108, 206, 212.

(48-49) 203, 204, 207, 208, (49-50) 301 , 302, 307, 308.

31 1.312. (50-51 ) 403, 404. 409. 410. 413

ERICKSON, E. (38-39)407. 408, 410

ERICKSON. G. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

ERICKSON, R. (40-41)101, 102, 105, 106, 1(37, 108, 109.

(47-48) 102, 106, 108. (48-49) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207,

208, 21 1,212, 313, 314; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307.
308.311,312,411,412

ESTES, G. (57-58)209, 210, 211 , 212. 213. 214, 215, 216
FALLOT, C. (50-51) 103, 104,107,108, 109, 110; (51-52)
209,211,213

FANSELOW.J.(46-47)102,106, 108
FARMER, F. (57-58) 501 . 502, 505, 506, 597
FARRELL, E. (39-40) 101 . 102. 105. 106, 107, 108, 109.
(40-41 ) 203. 204. 205. 206. 207, 208. 210. 211. (41-42)
303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1,312. (42-43) 402. 408, 410. 412
FARRELL, M. (46-47)313.314
FEBEL.C. (44-45) 102, 106, 108
FEINBERG. J. (56-57) 462, 464, 466, 510. (57-58) 508. 51 1
FELTGEN, R. (50-51) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110. (51-52)

209, 210, 21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (52-53)303, 304,

305. 306, 307, 308, 31 1,312, (53-54) 403, 404, 409, 413,
414, 420; (54-55) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466
FERENC, T. (47-48) 102. 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2. (49-50) 301 , 302. 305. 306. 307.
308. 31 1.312. 313. 314; (50-51)403. 404, 409.410.413.
414.(51-52)453.454

FERGUSON, J. (38-39) 101, 102. 105, 106. 107. 108.

(45-46)101.107

FERNAU, H. (43-44) 307. 311 . 313; (44-45) 203. 204, 206.

207. 208. 21 1 . 212. 314. 401 . 408. 412; (45-46) 407. 410
FERRELL, M. (42-43) 203, 204. 205. 206, 207. 208. 211.212
FERRIDAY, 0. (56-57) 209, 210, 21 1 , 212. 213. 214. 215.
216; (57-58) 303. 304. 305, 306, 309, 310. 311, 312
FERRIS, J. (47-48) 308. 312. 314; (48-49) 402. 407, 408,
409, 410, 41 1, 412, 493, 494; (49-50)501, 502, 509, 510,
594, 595, (50-51 ) 591 , 593, 594, 595, 599

FINFER, I. (44-45) 102, 105, 106, 108

FINFER. M. (46-47) 204. 206, 208. 21 1 . 212. 313. 31 4;

(47-48) 308. 312. 314. 41 1 ; (48-49) 401 , 402. 407, 408.

409.410.411.412.493,494

FINFER, P. (49-50) 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 203; (50-51)

210, 211 , 212. 213. 214. 215, 216, (51-52)303, 304, 305,

306. 307. 308. 31 1,312. (52-53) 403, 409, 413. (55-56) 403.
404. 409. 413. 414. 420. (56-57)459. 460, 461 . 462. 463.
464.465,466.(57-58)512

FIRANT, E. (38-39)203, 204, 307, 308, 311, 312. 313. 314;
(39-40) 305. 401 . 402. 403. 404. 407. 408. 409. 410,411.
412

157

NT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

FISHER. R. (48-49) 101, 105, 107

FITZGERALD. 6.(56-57)110

FLORES. L. (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 21 2; (48-49) 307, 31 1 ,

313; (49-50)302, 306, 308, 312, 314. (50-51)303, 403, 404,

409,410,413.414.(51-52)455,456.458

FLYER. A. (45-46)101,105,107,(48-49)102,106,108:

(49-50)203.205,207,211

FOLGERS. K. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110, (54-55)

209, 210. 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215; (55-56) 303, 304,305,

306, 309. 310. 31 1 , 312. (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 420. (57-58)
459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466

FOSKUHL. H. (49-50) 101, 102, 105, 106. 107, 108

FOWLER. J. (46-47) 203. 204, 207, 208, 21 2; (47-48) 308,

312, 314; (48-49)401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412,

493, 494

FOX, J. (38-39)203, 204, 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314,

(39-40)305. 401. 402, 403. 404. 407, 408, 409, 410, 411

412

FOX.P. (45-46)101,105, 107

FRACCARO, M. (41-42) 101. 102, 105, 106, 107. 108;

(42-43) 203, 204. 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1,212; (46-47)

307, 308, 31 1 , 312. 313. 314. (47-48) 402, 408, 410, 412,
494

FRAMARIN.C. (50-51)103. 104, 107, 108, 109. 110, 215;

(51-52)209,210,211,212,213, 214, 21 5; (52-53) 303,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312: (53-54) 304, 403, 404, 409,

413, 414, 420; (54-55) 305, 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

FREED, J. (48-49) 101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (50-51 ) 303. 304.

305. 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (51-52)403,404, 409, 410,

413,414;(52-53)415,416.453.454

FREEMAN, L. (46-47) 208, 307, 313, 314, (47-48) 308, 312,

41 2; (48-49) 407, 408, 409, 410

FREGA, J. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216. (51-52)303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311,31 2; (52-53) 403, 404, 409. 410.

413. 414; (53-54)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466:

(56-57)509,510,511,512,591

FRELICH, L. (40-41) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

(41-42)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212; (42-43)

307. 308, 311 . 312, 313, 314; (43-44) 401 , 407, 409. 411 ;

(44-45)402,408,410,412

FRENCH, R. (50-51) 103, 104. 107. 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209, 210. 211 . 212. 213, 214, 215. 216; (52-53)303. 304.

305. 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312: (53-54) 303, 403, 404, 409,

413, 414. 420: (54-55)305. 415. 416. 417, 418, 443, 444

FRENZL, 0.(55-56)103. 107

FRIEND, W. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203, 204, 205. 206. 207. 208. 211 . 212; (50-51 ) 210. 303,

304. 305. 306, 307, 308. 311 , 312: (51-52)403. 404. 409.

410, 413. 414: (52-53)415. 416, 453, 454

FRYE, 0. (38-39)101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 202, 207, 208.

312; (39-40) 205. 206, 210; (40-41) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 ,

312

FUCHS, G. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208.

312

FUJIKAWA, J, (42-43) 314, 408, 410, (43-44) 401 , 407, 409,

411 ; (44-45)402, 408, 410, 412, (46-47) 502, 51 1 , 591 .

(49-50) 599, (50-51 ) 599, (51-52) 599; (52-53) 599

FUJIMOTO, W. (45-46) 101 . 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204,

205 206, 207, 208, 212, (47-48)308, 312, 314, (48-49) 401 .

402, 407, 408, 409. 410, 411, 412, 493, 494

FUKUNAGA, £.(45-46)101, 107

GAGE, G. (47-48) 102, 106, 108, (48-49)203, 204, 205, 206,

207, 208, 21 1,212; (49-50) 301, 305, 307, 31 1,313

GAGERIN, F. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, (57-58) 209, 210.

211,212,213,214,215,216

GALAVAN.T. (40-41) 101 . 102, 105. 106. 107. 108. 109:

(41-42) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, (42-43)

307, 31 1,313; (45-46) 407, 409, 410: (46-47) 409. 41 1

GALER, 0.(42-43) 203. 205. 207, 211

GARCES, W. (46-47) 501 , 502. 508. 509, 591

GARETTO, A. (44-45) 102, 106, 108, (45-46) 203, 205, 207,

211; (46-47) 307, 311

GATZ, P. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109; (53-54)209, 211 ,

213,215

GAYL, F, (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

GEnER, Z. (56-57)209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 463.

464; (57-58) 414

GELLMAN, L. (46-47) 102. 105, 106, 107, 108

GENCHEK.R. (51-52) 501

GENTHER, C. (39-40)307, 409, 410, 501 , 502, (42-43)501 ,

502 505,508,591

GEPPERT, R. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203, 204, 207, 208, 21 1 , 212; (50-51 ) 303, 304, 305, 306,

307, 308, 311 . 312, (51-52)403. 404. 409. 410, 413, 414;

(52-53) 415, 416, 453, 454; (53-54) 444

GEHLE, S. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109:

(41-41) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210. 212: (42-43)

307. 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (43-44) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ;
(44-45)402,408,410,412

GEYER, J. (49-50)102.106,108.(50-51)209,210,211,
212, 213, 214, 215. 216; (51-52) 303, 304, 305,306, 307,

308, 31 1 , 312: (52-53) 109. 403. 404. 409. 410. 414. 415:
(53-54)459. 460, 461 . 462, 463, 464, 465, 466
GHESELAYAGH, A. (48-49) 505, 507; (49-50) 501 , 502, 509,
511,595.(50-51)591

GIBSON. H. (49-50)101. 102. 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)

209,211,213,215

GILBERT, S. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10. (55-56)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (56-57) 303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312: (57-58)209. 403. 409, 413

GILBRETH.W. (48-49) 106

GILLA, J. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

GIROLIMON. D (51-52) 209. 210. 21 1.212. 213. 214

GITTELSON, J. (39-40) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

GLASSGEN, A. (41-42)101, 102. 105. 106, 107, 108:

(42-43) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211,212: (46-47)

307, 308, 311, 312, 313, 314, (47-48)402. 408, 410. 412,

494

GLASTRA, V. (48-49) 312, 314, 408, 501 , 503, 504, 593,

594; (49- 50) 502, 505, 591 , 594; (50-51 ) 599

GLAZNER, M. (45-46) 102, 106, 108, (46-47)203, 204, 205,

206, 207. 208. 212: (47-48)308, 312, 314, (48-49)401 , 402.

407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

GLEDHILL, R. (53-54) 103, 104. 107, 108; (54-55)209. 210.

211 , 212. 213, 214, 215: (55-56)303, 304, 305, 306, 309,

310,311,312,(56-57)403,409

GLENNIE.C. (49-50)105

GOBOL, R. (46-47) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212

GOCHMAN, H, (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211

GOETERS, H. (52-53) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1 ,

312

GOLDBERG. A. (40-41)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

GOLDBERG, R. (45-46) 101, 105, 107

GOLDBERG. S. (54-55) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110;

(55-56) 209, 210, 211. 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (56-57)

303, 304, 305. 306, 309, 310. 311, 312: (57-58)403, 404,

409,413,414.420

GOLOFARB, 0.(54-55)110

GOLDSMITH, M. (38-39)401 . 402, 407, 408, 409, 410,

(39-40) 204 (Audit), 207 (Audit), 208 (Audit) 409. 410, 501 ,

502, (46- 47) 591 ; (48-49) 521 , 522; (49-50) 599; (50-51 )

599.(52-53)599

GOMEZ, A. (51-52)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, (52-53)

303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312: (53-54) 403, 404, 409,

413, 414, 420, (54-55)304. 459. 460. 461 , 462, 463, 464,
465,466.(55-56)511

GONZALEZ, G, (48-49)501 , 502, 505, 593, 594

GONZALEZ, M, (51-52)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214;

(52-53)303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54) 304,

403, 404, 409, 413. 414, 420, (54-55)405, 406, 415, 416,

417,418,443,444

GOODMAN, A. (50-51)211, 212. 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311. 312; (52-53)403. 404,

409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54) 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

GOODMAN, B. (40-41 ) 101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;

(41-42) 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212, 310; (42-43)308;

(43-44) 307, 31 1 , 31 3, 401 , 407, 409. 41 1 ; (44-45) 312,

314,402,408.410

GOODMAN, 0. (41-42) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108

GOODMAN, S. (53-54) 210: (54-55) 21 1.212. 309. 310, 31 1 ,

312: (55-56) 210, 306. 403, 404. 409. 413. 414, 420; (56-57)

305.415,416,417,418,443,444

GORDILLO, P. (50-51 ) 505, 508, 509. 51 1 , 593, 594

GORSKI, S. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10

GOSLIN. K. (46-47)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212:

(47-48) 308, 31 2, 31 4, (48-49) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409,

410,411,412,493,494

GOUGH, C. (46-47) 102, 108, 203, 207, 211; (47-48)307,

311,31 3; (48-49) 308, 312, 31 4, 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 , 493;

(49-50)402,406,410,412,494

GRAF, H, (50-51)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)209,

210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, (52-53)303, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311 , 312, (53-54)403. 404. 409. 413. 414, 420; (54-55)

459. 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464. 465, 466

GRAHAM, 0.(45-46)505

GRAPER, J. (52-53) 1 10: (54-55) 215

GRAY, M. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (51-52)

209, 210. 211 , 212, 213. 214. 215, 216; (52-53)303, 305,

307, 31 1 . (53-54) 304, 310, 31 2; (54-55) 403, 404. 409. 413,

414, 420; (55-56) 415, 416, 417, 418, 443. 444
GREEN, D. (41-42) 101. 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (42-43)
203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1,212; (46-47) 307, 308,

311 , 312, 313, 314, 401 , 402, (47-48) 401 , 408, 410, 412,

494, (48-49) 501 , 502, 505, 506, 591 , 593, 594, (49-50) 599,

(50-51)521,599

GREEN, I. (47-48) 102. 106, 108: (48-49) 106, 203, 206,

207, 208, 21 1 , 212. (49-50) 301 . 302. 305. 306. 307, 308,

311 , 312, 313. 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414,

(51-52)453.454

GREENE, S. (54-55) 103, 104. 107, 108, 109, 1 10, 303;

(55-56) 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 413;

(56-57) 304, 305. 306. 309, 310, 31 1,312: (57-58) 403,

404,409,414,415,420

GREENLEES.R. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108,109, 110;

(51-52) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215; (52-53)305,

306, 307, 308, 31 1,312: (56-57) 210, 212, (57-58) 403, 404,
409,413,414,420

GRIFFIS, L, (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109; (56-57)209,

210,211,212,213,214,215

GRONAU, J. (42-43) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (43-44)

203, 205, 207, 21 1 , 307, 31 1 , 313; (44-45) 204, 206, 208,

212,401,402,408,410,412

GROSS, L. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

(41-42) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, (42-43)

307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (43-44) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ;
(44-45)402,408,410,412

GROSSMAN, R. (55-56) 209, 211,213

GRUETZMACHER, R, (39-40) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108,

109

GUST, L. (52-53) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (53-54)209,

210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (54-55) 303, 304, 305,
306, 309, 310, 311 , 312, (55-56)403, 404, 409, 413, 414,
420

GUTE, J. (47-48)102, 106, 108; (48-49)203, 204, 205, 206,

207, 208, 21 1,212: (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307, 308,

311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414;

(51-52)455,456,458

HABECK, J, (52-53) 21 1,216, 303

HACKER, H. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109. 110; (56-57)

209. 210.211.212. 213. 214, 215, 216: (57-58) 303. 304,

305,306,309,310,311,312

HAHN, A. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109: (53-54)209, 210,

211 , 212, 213, 214, 215; (54-55)303, 304, 305, 306, 309,

310, 31 1 , 312; (55-56) 403, 404. 409, 413. 414. 420; (56-57)
415,416.417,418.443.444

HAHN, R, (46-47) 105, 107

HAID, D. (51 -52) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593; (52-53) 591 , 599

HALANDER.R. (54-55)304,414

HALIBEY, T. (54-55) 104. 108: (55-56) 209. 210, 211 , 212,

213, 214, 215, 216. (56-57)303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310,

311 , 312; (57-58)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420
HALLER, C, (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109. 110
HAMMOND, J. (41-42) 401 , 402. 403, 404, 407, 408, 409,
410.411

HAMPTON, J. (46-47) 102, 106. 108. 203, 205, 207. 211 ;

(47-48) 307. 311, 313; (48-49)308, 312, 314, 401 , 407,

409, 41 1 , 493. (49-50) 402, 408. 410. 412. 494; (57-58) 501 .

502

HANDZELL, J. (47-48) 102. 106, 108; (48-49)203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 . 212; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 31 1,312, 313, 314. (50-51 ) 109, 403, 404. 409. 410.

413,414,(51-52)455,456,458

HANLEY, H, (42-43) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107, 108; (43-44)

203, 207. 211 , 307. 311 . (44-45) 204, 205, 206. 208,

212

HANNAFORO, R, (39-40) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210.

211, (40-41 ) 303. 304. 307. 308, 31 1,312: (45-46) 407.

(46-47)401,402,407

HANSCHE, R. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (56-57)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (57-58)303, 304,

305, 3P6, 309, 310, 311, 312

HARASCIUK, J, (57-58) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,

216

HAROMAN, I. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203,204,205,206,207,208,211,212,(50-51)303.304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1,312; (51-52) 403, 404, 409. 410.

413.414,(52-53)415,416.453,454

HARLA, R. (42-43) 203, 205, 207, 211 (45-46) 102, 105,

307. 31 1 ; (46-47) 212. 31 3, 314, 401 . 402. 409, 410; (47-48)

408,412,494

HARMS, 0.(51-52)103. 107. 109

HARRINGER. 0. (44-45) 204. 206. 208. 212: (45-46) 307,

311.313

HARRIS, R. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109, 1 10

HARRISON, L. (46-47)204, 206, 207, 212, 307, 311, 313,

314, (47-48) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 , 494; (48-49) 401 , 407, 409,

411,494

HART, P, (51 -52) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593: (52-53) 521 , 522,

591,599

HARTSHORNE, P, (48-49) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;

(49-50)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 314;

(50-51 ) 303. 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312: (51 -52)

403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414. (52-53)415. 416. 453, 454

HARTZELL, R, (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

HASSKARL, W. (39-40)203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208. 210.

211; (40-41 ) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1,312: (41-42) 401 , 402.

403.404.407.408,409,410,412

HAnAM, J, (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108: (47-48) 204,

208,210

HAUCK, J, (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (55-56)

209, 210,211,212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 413

HAWRY, H. (56-57) 462, 464, 510: (57-58) 501 , 502, 597

HAYASHLR. (55-56) 109

HEALY, G. (40-41)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109:

(41-42) 203, 204, 207, 208, 210. 212

HEODEN, E, (47-48) 102. 106. 108: (48-49) 203, 204, 205.

206, 207, 208, 21 1,212: (49-50) 301 , 305, 307, 31 1 , 313

HEDLUND, R. (51-52) 103, 104. 107. 108, 109, 110: (52-53)

209,210,211,212,213,214, 215; (53-54) 309, 310, 311.

312; (54-55) 403, 404. 409, 413. 414. 420; (55-56) 415. 416.

417.418.443.444

HEINRICH, J. (50-51) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209, 210. 211. 212. 213, 214; (52-53)303, 304, 305. 306.

307, 308, 31 1 . 312: (53-54) 303. 403, 404, 409. 413. 414.

420; (54-55)305. 415, 417, 443

HELLMAN, H. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (47-48)204,

206, 208, 212: (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (49-50)

301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

158

IIT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

HELM,J.(55-56)103, 104, 107, 108; (56-57) 209.211. 213,

215

HELSTERN.R (49-50)101,105,107

HEMMER, M. (56-57) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110

HENDRICKSON. R (46-47) 102. 106. 108. (47-48)204. 208

HENRY, A. (48-49) 501 , 503, 504, 591 , 593, 594

HENRY. W. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209,211,212.213,215

HERO. A. (51-52)103, 104. 107, 108, 109, 110. (52-53)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (53-54)303, 304,

309, 310, 311, 312, (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420;

(55-56)415,416,417,416,443,444

HERRING. F. (40-41)101,105,107

HEWITT. D. (54-55) 103, 107, 109, 209, 303

HICARO. E. (54-55) 31 2, 501 , 502, 505, 508; (55-56) 521 ,

522,(56-57)599

HILD. S. (39-40)303. 304. 307. 308, 312

HILL. W. (47-48) 106, 108; (48-49) 203. 207, 21 1

HILTON, F. (48-49) 501 , 503, 593, 594

HINKENS. G. (46-47) 102, 106, 108; (47-48) 204, 206. 208.

212. (48-49) 307. 308. 311 . 312. 313, 314; (49-50) 101 , 301 ,

302, 407, 408, 409. 410. 411. 412. 493. 494

HIROSE. S. (55-56) 303. 31 1 . 501 , 502. 505, 508, 593

HIHERMAN.R. (55-56) 103, 107

HIPELIUS.R. (53-54) 103, 107,109

HOAK. W. (45-46)203, 205, 207, 211

HOBMANN. R. (55-56) 103, 104. 107. 108. 109

HOCHSTAnER, R. (55-56) 103. 104, 107, 108. 109. 1 10.

303, 304, (56-57)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216;

(57-58)305,306.309,310,311,312

HOEPER. H. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108. 109. 110

HOFFENBERG. 0.(51-52)501

HOFGESANG, J. (44-45) 204, 206, 208. 21 2; (45-46) 307,

31 1,313, (46-47) 212, 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409. 410, 411 ,

412; (51-52)501. 502. 509,593

HOLCOMB, J. (46-47)203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 212;

(47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409,

410,411,412,493,494

HOLLANO, J. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48)204.

206. 208. 212; (48-49)307. 308. 311. 312, 313, 314; (49-50)

301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 493, 494

HOLLENBACK, R. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109. 110,

(54-55)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56)

303, 304. 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312

HOLMES, E. (42-43)402

HOLSTROM, R. (43-44) 205, 307, 311 , 313; (44-45) 106,

203, 204, 208, 211, 212, 401 , 407, 410, 412

HONDA, B. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211;

(47-48) 307, 311 , 313; 48-49)308, 312, 314. 401 , 407, 409.

411, 493; (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 412, 494

HORAN, R. (50-51) 103, 107, 109, 205

HORITA, S. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10; (55-56)

209, 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57) 303, 304.

305, 306, 309. 310, 311, 312; (57-58)403. 404, 409, 413,

414,420

HORITZ. R, (52-53) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (53-54)

209,211,213,215

HORN, A. (43-44) 101 . 203, 207, 211 , 307, 31 1 , 409;

(44-45)204, 208, 212, 312, 314, 401, 408. 412

NORTON. W. (38-39)203, 204, 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313,

314, (39- 40) 305, 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411,412

HORWrrZ. N. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 205, 207,

208

HOUHA.T. (50-51)209. 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,

(51-52) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (52-53)

403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54)415, 416, 417, 418,

443, 444

HOWE, A. (39-40) 401 , 403, 407, 409, 41 1

HRABCAK, M. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (55-56)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57) 303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310. 311 . 312. (57-58)403. 404. 409. 413.

414.420

HRUBY, L. (44-45) 102. 106. 108; (45-46) 203. 205, 207,

21 1 ; (46- 47) 307, 308, 31 1,312, 313, 314. (47-48) 401 .

407. 409. 41 1 . 494; (48-49) 402. 410

HUDNUT.F. (54-55)103,107

HUOSON, B. (55-56) 103. 104. 107, 108; (56-57)209, 210,

211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, (57-58)303, 304, 305. 306. 309.
310,311

HUFFMAN, N. (50-51)103, 107, 109

HUNTER, C. (54-55) 104, 108

HUSSMAN, G. (38-39) 201 , 203, 205, 207, 401

HUSTOLES, E. (47-48) 102. 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206. 207. 208. 211, 212; (49-50)301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,

414; (51-52) 455, 456, 458

HUSTON, 0. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209,211,213,215

HUTCHINS, G. (42-43) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

HUnON, C, (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 212;

(51-52) 209, 210, 211 , 213, 214, 215, 216, 306; (52-53)

303, 304, 305, 307. 308, 311 , 312; (53-54) 403. 404, 409,

413, 414, 420. (54-55)305. 415. 416. 417. 418. 443. 444
HUnON, W. (39-40) 401 . 402. 403. 404. 407. 408. 409.
410.411,412

HYAMS, M. (39-40) 102. 106. 108. 109

HYAMS, N. (40-41) 102, 105, 106, 108, 109; (41-42)203,

204, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212; (42-43) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312,

313. 314, 402, 408, 410, 412. (43-44)401 , 407, 409, 411,

(44-45)501,508,509

INAN.M. (51-52)103, 104,107,108,109, 110

ISHIHARA. K. (54-55) 104, 108, 110. (55-56)209, 210, 211 ,

212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57)303, 304, 305. 306, 309,
310. 311 . 312; (57-58) 110. 403. 404, 409, 413, 414, 420
JACHEC, S. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (49-50)
203,204,205,207,208,211,212

JACHNA, J. (56-57)109

JACKSON. B. (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 420

JACOBS, A. (50-51) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110; (51-52)

209. 210. 21 1 , 213. 214. 215. 216. (52-53) 212. 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311,31 2; (53-54) 403. 404. 409, 413.

414, 420, (54-55)405. 406, 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444
JACOBS, L. (38-39)407, 408, 409, 410

JACOBS, T. (54-55) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (55-56)
209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215. 216, 413, 414; (56-57)

303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312; (57-58)403, 404,

409 416,420

JAKUBOWSKI. A. (38-39) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410,

(39-40)205

JANSONE, V. (50-51 ) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593, 594, (51-52)

521,591

JANULIS,K, (57-58)502,597

JARONSKI, E, (47-48) 102, 106, 108, (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206,207,208,211,212

JENSEN, W. (57-58) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 1 10

JIMENO, 0.(56-57) 501, 502, 508

JOERGER, J. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211,

(47-48) 307, 31 1,313; (48-49) 308, 312, 314, 401 , 407,

409, 41 1 , 493; (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 41 2, 494

JOHANSON,L. (38-39)407,409

JOHNSON, 0. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212, (50-51 ) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (51-52) 403, 404, 409, 410,

413,414,(52-53)415,416,453,454

JOHNSON, G. (56-57)210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215. (57-58)

303.304.305.306,309.310.311,312

JOHNSON, L. (42-43) 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208; (43-44)

211 , 307. 31 1.313. (44-45) 212. 312. 314. 410. (45-46) 407.

108

JOHNSON, LOUIS (51-52)209. 210. 213. 214. 215. 303;

(52-53) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1,312; (53-54)

403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (54-55)305, 415, 416, 417,

418, 443, 444; (55-56)462, 508, 509; (56-57)461 , 463, 465.

502(57-58)591.599

JOHNSON, N. (53-54) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10, (54-55)

209,211,213,215;(55-56)209,213

JOHNSON, R. E. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1,212, (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306.

307, 308, 31 1,312, 313, 314. (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410,

413, 414; (51-52)453, 454

JOHNSON, R. F. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;

(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212. (50-51)

303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 311. 312. (51-52)403. 404.

409. 410, 413, 414; (52-53) 415, 416, 453, 454

JOHNSON, W. (44-45) 102, 106, 108; (45-46) 203, 205, 207,

211; (46-47)307, 311 , 313, 314; (47-48)204, 308, 312, 314;

(48- 49) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410. 411 . 412. 493. 494

JONES, R. (51-52)505. 508. 509. 593. (52-53) 458. 506.

591 . 594

JORDAN, D. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 209,

303,304

KAAL, H. (50-51 ) 303, 304, 305, 306. 307, 308, 31 1 . 31 2;

(51-52) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414; (52-53)415, 416,

453,454

KAISER, E. (53-54) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10; (54-55)

209, 210, 21 1 . 212, 213, 214, 215; (55-56) 305. 306, 309,

310, 31 1 , 312; (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 414, 420. (57-58) 415,

416,417.418.443.444

KAJIOKA, A. (54-55) 103. 107. 211. 212. 213. 214; (55-56)

303. 304, 305. 306. 309, 310, 311. 312, (56-57)403, 404,

409,414,420

KALISZEWSKI, R. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110;

(52-53) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2; (53-54)

403, 404 409, 413, 414, 420; (54-55)459, 460, 461 , 462,

463,464,465,466

KALOGERAS, C, (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108.

(42-43) 203. 205, 207, 21 1 , (46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312,

313, 314, (47-48)402, 408, 410 412, 494

KALTENBACH, C. (49-50) 105, 106, 107, 203, 205, 206, 21 1 ,

212, (50-51 ) 213, 214, 215, 413, (51-52)303, 304, 305, 306,
307, 308, 311 , 312; (52-53)403, 404, 409, 410, 414. 415,
(53-54)416,417,418,443,444

KAMEL, A. (46-47)502, (46-49) 509, 591

KANAZAWA, H. (52-53) 501 , 502, 505, 508; (53-54) 521 ,

591,599

KANE, J. (56-57) 103. 104, 107, 108, (57-58) 209, 210, 21 1

212,213,214,215

KANNE, S. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212, (50-51)210, 213.

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 306, 311 , 312, (51-52)403, 404,

409, 410, 413, 414; (52-53) 415, 416, 453, 454

KANTAPUTRA, R. (55-56) 312, 501 , 502, 505, 508, 593,

(56-57) 51 1 , 521 . 597, 599, (57-58) 599

KAPLAN (KERMAN), B (46-47) 308, 312. 313. 314. 401 .

402. (47-48) 208. 212. (48-49) 307. 308. 31 1 . 31 2. 412;

(49-50)313. 402. 407. 408. 409. 410. 493, 494

KAPLAN, 8.(49-50)302, 306. 308, 312. (50-51) 403. 404.

409, 410, 413, 414. (51-52)455, 456, 458

KAPSALIS.T. (48-49) 203

KARDIS. C. (53-54) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (54-55)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56) 209, 212,

303, 304, 305, 306, 309. (56-57) 209. 305, 309, 31 1

KARPUSZKO.K. (55-56)215

KASAMOTO. H. (43-44) 501 , 503, 505; (46-47) 502, 509,

510;(47-48)512, 591, 594 (Audit)

KASISZEWSKI. R (51-52)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214,

215,216

KASSOVIC. S, (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

KASTARLAK. B (56-57)310, 463, 464, 501 , 505, 509

KATZWANN.T. (45-46)203, 205, 207, 211

KAUFMAN, V. (46-47) 204, 21 1 , (47-48) 307. 31 1 , 31 3,

(48-49) 308. 312. 31 4. 401 . 407. 409. 41 1 , 493, (49-50)

402,408,410,412,494

KEARNEY, J. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (52-53)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215. (53-54)303, 304, 309,

310, 31 1,312; (54-55) 403, 404. 409, 413, 414, 420. (55-56)
459,460,461,462,463,464,465

KEEFE, H. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

KEFER, A. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (42-43)

203, 205, 207. 21 1 ; (46-47) 203, 204, 206, 208. 212, 307,

311,313,314; (47-48) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 , 494; (48-49) 402,

408,410,412,494

KEHOE, W. (47-48) 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205, 206,

207, 208, 211, 212, (49-50)301 , 302, 305, 306, 307, 308.

31 1 . 312. 313. 314, (50-51 ) 109, 403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414;(51-52)453,454

KEILMAN, R. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, (53-54)209, 211 ,

213, 215; (56-57)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,
(57-58) 303. 304. 305. 306. 309. 310. 311. 312
KEIPERT, W. (48-49) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107, 108. (49-50)
203, 204. 205. 206. 207, 208, 21 1,212. (50-51 ) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312. (51-52)403, 404, 409, 410,

413,414,(52-53)413,415,416,453,454

KEKATOS. T. (49-50) 105, 203, 205, 206; (50-51 ) 209, 210,

211,212,213, 214, (51 -52) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308,

31 1,312; (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414, (53-54) 415,

416,417,416,443,444

KELIUOTIS. R. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110.

(56-57) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (57-58)

303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312

KELLEY. R, (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (52-53)

209, 211 , 213, 215, (56-57)303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310,

311, 312, (57-58)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420

KELLIHER. R. (45-46) 205. (46-47) 203, 21 1 , 307, 308, 312,

311,31 3, 314, (47-48) 402, 408, 410, 412, 494, (48-49) 501 ,

502,505,506,594

KELLY, G. (56-57) 1 10; (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109

KELLY,R. (54-55)210, 212, 214, 216

KIDO, L. (57-58) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110, 303, 304,

413 414

KIEDAISCH, M. (54-55) 1 10; (55-56) 103, 104, 107. 108,

109;(56-57)209, 210,211.212.213. 214.215.216;

(57-56) 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312

KIJOWSKI. J. (54-55) 103, 107, 109, 209, 211, 213, 215

KILL. R. (46-47) 102, 108; (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 212;

(48-49) 307, 308, 31 1,312, 313, 314; (49-50) 105, 301 ,

302, 407, 408. 409, 410, 411, 412, 493, 494
KILLICK.W. (42-43)101,105, 107

KIMM. J. (55-56) 110; (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109;

(57-58)209,210,211,212,213,214.215,216

KING. P. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109. 110. (51-52) 209.

210,211,212,213,214,215,216,(52-53)303,304,305.

306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (53-54)212, 403, 404, 409, 413,

414. 420, (54-55)405, 406, 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

KINGMAN. D. (55-56) 103, 104, 107. 108, 109, 1 10; (56-57)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216

KIRK. A. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48) 204, 206,

208, 212; (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (49-50)301 ,

302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1,412, 493, 494

KISIELIUS, A. (45-46) 101 . 105, 107; (48-49) 102, 106, 108,

(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1,212. (50-51 )

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (51-52)403, 404,
409, 410, 413, 414; (52-53)455, 456, 458
KISSINGER, R. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105. 106, 107. 108;
(50-51)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (51-52)
303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (52-53) 403, 404,
409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54)415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444
KITE, C. (46-47)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212; (47-48)
308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402, 407, 408. 409. 410. 41 1 ,
412,493,494

KLARICH. L. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (42-43)
203, 204, 205, 206. 207, 208. 21 1 . 212; (43-44) 307, 31 1 ,
313, 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 , (44-45)308. 312. 314. 402. 510;
(48-49) 501 . 502. 505. 593. 594; (49-50) 591 . 599
KLEH. 0.(56-57) 104. 108

KLIMCZAK, C. (47-48) 308; (48-49)307, 308. 311 . 312, 409;
(49-50)205.211.410
KLINGENSTEIN,J.(50-51)103.107.109
KLIPHAROT.R. (38-39)409

159

NT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

KIUGE.E. (52-53) 209, 211.213,215
KNIGHT, J. (46-47) 501 , 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 591
KOCKELMAN. W. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108,
(50-51 ) 209, 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215; (51-52) 304,
305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312; (52-53)403, 404, 409, 410,

413, 414; (53-54)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466.
(57-58)511,512

KOCONIS. P. (42-43)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 ,

212; (43-44) 307, 311,31 3, 401 , 407, 409, 411, (44-45) 308,

312,314,402

KOKESH, F. (47-48) 102, 106, 108, 206; (48-49)203, 204,

205,206,207,208,211,212

KOLLATH, R. (56-57) 104, 108, 209, 211 , 212, 215, 303;

(57-58)210, 213, 214, 304, 413, 414, 417, 418

KOMATER. A. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215; (52-53) 212, 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54)403, 404, 409, 413,

414, 420; (54-55)459. 460. 461 . 462, 463, 464, 465, 466
KORN, R. (51-52) 110, (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109,
215, 216; (53-54)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214; (54-55)303,

304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 31 1 , 312, 413, 414; (55-56) 403,
404, 409, 415, 416, 420; (56-57)417, 418, 443, 444, 463,464
KOSOVER, L. (47-48) 102, 106, 108, (48-49)203, 204, 205,
206, 207, 208, 211, 212; (49-50)301, 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311, 312, 313, 314; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414; (51-52) 455, 456, 458

KOVAL. R. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;

(45-46)203,205,207,211

KOVICH. R. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

KOZELK. (51-52) 110; (52-53) 103, 107

KRAFT, L. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

KRAKOWSKY. P. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49)203, 204,

205,206,207,208,211,212

KRAMER, C. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (53-54)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215; (54-55)209, 305, 306,

309, 310, 311, 312; (55-56)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420;
(56-57) 416, 417, 418, 443, 444, 463

KRAUSE.R. (47-48) 106

KROFTA, J. (49-50) 101 , 102, 107, 108, 203, 205, 206,

(50-51 ) 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214; (52-53) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54)403, 404, 409, 413,
414, 420; (54-55)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466;
(55-56) 51 1 , 51 2; (56-57) 501 , 51 1 , 591 , 599
KRUEGER.K, (56-57)501,505,597

KRUIZE, H. (46-47)203, 206, 207, 212; (47-48)308, 312,

314; (48-49)401. 402. 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493,

494

KRUMINS. E. (54-55)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (55-56)

209, 210, 21 1 , 212, 213. 214. 215. 216; (56-57) 303. 304,

305, 306, 309, 310. 311 , 312: (57-58)403, 404, 409, 413,

414,420

KRUMSIEG, F. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413,

414; (51-52)453, 454

KUBICKA, A. (38-39) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 410

KUEHNER,J.(56-57)103,107,109

KUESTER, D. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (53-54)

107,(56-57)215

KUIZINAS, V. (44-45)308, 314; (45-46)307, 407, 409, 410

KULIEKE, C. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

312; (39-40) 303, 304, 307, 308, 312; (40-41) 401 , 402, 403,

404,407,408,409,410,411,412

KULPS, J. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110. (55-56)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57)303, 305,

309,311

KULWIEC, W. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108: (55-56)209, 210,

21 1,212, 213, 214, 215, (56-57) 303, 304, 305, 306, 309,

310, 311 , 312; (57-58)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420

KUNKA, J. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10; (52-53)

209, 210, 21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (53-54) 303, 304,

309, 310, 31 1 , 312: (54-55) 403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420;

(55-56)415, 416. 417, 418, 443, 444

KUREK.J. (52-53)103, 104,107,108, 109, 110

KURESHY, M. (55-56) 501 , 502, 505, 508, 593; (56-57) 51 1 ,

521, 597, 599; (57-58)599

LACKNER, B. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

LACKNER, L. (41-42) 203, 205, 207, 210, (45-46) 203, 307,

311,313

LADIN, J. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (55-56)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (56-57)303, 305,

309,311

LANE, E. (38-39) 101 , 102, 105. 106, 107. 108, 204; (39-40)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 21 1 : (40-41 ) 303, 304,

307, 308, 31 1,312; (41-42) 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408,

409,410,411,412

LANE, H. (40-41)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109: (41-42)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, (42-43) 307, 311,

313; (46-47) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 412

LAPASSO. L. (38-39) 203, 204, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313,

314; (39- 40) 305, 401 , 402, 403, 407, 408, 409, 411

LAPASSO, L. (46-47)204. 208. 212

LARAIA.J.(50-51)103,107,109

LARRAIN,J.(52-53)501,502,505

LARSON, G. (39-40) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210,211,

(40-41 ) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312: (41 -42) 401 , 402,

403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412; (42-43) 501 , 502

LARSON, R. (44-45)101

LAHVE, 8. (51-52)212,213

LASKY, J. (53-54)211 , 212, 213, 214, 303, 304; (54-55)

309, 310, 311, 312; (55-56)306, 403, 404, 409, 413, 414,

420; (56-57) 305, 415, 417, 418, 443, 444

LA VINE, J. (42-43) 101, 102, 107, 108

LAWSON, E. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 21 1,212, (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308,311,312,313,314

LEA, \. (50-51 ) 103, 104, 108, 109, 110; (51-52) 209, 210,

211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (52-53) 303, 304, 305, 306,

307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420:

(54-55) 405, 406, 413, 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

LEAVin,H. (43-44)307,311,313

LEE, H. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50) 203,

204,205,206,207,208,211,212

LEHMANN, K. (57-58) 501 , 502, 505, 506, 597

LEIB, M. (47-48)204, 206, 208, 212; (48-49) 106, 307, 308,

31 1,312, 313, 314, (49-50) 301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411,412,493,494

LEISERING, A. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212, (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306,

307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314, (50-51)403. 404, 409. 410.
413,414,(51-52)455,456,458

LEMON, 0.(42-43)313, 314

LEMPP, G. (50-51 ) 501 , 505, (51 -52) 502, 508: (52-53) 591 ,

599; (53-54) 599

LENART, C. (39-40)303, 304, 307, 308, 312; (40-41)401,

402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 412

LENZ, C. (51-52)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (52-53)209,

210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (53-54) 303, 304, 309,

310, 31 1 , 312; (54-55) 403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (55-56)

415,416,417,418,443,444

LERNER,A.(45-46)101,107

LEVAN,A.(55-56)103,107

LEVINE, B. (47-48) 102, 106, 108, (48-49)203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211 , 212, (49-50)301, 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311 , 312, 313, 314, (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414; (51-52)455, 456, 458

LEVINE, L. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 205, 206,

207,208,211,212

LEWIS, A. (42-43) 501 , 503, 505, 506, 508, 509, 51 1 , 592

LIBRIZZI, G. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108,

LIFSCHUTZ, I. (40-41) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109:

(41-42)203,205,207,210

LILLIBRIDGE, A. (40-41 ) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 ;

(41-42) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1,312: (42-43) 402, 408,

410,412

LINDAHL, J. (38-39) 407, 408, 409, 410

LINDAHL,R. (49-50)101,105,107

LINDGREN, C. (54-55)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,

216,413,414

LINDGREN, E. (39-40)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210,

21 1 ; (40-41 ) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2; (41 -42) 401 , 402.

403. 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 412

LINKE, R. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (52-53)

209, 210, 21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (53-54) 303, 304,

309, 310, 311 , 312, (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420:
(55-56)415,416,417,418,443,444

LIPPERT, J. (54-55) 501 , 502, 505, 508; (55-56) 521 , 522,

593, 599

LISTER, D. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212, (50-51 ) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (51-52)403, 404, 409, 410,

413,414

LISTON, L. (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 212; (48-49) 307, 308,

311,312,313,314; (49-50) 301 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411,412,493,494

LIU, D. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (54-55)209,

210, 21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56) 303, 304, 305,
306,309,310,311,312

LLOYO,H. (45-46)101,105,107

LO, W. (49-50) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 594, 595. (50-51 ) 521 ,

522,591,593,594

LOnUS, T. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10

LO GALBO, S. (54-55) 103, 105, 107, 108. (55-56) 209. 210.

211,212,213,214,215.(56-57)212.309,310,311,312;

(57-58) 403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420

LOHAN, 0. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 210, 416

LOHMANN, W. (56-57) 501 , 502, 505, 508, 597, (57-58)

521,597,600

LOPEZ-DIAZ, W. (39-40)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

(40-41)203,205,207,210

LORANO, A. (51-52)303

LORMER, W. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48) 204,

206, 208, 212; (48-49)307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (49-50)

301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494

LUNDE, 0.(56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108

LUNGARO, 0. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (55-56)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (56-57)303. 305.

309,311

LYOEN, R. (41-42)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212:

(42-43) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314, (47-48) 402, 408,

410,412,494

LYONS, P. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110. (56-57)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216

McALVEY, 0. (44-45) 102, 106, 108: (45-46) 102, 203, 207,

211; (46-47) 307, 308, 311,312,313,314

McARTHUR, W. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

McBRIDE, R. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 209;

(57-58)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

Mccarty, h. (38-39)20i , 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 312

McCOY, H. (42-43) 101 ,105, 107, (46-47) 102, 105, 106,
107, 108:(47-48)204, 206, 208,212

Mcdowell, e. (48-49) 503, 505, 599: (49-50) 502, 595
Mcdowell, g. (54-55) 104, 108, no

McGINNIS, R. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48) 204,
206, 208, 212; (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1,312, 313, 314; (49-50)

301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 493, 494
McGREW, C. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 205

McKINSY, R. (40-41 ) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;

(41-42)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, (46-47)

212, 307, 31 1 , 401 , 402, 410, 412; (47-48) 21 1 , 313, 408,

494

McLEAN, 0. (46-47) 102, 106, 108; (47-48) 204, 208, 212;

(48-49)307, 308, 313, 314, (49-50)205, 206, 311 , 312,

411,412

McMASTER, W. (40-41 ) 203, 205, 206, 207, 210, 21 1 ;

(41 -42) 303, 204, 208, 212; (42-43) 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2,

313, 314; (45-46) 102, 108: (46-47) 212, 401 , 402, 407, 408,

409,410,411,412

McRAE, A. (45-46) 207, 307; (46-47) 211,311,312,313,

314,409

MAAS, P. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

MAHER, P. (49-50) 101 , 102, 106, 107, 108, 301 , 302, 313,

314;(50-51)209,211,213

MAHN, C. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

312

MAJESKI, R. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107, (47-48) 102, 106, 108;

(48-49) 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2; (49-50) 301 ,

302, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311,312,313; (50-51 ) 305, 403,
404, 409, 410, 413, 414, (51-52)455, 456, 458
MAJEWSKI, D. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108; (57-58)209.
210,211.212,213,214,215

MALCOLMSON, R. (47-48) 502, 505, (48-49) 503, 591 , 599

MALIS, L, (48-49)101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

MALMGREN, K. (45-46) 102, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211 ;

(46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (47-48) 402, 408,

410, 412, 494, (48-49) 105, 106, 501 , 502, 505, 506, 593,

594

MANDEL, E. (38-39) 203, 204, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314;

(39-40) 305, 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 ,

412

MANICKAM, B. (47-48) 502, 51 2, 592, 594

MANNY, C. (46-47) 208, 501 , 502, 503, 506: (47-48) 308,

312,408,494

MANSBACH, G. (52-53) 103, 107, 109: (53-54) 209, 211 ,

213,215

MANSFIELD, W. (45-46) 102, 203, 205, 207, 211; (46-47)

307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314, (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412,

494

MARKIEWICZ, M. (53-54) 209, 21 1 , 213

MARKISON, W. (56-57) 103, 107, 109; (57-58) 104, 108,

110

MARSCH, E. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, (56-57) 209, 210,

211 , 212, 213, 214, 215. (57-58)303, 304, 305, 306. 309.

310.311.312

MARSHMENT, D. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204,

205,206,207,208,212

MARSTELLER, J. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10, 303,

304

MARTENS, G. (49-50) 105, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211 ,

212

MARTIN, N. (44-45) 204, 206, 208, 212: (45-46) 307. 31 1 ,

313. (46-47) 401 . 402, 407, 408, 409, 410,411,412

MAHTINEK.G. (39-40) 106, 108, 109; (40-41) 203, 204,

205,206,207,208,210,211

MARTINKUS, J. (57-58) 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215

MARTINSON, E. (49-50) 106; (50-51) 209, 210, 21 1,212,

213, 214, 215, 216: (51-52)303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308,

311,312; (52-53) 403, 409, 413; (54-55) 403, 404, 409, 41 3,

414,420

MARUBAYSHI, R. (43-44) 101 ,107, 203, 205, 207, 211 :

(44-45) 102, 108, 206, 308, 312, 314, 401 ; (45-46)407.

409.410

MARX, G. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110: (56-57)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (57-58)303, 305,

309,311

MASON, J. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

MATHER, R. (46-47) 102. 108: (47-48)204. 208. 212:

(49-50)301 . 302. 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314;

(50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414; (51-52) 455, 456, 458

MATHES, C. (49-50) 102, 106, 203, 204, 205, 301 , 302

MATSUMOTO,K.(51-52)103, 104,107, 108, 109,110:

(52-53)209,211,213,215

MATUSHEK, R. (49-50) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108:

(50-51)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 . 312; (52-53) 403, 404.

409. 410, 413, 414; (53-54) 459, 460, 461 , 462. 463. 464,

465, 466

MAXEY, W. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107: (46-47)203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 212: (47-48)308, 312, 314; (48-49)401, 402,

407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 , 41 2, 493, 494

160

NT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

MAYBAUM, J. (44-45) 106, 203, 204, 205. 208, 211,212

MEEOS. V. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 106, (50-51 )

209, 210. 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215. 216, (51-52)303, 304.

305. 306. 307. 308. 311 , 312. (52-53)403, 404, 409, 410,

413, 414; (53-54)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466

MEEKER. D. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10

MEIER, H. (51-52) 501 . 502. 505, 509, 593

MEISTER, E. (38-39) 203. 204, 307, 308, 31 1 , 313, 314

MEISTER. E. (46-47) 102, 106. 108. 203. 205. 207. 21 1

MELL, A. (41-42) 503. 504. 505, 506

MENZENBERGER.J. (41-42)101,102, 105,106, 107.108;

(42-43) 203. 204. 205. 206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2, (43-44)

307, 31 1 . 31 3. 401 . (44-45) 308, 312.314, 402. (46-47) 401 .

402.407.408,409.410.411.412

MrCALFE, G. (46-47) 102. 106. 108, 203. 205, 207. 211

MICHAELSEN. J. (38-39) 101 . 102. 105, 106. 107. 108,

(39-40) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 21 1 , (40-41)

303, 304. 307. 308. 311.312. (41-42) 401 , 402. 403. 404.

407,408.409.410.411.412

MICHIELS, J. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108; (50-51)

209. 210, 211. 212. 213, 214. 215. 216. (51-52)303. 304.

305. 306. 307, 308, 311 , 312; (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410.

413, 414; (53-54) 415, 416, 417, 418. 443, 444; (56-57)501 ,

508,597

MICKOLAJCZYK, H. (38-39) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410

MILEWSKI, C, (48-49) 106, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211 ,

212; (49- 50)301 , 302. 305. 306. 307. 308. 311. 312, 313.

314; (50- 51 ) 403. 404. 409. 410. 413. 414; (51-52) 453. 454

MILLAR, D. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108; (50-51 )

209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215. 216, (51-52)303, 304,

305. 306. 307. 308. 31 1 , 312. (52-53) 403. 404 410, 413,

414; (53-54) 215, 415, 416. 417, 418. 443. 444

MILLER, D. (38-39)201 , 202, 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208,

312; (39-40) 303, 304, 307. 308. 312; (40-41 ) 401 , 402. 403.

404,407,408.409.410.411.412

MILLER, J. (54-55) 103, 104. 107. 108, 109. 110; (55-56)

209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. (56-57)303. 304. 305. 306,

309. 310. 311 , 312; (57-58) 403. 404. 409. 413. 414. 420

MILLER, J. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49)203. 204. 205.

206,207,208,211,212

MILLER, R, (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204, 205,

206,207,208.212

MILLER, W, (56-57) 501 . 502. 505. 508, 597

MILINE, 0.(47-48)102, 106, 108; (48-49) 205, 211

MILORD, P. (50-51)103,104,107,108,109,110

MINGESZ, M. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 205, 207,

211

MIRANDA, S. (56-57)501 . 502, 505, 508, 597

MIROTSNIC, J. (38-39)203. 204, 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313,

314; (39-40) 305, 401 , 402. 403. 404, 407, 408, 409. 410.

411.412

MISIALEK, A. (50-51 ) 104. 108. 215; (51-52) 209. 21 1 . 213

MrrCHELL, J. (49-50) 101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52)303, 304,

305, 306, 307. 308. 311 . 312; (52-53)403. 404. 409. 410.

413, 414, (53-54)415, 416, 417. 418. 443. 444

MITTENBERG, V. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110;

(56-57)209. 211. 212. 213. 214, 215, 216, (57-58)303.

304,305.306.309,310.311,312

MIWA, Y. (51-52)213, 312, 501 , 502, 505, 509, (52-53)305,

306,521,522,(53-54)599

MODESTO, N. (43-44) 101 , 105, 107, (47-48) 204, 206, 208,

212, (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1,312, 313, 314; (49-50) 301 , 302,

407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1,412, 493, 494

MONBERG, W. (41-42)203, 204. 205. 206. 207, 208, 210.

212; (45- 46) 102; (46-47) 307. 31 1 . 313. 31 4. 401 , 402.

410, (47-48) 106, 402. 408. 410. 412. 494

MONSON, D. (38-39) 101 . 105. 106. 307. 410; (39-40)206,

408; (40-41 ) 203, 207, 210, 303, 401 , 403, 407, 41 1 , 507;

(41-42)512,591

MOORE, E, (38-39) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107. 108, (39-40)

203, 204, 205. 206. 207. 208. 210. 211; (40-41) 303, 304.

307. 308. 311 . 312, (41-42)401, 402. 403. 404. 407, 408,
409,410,411.412

MORCOS, F. (56-57) 501 . 502. 505. 522. 597; (57-58) 508,

597,691,692

MORGAN. D. (39-40) 307. 409. 410. 501 . 502

MORI, A. (48-49) 106, 203, 205, 207, 208, 21 1 , 212, (49-50)

301 . 302. 305. 306. 307. 308. 31 1 312. 313. 31 4; (50-51 )

216. 403. 404. 409. 410. 413. 414; (51-52)453. 545

MORITA.C. (51-52)103.107

MOROW, A. (45-46) 1 02. 203, 207. 21 1 . (46-47) 307, 308,

311 , 312, 313, 314; (47-48) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 , 494, (48-49)

314.402.408,410,412,494.453

MORRIS, L. (50-51 ) 501 . 502, 505, 508, 593, 594, 595

MORRISON, WM. (49-50) 206, 208; (50-51 ) 305, 306. 307.

308. 31 1.312, (53-54) 303, 304. 403. 409. 413. 414. 420,
(54-55)405, 406, 415, 416. 443. 444, (55-56)417, 418
MOSELEY, T. (38-39) 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410
MOSS, E. (51-52) 103, 107, 109

MOSS, M. (49-50) 204. 212

MOTZ, R. (50-51) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209, 210. 211, 212. 213, 214, 215; (52-53)303, 305, 306,

307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54) 403. 404. 409. 413. 414. 420;

(54-55) 405, 406, 415. 416. 417. 418. 443. 444

MOUTOUSSAMY, J, (44-45) 101 . 102. 105, 106, 107. 108,

(45-46) 203. 205. 207. 21 1 ; (46-47) 307. 308. 31 1 . 31 2.

313. 314; (47-48)402. 408. 410. 412. 494

MOY, R. (48-49) 106. 203. 204. 205. 206, 207, 208, 211.

212; (49-50)301 , 302. 305. 306. 307. 308. 311 . 312. 313.

314; (50-51)403. 404. 409. 410. 413. 414; (51-52)453. 454

MOYER, R. (42-43) 101 , 105, 107, (45-46) 102, 108, 203,

205, 207. 211. (46-47)307, 308. 311 , 312. 313. 314, (47-48)

402,408,410,412.494

MUELLER, R. (42-43) 101 . 102. 107. 108. 204

MUNEIO.N, (49-40)207. 211

MUNSON, J. (52-53) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110; (53-54)

209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215; (54-55)305, 306, 309,

310, 31 1 , 312; (55-56) 403, 404. 409. 413, 414. 420; (56-57)

415.416.417.418.443.444,463

MURMAN.R. (42-43)101,105,107

MURPHY,H. (56-57)103,104,107,108, 109, 110; (57-58)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,303

MURPHY, P. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107. 108

MURPHY, W. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108. 109, 110; (55-56)

209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215, 216; (56-57)303, 304.

305.306,309.310.311.312

MURRAY, F. (48-49) 101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203, 204. 205. 206. 207. 208, 21 1 . 212; (50-51 ) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308. 311 . 312, (51-52)403. 404. 409. 410.

413,414.(52-53)455.456.458

MYERS, G, (54-55) 103. 104. 107, 108. (55-56)209. 211

213,215

NAFORSKY, R. (42-43) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108;

(43-44)307. 311 . 313, (44-45)203, 204, 205, 206, 207.

208,211,212,401.(45-46)407

NAIDU, V. (55-56) 461 . 463. 464. 465. 466. 505, 508, 509,

510,(56-57)511.599.591

NEEDHAM, F. (48-49) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108. (49-50)

203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211 . 212; (50-51)303. 304,
305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (51-52)403, 404. 409, 410,

413, 414; (52-53)415, 416, 453, 454

NEIKRUG, L. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211;
(47-48) 307, 31 1 , 31 3, (48-49) 308, 31 2, 31 4, 401 . 407,

409. 41 1 . 493; (49-50) 402. 408. 410. 412. 494
NELSEN, D. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49) 203. 204. 205,
206,207,208,211,212

NELSON, E, (44-45)308, 312, 314, (46-47)401 , 402, 407,

408,409.411.412.(47-48)204.410

NELSON, H. (46-47) 106. 108. 203, 205. 207, 21 1, (47-48)

307. 31 1 . 313; (48-49) 308, 312, 314, 401 , 407, 409, 411 ,

493

NELSON, JOHN (46-47) 102. 106. 108. 203. 205. 207, 211

NELSON, JOSEPH (46-47) 203, 204. 205, 206, 207, 208,

212; (47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402. 407. 408. 409.

410.411.412.493.494

NELSON, K. (47-48) 204. 206, 208, 212, (48-49) 307, 308,

311 , 312, 313, 314; (49-50) 301 , 302, 407, 408. 409, 410.

411,412.493.494

NELSON, L. R. (49-40) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108,

(50-51)209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. (51-52)

303. 305. 306, 307. 308. 311 . 312; (52-53)403. 404. 409.

410. 414; (53-54)311 , 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444
NERAD, 0. (46-47) 102, 106, 108. 203. 205. 207. 211 ;
(47-48) 307. 311 , 313, (48-49) 308. 312, 314. 401 , 407,
409. 41 1 . 493; (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 412. 494
NEWMANN, E. (56-57) 103, 107, 109

NICKEL, R. (54-55) 413, (55-56) 209

NICOUS, 0. (56-57) 214, 420, 464, (57-58) 508, 509, 512,

592

NIX, E. (43-44) 101. 105. 107

NOE, H. (55-56) 104. 108, 212; (56-57) 209, 210, 213. 214.

414. 463. 465. 466, (57-58) 309, 310, 311 , 312, 413, 416,
463

NOONAN.E. (57-58) 501. 502. 597

NORAK.R. (40-41) 101. 105. 107

NORDLANDER, H. (46-47) 102. 105. 106. 107. 108; (47-48)

204, 206, 208, 212; (48-49) 307. 308. 311 , 312. 313. 314;
(49-50) 301 , 302. 407. 408. 409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494
NORMAN, R. (49-50)101,105.107

NORRIS, D. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109, 110, (56-57)
209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (57-58)303, 304,
305,306.309.310.311.312
NORRIS,J. (41-42)101.105. 107

NORTHRUP, L. (48-49) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 ,

212, 313, 314, (49-50) 106, 301 , 301 , 305, 306. 307, 308,

31 1 , 312, 314; (50-51 ) 109, 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414

NOWAK, E. (55-56) 103, 104. 107, 108, 109, 110; (56-57)

209. 210. 211 . 212, 213. 214. 215. 216. (57-58)303. 304,

305,306,309,311

NOWICKI, N. (54-55) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110. (55-56)

209. 210. 21 1 . 212. 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57)303. 305.

309. 311; (57-58) 309, 311

NUORTILA, A. (57-58) 501 . 505. 597

O'BRIEN, E.J. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108. 110; (56-57) 209.

211. 212. 213. 214. 215. (57-58)303. 304. 305. 306. 309.

310.311.312

O'BRIEN, R. (38-39)201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

312; (39-40)303, 304, 307, 308, 312; (40-41) 401 , 402, 403,

404,407,408,409,410;411,412

OGAWA, Y. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311,312, (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410,

413, 414. (53-54)415. 416, 417, 418, 443. 444

OGILVIE.T. (49-50)101. 102, 105. 106. 107. 108; (50-51)

209. 210. 211 . 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (51-52)303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (52-53)403, 404. 409. 410.
413. 414. (53-54)413. 415. 416. 417. 418. 443. 444
OKAMATO, S. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49) 203. 204. 205.
206. 207. 208. 21 1 . 212, (49-50) 301 , 302. 305. 306. 307,
308, 311 , 312. 313. 314, (50-51)403, 404. 409. 410, 413,
414,(51-52)453.454

O'KELLY, P. (39-40) 101 . 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,
(40-41 ) 203, 204, 205, 206. 207, 208, 210, 21 1 ; (41-42)
303, 304, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (42-43)402, 408, 410, 412
OLENCKI, E. (40-41 ) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;
(41-42) 203, 204. 205. 206. 207. 208, 210, 212 .(42-43)
307. 308. 311. 312. 313. 314. (43-44)401 , 407, 409. 411,
(44-45) 402, 408, 410, 412, 502, (45-46) 591
OLEINICK, H. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105. 106, 107, 108; (50-51)
209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214. 215. 216. (51-52)303. 305.

306. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (52-53)403. 404. 409, 410, 413,
414; (53-54) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463. 464. 465. 466
OLSBERG, E. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49) 203. 204. 205.
206,207.208.211,212

OLSON, J. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108

OLSON, R. (46-47) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208. 212;

(47-48) 308. 312. 314; (48-49) 212. 401 . 402. 407. 408,

409, 410, 411 , 412, 493, 494; (49-50)408, 494

OLSTA, R. (39-40)101 , 102, 105. 106. 107. 108. 109;

(40-41 ) 203. 204. 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 21 1

OMESSI, B. (57-58) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

O'NEAL, R. (47-48) 102, 106, 108. (48-49) 203. 205, 207,

211

O'NEILL, C. (57-58)501 . 502. 505. 506, 597

OOSTERBAAN, J. (47-48) 102. 106. 108. (48-49) 203. 204.

205, 206, 207, 208. 21 1 . 212; (49-50) 301 . 302. 305. 306.

307. 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51)209, 403, 404, 409,
410,413.414;(51-52)453.454

ORNSTEIN, D. (47-48) 102. 106. 108. (48-49) 203. 204. 205.

206. 207. 208, 21 1 . 21 2. (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311, 312, 313, 314; (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,

414;(51-52)455,456.458

ORTEGA, E. (50-51) 21 1.212. 213. 214. 215. 216, (51-52)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, (52-53) 403, 404,

409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54)415, 416, 417. 418, 443,

444

OSAKA, G. (51-52) 103. 104. 107. 108. 216. (52-53)209,

210,211,212,213,214.215.(53-54)209.210.303,304.

309, 310, 311, 312, (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420;

(55-56)415.416.417,418,443,444

OSBORN, A, (45-46) 102; (46-47)307, 31 1,312, 401 , 402;

(47-48)408,410,411,412,494

OSTEGREN, R, (38-39) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107. 108;

(39-40)203.205.207.210

OHENHEIMER, J, (51-52) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 1 10

PADAWER, P. (54-55) 103. 104. 107. 108, 110; (55-56)209.

210,211,212, 213, 214, 215. 216, (56-57) 303, 304, 305.

306, 309, 310, 31 1 , 312; (57-58)403. 404, 409. 413. 414,

420

PADO, M, (51-52) 103, 104. 107. 108; (52-53) 209, 210,

211 , 212, 213. 214. 215; (53-54)309, 310. 31 1.312, (54-55)

403. 404. 409, 413, 414, 420; (55-56)415, 416, 417, 418,
443,444

PADO, T. (51-52)103.104,107.108.(52-53)209,210,211,
212,213,214.215,(53-54)309,310,311,312,(54-55)403.

404, 409, 413. 414. 420; (55-56)415, 416, 417, 418, 443,
444

PALANDECH, 0.(57-58)1 10

PALENO, E. (45-46) 203, 205, 207, 21 1

PALMER, R. (51-52) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593

PALMER, W. (49-50) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108; (50-51 )

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215; (51-52)303. 304. 305.
306. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (52-53)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414; (53-54) 459, 460. 461 . 462. 463, 464, 465, 466
PALUTIS, C. (53-54) 103. 104, 107, 108; (54-55) 209, 210.
211 . 212, 213, 214, 215, (55-56)303, 304. 305. 306. 309.
310. 31 1 . 312. (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 420. (57-58) 415, 416.
417.418.443.444

PALZ, E. (44-45) 102. 106. 108; (45-46) 102. 203, 205. 207,

21 1 . (46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (47-48) 402. 408.

410.412.494

PARREN, T. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, (57-58) 109

PARTAN, R. (52-53)209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215. (53-54)

210. 303. 304, 309, 310, 311 , 312; (54-55)403, 404. 409.
413. 414. 420, (55-56) 305, 415. 416. 417, 418, 443. 444
PASCHKE. G. (48-49) 105, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211
PASIUK, T. (38-39) 203, 204, 307, 308, 31 1,312, 313, 314;
(39- 40) 305, 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407. 408. 409, 410. 41 1 .
412

PATRICK, A. (49-50) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108; (50-51)
209.211.213.215

PAUL, E, (45-46) 102. 105, (46-47)203, 205. 207. 211, 212,
(47- 48) 307, 31 1 , 313; (48-49) 308, 31 2. 314. 401 , 407.
409. 41 1 . 493, (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 41 2, 494
PAVUCEK. R. (46-47)203, 208, 212; (47-48)308, 312, 314;
(48- 49) 401 . 402. 407, 408, 409. 410.411.412. 493. 494
PEARSON, E. (39-40) 101 . 102. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;
(40-41 ) 203, 204, 205, 207. 208. 210,211; (41-42) 303.
304. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (42-43)402. 408, 410. 412

161

NT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

PEAHIE. R. (52-53)209, 210. 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,

(53-54) 303, 304, 309, 310. 31 1 , 31 2, 41 3, (54-55) 403,

404, 409. 413. 414. 420: (55-56)459. 460, 461 . 462. 463.

464,465,466

PEDERSEN. C. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

PEHTA, W. (38-39) 201 , 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207, 208,

312; (39-40) 303, 304. 307, 308, 31 2, (40-41 ) 401 . 402, 403

404.407.408,409.410.411.412

PEREZ, 0.(57-58)103. 107. 109

PETERSEN. H. (46-47) 102, 106, 108

PETERSON. P. (46-47) 102. 105. 106. 107, 108. (47-48)204

206, 208, 21 2; (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2, 31 3. 31 4; (49-50
301 , 302, 407, 408. 409, 410, 411 . 412. 493, 494
PETERSON, R. D. (48-49) 105, 106, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208
PETERSON. R. J. (48-49) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108;
(49-50) 203. 204. 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2; (50-51 )
303, 304. 305. 306. 307, 308. 31 1 . 312; (51-52) 403. 404.
409. 410. 413. 414; (52-53)415. 416, 453, 454
PETRASEK, D. (46-47)102. 105. 106. 107. 108
PEHERSON. G. (39-40) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;
(40-41)203, 205, 207, 210; (45-46) 102. 108. 203. 205.

207. 211. (46-47)307. 308. 311. 312. 313. 314
PEHIT.V. (43-44) 101. 105. 107

PIERCE. R. (53-54) 103. 104. 107, 108, 109, 110. (54-55)

209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215, 216; (55-56)303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310. 311 . 312; (56-57) 403. 404. 409. 420;

(57-58)415.416.417.418.443.444

PILAFAS, N. (57-58) 104. 108. 215. 303. 304, 413, 414

PILOLLA, N. (44-45) 101 , 102, 105. 106. 107. 108. 308.

312. 31 4. 401 ; (45-46) Advanced Perspective; (46-47) 211,

(47-48)408.410,412.494

PINAS. M. (40-41)101. 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

PINCR. (54-55)103,107.109

PINCHOT, W. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109, 110, (56-57)

209,211,213,215;(57-58)214.303

PIPER, J. (38-39) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107. 108

PIPHER, W. (39-40) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109:

(40-41 ) 203. 204. 205. 206. 207, 208, 210,211; (41-42)

303. 304. 307. 308. 311. 312: (42-43)402. 408. 410. 412

PIPPIN. P (46-47) 501 . 502. 505. 506

PIROFALO. L. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109. 110; (54-55)

209. 210, 211, 212, 213. 214. 215. 216: (55-56)303. 304.

305. 306. 309. 310. 311 . 312; (56-57) 403, 404, 409. 420.

(57-58) 459. 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464. 465. 466

PIRTLE. E. (45-46) 101 . 105. 107; (46-47) 203. 204. 205.

205. 207. 208. 212: (47-48) 308. 312. 314; (48-49) 401 . 402.

407. 408, 409. 410. 411 . 412. 493. 494

PLACEK, D. (48-49)101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108: (49-50)

203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211, 212

PLAUT. R. (51-52) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110; (52-53)

209. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215; (53-54)209. 210. 309. 310.

311. 312: (54-55)303. 304. 403. 404. 409. 413, 414. 420;

(55-56)415. 416. 417. 418. 443, 444

PLECHATY. W. (55-56) 104, 108, 109. 110. 303, 304;

(56-571209,211 213

POINTEK, E. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 205. 206. 207. 208. 312.

(39- 40) 303. 304. 307. 308. 31 2; (40-41 ) 401 . 402. 403.

404, 407. 408. 409, 410, 411 . 412

POINTNER, N. (56-57) 103. 104, 107, 108. (57-58)209. 210.

211.212,213,214,215

POLAR, J. (49-50) 501 . 502. 505 , 509, 594 , 595, (50-51 )

521,591,593,595,599

POLLAK, J. (47-48) 102. 106. 108. (48-49)203. 204. 205.

206. 207. 208. 211 . 212; (49-50)301 , 302. 305. 306, 307,

308, 31 1,312. 313. 314, (50-51 ) 403, 404. 409. 410. 413.

414. (55-56) 459, 460, 461 , 462. 463, 464. 465, 466

POLLOCK, 0.(57-58)414

POORE. R. (38-39)201 , 203. 205, 207

PORTER, E. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108; (53-54) 209, 210,

211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, (54-55)303, 304, 305, 306, 309,

310, 31 1 , 312. (55-56)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420: (56-57)
415,417,418,443,444

POSTGREGNA.A. (44-45)101. 102. 105. 106. 107, 108,

308, 312, 314, 401 , (45-46) 407. 409. 410. Advanced

Perspective; (46-47)203. 211. 411

POWERS, C. (47-48) 102. 106. 108. (48-49)203. 204. 205.

207.208,211.212

POWERS, W. (44-45)102, 106, 108,(45-46)203,205,207,

211, (46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2. 31 3. 31 4; (47-48) 402, 408,

410.412,494

POZUCEK, P. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109:

(41-42)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212: (42-43)

307. 308. 311 . 312. 313. 314. (46-47)401 . 402. 408. 410.

412

PRANGE, W. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108: (53-54)209, 211 .

213.215

PRATHER, F. (38-39) 203. 204. 307. 308. 31 1 , 312. 313.

314. (39- 40) 305. 401 402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410.

411,412

PREISLER.E. (47-48) 102. 108

PRESS, L. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108. (50-51 )

209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. (51-52)303. 304.

305. 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, (52-53)403. 404. 409. 410,

413. 414; (53-54) 459. 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464, 465, 466

PRESSLY, E. (41-42) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210,

212; (42-43)307. 311 . 313: (46-47)308. 312. 313, 314;

(47-48)402,408.410.412.494

PRICE, K. (55-56) 103. 104. 107, 108

PRINCE, 8.(42-43)101,105,107

PRUTER, W. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47)203, 204, 205,

206,207,208

PRZYBYLSKI, L. (38-39) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108.

(39-40) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211 , (40-41 )

303, 304, 307, 308, 311 , 312: (41-42)401 , 402, 403, 404.

407.408.409,410,411,412

PUEYO, F. (57-58)463, 465, 505, 509, 511

QUAY, J. (47-48) 204, 206, 208, 212: (48-49) 106, 307. 308.

31 1 . 31 2. 313. 314. (49-50) 105. 301 . 302. 407, 408, 409.
410; (50-51) 455. 456. 458

OUILICI, L. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109, 110: (56-57)

209.211,213,215

QUINTAS.T (50-51)109

QUOSS, 0.(47-48)102.106.108

RAEMER, R. (46-47) 102. 105. 106, 107, 108

RAGETTE, F. (55-56)460. 461 . 462, 463. 464. 466. 501 ,

505. 508. 593

RAISHI. G. (46-47) 503, 506, 507, 509, 592

RAMOS, A. (53-54) 501 . 502. 505, 508: (54-55) 591 , 599

RANDALL, J. (40-41)204, 208. (41-42)303, 304, 307, 308,

311,312;(42-43)402,408,410,412

RANDOLPH, C. (47-48) 102. 106, 108

RASMUSSEN, J. (46-47) 205. 207, 21 1 ; (47-48) 307, 311,313

RAY, J. (50-51) 209. 210. 21 1.212, 213, 21 4, 216, (51-52)

303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 31 1,312, (52-53) 403, 404.

409. 410. 413, 414. (53-54)415. 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

RAE, J. (38-39) 401 , 402, 407. 408. 409, 410

RECHT, D. (52-53) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109; (53-54) 209,

210, 21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215; (54-55) 303, 305, 306, 309,
310. 31 1 . 312. (55-56)210, 403. 404. 409. 413, 414, 420;
(56-57)211,415,417,443

REDDY, J. (47-48) 102, 106. 108

REED, C. (54-55) 104. 108. 110. (55-56) 209. 210.211.212

213,214

REED. W. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48)204.

206. 208. 212, (48-49) 307, 308, 311, 312 , 313. 314,

(49-50) 301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1,412. 493, 494

REEVES, R. (47-48) 204. 206. 208, 212, 504, 506; (48-49)

308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314, 401 , 402, 507, 509, 510; (49-50)
207,407.408,411,412,493,494

REGAN.T (40-41) 102, 106, 108. 109; (41-42)203, 204,
205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212; (46-47)307, 311 . 313. 314,
401,402,407,409,411
RENDER, N. (57-58) 209

REIMAN, J. (50-51 ) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 1 10; (51-52)
209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214. 215. 216, (52-53)303. 304.
305. 306. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (53-54)403. 404. 409. 413.
414, 420; (54-55) 405, 406, 415, 416, 417, 418. 443. 444
REINERT, K. (50-51) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110; (51-52)
209, 210. 21 1 . 212. 213. 214. 215. 216; (52-53) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 . 312. (53-54)403. 404. 409. 413.
414. 420; (54-55)459, 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464. 465, 466
REINHEIMER, M. (45-46) 101 , 105. 107. (46-47) 203. 204.
205. 206. 207. 208. 212; (47-48) 308, 312, 314, (48-49)401 .
402, 407, 408. 409. 410. 411 . 412. 493, 494

REINKE, L. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 204. 205. 206, 207, 208,

312, (39-40)303, 304, 307. 308, 312. (40-41)401 , 402. 403.

404. 407. 408. 409, 410. 41 1 . 412; (41-42) 501 , 507

REIS, W. (45-46) 203. 205. 207. 211; (46-47) 105, 204, 205,

206,208,212,311

REISCHAUER, R. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;

(49-50) 203, 204, 205. 206, 207. 208. 21 1,212, (50-51) 303

RENNIE, R. (52-53) 103. 104. 107. 108: (53-54)209, 210,

211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (54-55)303. 304. 305. 306,

309, 310, 311 , 312; (55-56) 403, 404, 409, 413, 414. 420;
(56-57)415, 416, 417. 418. 443. 444. 463

REVER, 0.(56-57)209. 211, 213. 215

RICE, B. (51-52) 103. 104. 107, 108; (52-53)209, 210, 211 ,

212, 213, 214, 215, (53-54)303, 309, 310. 311 , 312: (54-55)
403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (55-56) 305, 415, 416, 417,
418,443.444

RICHARDSON, A. (38-39) 401 . 402. 407. 408. 409. 410
RICHARDSON, D. (52-53) 103. 104, 107, 108. 109, 110.
(53-54) 209, 210, 21 1 , 212. 213. 214. 215; (54-55) 305.

306. 309. 310. 311 . 312; (55-56)403. 404, 409, 413, 414,

420, (56-57) 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444, 463

RICKEnS, S. (46-47) 504. (47-48) 506. 507. (48-49) 509,

521,(49-50)501,502,591,599

RILEY, R. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108. 203, 204

RIMAVICIUS, A (53-54) 31 1 , 312, 403, 404. 409. 413. 414.

420. (54-55)303. 304. 305. 306. 405. 406. 416. 417, 418,

443, 444; (55-56) 212, 501 , 502; (56-57)521 , 597, 599;

(57-58)599

RISSMAN, H. (43-44) 101, 105, 107, 203, 205, 207. 211;

(44-45) 102. 106. 108. 308. 312. 314. 408, 409. 411;

(45-46)410,412

RISSMAN, M. (40-41) 101 . 102. 105, 106. 107, 108. 109;

(41-42)203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212; (42-43)

307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314, (43-44) 401 . 407, 409. 411 ;

(44-45)402.408.410,412

ROBERTS, T (49-50) 105. (50-51 ) 209, 210. 21 1 . 21 2, 21 3,

214. 215; (51-52) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312;

(52-53)403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54) 415. 416.

417,418.443.444

ROBERTSON, M. (52-53) 103. 107. 109

ROBINSON. B. (44-45) 102. 106, 108

ROBINSON, NANCY (53-54) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110.

209. 210. 303. 304; (54-55)210. 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215,

216, (55-56) 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312; (56-57) 403,

404. 409, 410; (57-58)459. 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464. 465.

466

ROBINSON, NOMENEE (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109,

110, (56-57) 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214; (57-58) 212, 303,

304,305,306.309,310,311,312

ROCAH, L. (51 -52) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593; (52-53) 591 .

599

ROCHE, E. (48-49) 501 , 503, 593, 594

ROCKOFF, G. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (47-48) 204,

206,208,212

ROCKWELL, H. (53-54)209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215,

216, 303, 304; (54-55)305, 306. 309. 310. 311. 312. 413.

414. (55-56)403, 404, 409. 415. 416. 420; (56-57)417. 418.

443,444

ROESCH, P. (54-55) 501 , 502, 505, 50J: (55-56) 521 , 593,

599

ROGERS, K. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107. 108. 109,

(41-42)203, 204, 205, 206. 207. 208. 210. 212; (42-43)

307. 308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314, (43-44) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ;
(44-45)402,408,410,412

ROSBACK. R. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (47-48)206.
212; (48-49) 307. 308. 31 1.312, 313; (49-50) 301 , 302. 314,
407, 408, 409. 410. 411 . 493. 494; (50-51)210. 413
ROSENFELD, H. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109. 110:
(51-52) 209. 21 1.213. 215; (53-54) 209. 210, 21 1.212, 213,
214, 215, 216, (54-55)305, 306, 309, 310. 311, 312: (55-56)
413,414

ROSENTHAL, D. (55-56) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109: (56-57)
209. 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214; (57-58) 309, 31 1
ROSIN, E. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205.
206. 207. 208, 21 1 , 21 2; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308. 31 1 . 312. 313, 314; (50-51 ) 403. 404. 409. 410, 413.
414.(51-52)453.454

ROSSI, M. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109. 110; (51-52)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, (52-53)303, 305, 306,

307, 308, 31 1 , 312, (53-54)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420:

(54-55)405, 406, 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

ROTH, L. (51-52) 103, 104, 107. 108. 109. 110: (52-53)209.

211,213.215

ROTHE, G. (54-55) 501 . 505. (55-56) 502. 508, 521 , 593,

(56-57)599

ROTHSTEIN. J. (52-53) 209. 215. 305. 31 1 , 409, 413

ROUMBOS, C. (44-45) 102. 106, 108, (45-46) 203 205, 207.

(46-47) 21 1.212. (47-48) 31 2. 31 4; (48-49) 307, 308. 411,

412. (49- 50) 301 . 402, 409, 410, (50-51 ) 403, 404, (51 -52)

508

ROZANSKI.H. (40-41)101,102.105,106,107,108,109

ROZANSKI, J. (46-47)203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211

RUDICH, R. (43-44) 101 . 105, 107. (46-47) 102. 106. 108:

(47-48)204.206.208,212

RUECKER.J.(57-58)501.505

RUEHL, L. (49-50) 207, 208, 21 1 , (50-51 ) 303, 304, 305,

306, 307, 308, 311. 312; (51-52)403. 404, 409, 410, 413,

414

RUEKBERG, T. (42-43) 101 , 105. 107

RUOSS, H. (39-40) 203. 204. 207. 208, 210, 21 1

RUTKINS, S. (46-47)208. 307, 313, 314; (47-48)308, 312,

412: (48-49) 407, 408, 409, 410, 493

RYHN, 0.(51-52)501

SAICHEK.R. (50-51) 303. 304

SALZMAN, A. (56-57) 418. 502. 597. (57-58) 501 , 503. 505.

506.597

SALZMAN, M. (38-39) 201 , 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207,

208, 312; (39-40)303, 304, 307, 308, 312
SAMPLE, N. (45-46)407,409,410

SAMUELS, B. (50-51)215, (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109,

110; (52-53) 209, 210, 21 1,212. 213. 214; (53-54) 303. 304.

309. 310.311.312; (54-55) 403, 404. 409. 413, 414, 420:

(55-56)415.416,417,418,443,444

SAMY, E. (50-51 ) 501 . 502, 505, 509, 593, 594

SANCHEZ. R. (55-56) 209

SANDERS, W. (51-52) 104, 108, 109. 110, 215: (52-53)209.

21 1,212, 213, 214, 216; (53-54) 303, 304, 309, 310, 311,

312; (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (55-56)305, 415,

417.443

SANEM. R. (45-46) 101 . 105. 107, (46-47) 203, 205, 207,

208

SANUOO, C. (47-48) 502, 508; (48-49) 521 , 591 ; (49-50)

699, (50- 51 ) 699; (51-52) 699; (52-53) 699: (53-54) 699

SARTOR, L. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109, 110; (54-55)

209, 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214. 215. 216; (55-56) 303. 304,
305. 306. 309, 310, 311 , 312: (56-57)403, 404, 409, 420:
(57-58) 415, 416, 459, 460. 461 , 462. 463. 464, 465, 466
SASSMAN, J. (38-39) 201 . 202. 203. 204, 205, 206. 207.
208,312

SATERNUS, M. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110:

(55-56)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57)

303,304,305,306,309,310,311,312

SATO, M. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204, 205. 206.

207. 208, 21 1 : (49-50) 301 . 302. 305. 306. 307. 308. 31 1 .

312.313.314

SAUERMAN, G. (38-39)203, 204. 307. 308. 31 1 . 312, 313,

162

NT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

314: (39-40)305, 401 , 402. 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411,412

SAUERMANN, H. (40-41) 101. 102, 105. 106. 107. 108. 109,

(45-46) 203. 205. 207. 21 1 . (46-47) 206. 307. 308. 31 1 .

312. 313, 314. (47-48)401 . 408. 410. 412. 494

SAXON. W. (51-52) 209. 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215.

(52-53)305,306,307.308.311,312

SCHAFFER. H, (38-39) 401 , 402, 407. 409. (40-41 ) 402.

403 404,407,408.410.411.412

SCHELLI.W. (50-51)209.213. 215

SCHERER, W. (38-39) 203, 204. 307. 308. 31 1.312. 313.

314: (39- 40) 305. 401 , 402. 403, 404. 407, 408, 409. 410,

411.412

SCHILLER, D. (41-42) 105. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208,

210,212,(42-43)307,311.313

SCHILLINGER.T. (54-55)103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110

SCHIPPMAN, E. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106, 107. 108.

(50-51)209. 210. 21 1. 212, 213, 214, 215, 216. (51-52)

303, 304, 305, 306. 307, 308, 31 1 , 312: (52-53) 403, 404,

409, 410, 413, 414: (53-54) 459. 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464,

465, 466

SCHIPPOREIT, G. (55-56)209, 210: 211, 212, 213, 214.

215, 216, 414, (56-57)303. 305. 309, 311

SCHLAICH, B. (56-57) 214. 501 . 505. 597. (57-58) 521 . 591

SCHLEGEL, J. (54-55) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110. (55-56)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (56-57)303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 311. 312: (57-56)403. 404. 409. 413.

414.420

SCHMIDT. G. (55-56) 103. 107,109

SCHMIDT. R. (54-55) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

SCHMOCKER, E. (55-56)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,

216. 414: (56-57)303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312:
(57-58)403.404.409.413.420

SCHNEIDER. R. (38-39) 101. 102. 105, 106, 107, 108:

(39-40) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208. 210, 21 1 : (40-41)

303,304,307.308.311,312

SCHNEPF, R. (57-58) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109, 110

SCHRIEBER. R. (56-57) 103, 104, 107. 108, 109, 110

(57-58)209, 210. 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

SCHREIBER, S. (45-46) 102: (46-47)203, 205, 207, 208,

308, 311,313,314: (47-48) 401 , 407, 409. 41 1 . 494: (48-49)

402,408,410,412,493

SCHUMACHER, S. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204,

205,206,207,208,211,212

SCHUMANN. A. (47-48) 106, 206: (48-49) 203, 204, 205.

206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 212, (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311. 312. 313, 314: (50-51)403, 404. 409, 410, 413,

414:(51-52)453,454

SCHUST, F. (40-41) 401 , 402. 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411.412

SCHWARTZ. L. (57-58) 103. 107. 109. 110

SCHWARTZ, R. (53-54)209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 216:

(55-56) 403. 404. 409. 414, 415, 420; (56-57) 110, 416,

417.418,443,444

SCHWARTZ, R. F. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108. 109

SCHWEBL, J. (50-51) 103, 104, 107. 108, 109, 110; (51-52)

209, 210. 211, 212, 213,214, 215; (52-53) 303, 305, 307,

311

scon, G. (38-39)401 , 402, 407, 408, 409. 410, (40-41)

501.502

scon, K. (45-46)101.105.107

scon, R. (55-56) 103, 107. 109, 209, 413

SCROPOS,T. (56-57)404

SEEGERS,G. (47-48)313

SEGEL, S. (48-49) 101 . 102. 105. 107. 108. 205: (49-50)

203. 204. 206. 207. 208. 211.212. (50-51 ) 303. 304. 305.

306. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (51-52)403. 404. 409, 410, 413.
414; (52-53)455, 456, 458

SEIDEL, F. (50-51 ) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593, 594, (51 -52)

591,599,(52-53)599

SEILS, W. (38-39) 101 , 105, 107, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,

207,208,312

SEKLEMIAN.H. (42-43)101,102,107,106,(43-44)203.

207.211:(44-45)212

SERFATY, V. (55-56) 209, 210, 211,212,213, 214, 215, 216:

(56- 57) 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310,311.312

SEnLACE, W. (50-51 ) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110

SEVEHUD.R. (45-46) 503

SEVILLA, G. (50-51 ) 505. 508, 509, 51 1 : (51 -52) 51 2, 591 ,

599

SEVIN, E. (49-50) 101, 102, 105. 106. 107. 108: (50-51)

209,210.211.212.213.214.215,216.(51-52)303.305,

307, 31 1, (56-57)304, 305. 310. 312. 463. 465, (57-58) 403.
404.409.413.414.420

SHAIKH, M. (54-55) 464. 501 . 505, 508, (55-56) 463, 51 1 ,

512

SHANK, R, (40-41) 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 210. 211.

(41-42) 303, 304. 307. 308. 31 1,312; (42-43) 402. 408.

410,412

SHARP, I. (40-41) 102, 106, 108, 109

SHARPE, 0. (56-57) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216;

(57- 58) 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310,311,312

SHAVER, P. (50-51)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 303.

304; (51-52)212. 305. 306. 307. 308. 311 . 312

SHAW. C. (52-53)103.107.109

SHEFTE, D. (45-46) 101. 102, 107. 203, 205, 207, 211,

(46-47)307,308,311,312,313,314

SHEMONSKY, R. (46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2, 31 3, 314,

(47-48)402,408,410.412.494

SHERLOCK, T. (40-41)203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 210.

211;(41-42)303.307.311

SHERMAN.J. (51-52)103. 104. 107. 108. 109.110,(52-53)

209.211.213.215

SHERMANSKY, R. (45-46) 102. 108. 203. 205. 207. 211

SHIELDS, H. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109. 110: (54-55)

209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216; (55-56) 303. 304,

305. 306. 309. 310. 31 1,312: (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 420;

(57-58)415,416,417,418,443,444

SHOGREN, R. (54-55) 103, 104. 107. 108, 109, 110; (55-56)

209. 210. 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (56-57) 303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312; (57-58)403. 404, 409. 413,

414.420

SHULMAN, H. (55-56) 103. 107. 109

SHUnER. R. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110. 209.

210: (54- 55)209. 210, 211, 212, 213, 214. 215, 216:

(55-56) 303. 304. 305, 306, 309, 310, 311 . 312; (56-57)

403, 404, 409, 420, (57-58) 415, 416 417. 418. 443. 444

SHWARTZ, R. (54-55) 303 304. 305. 306, 309, 310, 312,

413

SICKLER, D. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107, 108. (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 , 212, (50-51 ) 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308. 311 . 312. (51-52)403. 404. 409. 410.

413,414,(52-53)415,416.453,454

SIEGLE.R. (46-49) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108.(49-50)

203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212. (50-51 ) 303. 304,

305, 306. 307. 308. 31 1,312: (51-52) 403, 404, 409, 410,
413, 414; (52-53)415, 416, 453, 454

SIGFUSSON, B. (45-46) 101, 105, 107

SIMON, J. (47-48) 102. 106. 106. (48-49) 203. 204. 205

207. 208. 21 1,212: (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307, 308,

311,312,313,314,(50-51)211,403,404,409,410,413.

414

SIMON, M, (50-51) 103. 104. 107, 108, 109, 110, (51-52)

209, 210, 211 , 212. 213. 214. 215. (52-53) 303. 305, 306,

307, 308, 31 1,312, (53-54) 403, 404, 409, 413, 416, 420,

(54-55) 459. 460. 461 . 452. 463. 464. 465. 466

SITKIEWICZ, 0. (53-54) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109, 110.

(54-55) 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56)

303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 31 1.312; (56-57) 403, 404,

409, 420, (57-58)415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

SKOGLUND, C. (39-40) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

SKOKAK.H. (55-56)303

SLEZAK.N. (50-51)103, 107,216

SMALL, G, (46-47) 501 , 502. 503. 506. 591

SMALL, S. (49-50) 102. 106, 107, 108, 203, 204, 205;

(50-51)211,212,213,214,216,(51-52)303,304,305,

306, 307, 308, 311, 312, (54-55)403, 404, 409. 413. 414.
420, (55-56) 459. 460. 461 , 462. 463. 464. 465. 466
SMIDCHENS, I. (55-56)209. 210. 211. 212. 213, 214, 215,
216,414, (56-57) 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 31 1 , 312.
(57-58)403,404,409,413,416.420

SMITH, L. (54-55)209. 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, (55-56)
303, 304, 305. 306. 309. 310. 311, 312; (56-57) 403, 404,
409, 420: (57-58) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463. 464, 465, 466
SMITH, R. (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)
209, 210, 211, 212, 213. 214, 215. 216: (51-52)303. 304.
305. 306. 307. 308. 311 . 312; (52-53)403. 404. 409. 410.
413, 414; (53-54)459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466
SMITH, T. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,
(41-42) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208. 210. 212, (42-43)

307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 31 3, 314; (43-44) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ;
(44-45)402,408,410,412

SMITH, W. (55-56) 103. 104, 107, 108. 109. 110: (56-57)

209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216.(57-58)303. 304, 305.

306.309.310.311.312

SMOLIK, J. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108. 109. 110

SNEAD, C, (57-58) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110

SOLIS. C, (54-55) 464, 505, 508, 509, (55-56) 461 , 463,

465, 466, 51 1 , 51 2, 591 ; (56-57) 599

SOLLER, J. (57-58) 103. 104, 107. 108. 109. 1 10

SOLNER, E. (52-53) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 1 10

SOMERS, J. (44-45) 101 , 102. 105, 106, 107, 108, (45-46)

203, 205. 207, 21 1 ; (46-47) 307, 308, 311,312,313,314,

(47-48)402,408,410,412.494

SOMMER, D. (55-56) 501 . 502, 505. 508. 593

SOMPOLSKI, R. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108.

(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211 , 212. (50-51)

303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 311. 312. (51-52)403. 404.

409. 410. 413, 414: (52-53) 415, 453, 454

SONNINO. C. (48-49)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1, 212, (51-52) 303, 304.

305. 306. 307. 308. 31 1.312. (52-53) 403. 404. 409. 410.

413. 414. (53-54) 404. 414, 420, (54-55) 405, 406, 415, 416,

417,418,443,444

SOTO, A. (51-52) 103. 104. 107, 108, 110, 215

SPERLING, C (43-44) 203, 205, 207. (44-45) 102, 105, 106,

108

SPERO. J. (54-55)103,107

SPEYER. A. (48-49) 591 , (49-50) 505

SPEYER. J. (38-39)407.406.410

SPIES. M. (39-40) 203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211;

(40-41 ) 303, 304, 307, 308, 311,312; (41-42) 401 , 402,

403. 404 407. 408, 409, 410, 411, 412

SPIRA, B. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (54-55)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (55-56) 303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 311. 312. (56-57)403. 404. 409. 414.

420: (57-58) 413. 414. 459. 460. 461 . 462. 463. 464. 465.

466

SPITZ. W. (38-39) 102, 106, 108, (39-40) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208. 210. 21 1: (40-41) 303, 304, 307, 308, 311 ,
312. (41-42)401. 402, 403, 404, 407, 406, 409, 410, 411 ,
412.(42-43)501

STAEHLE, W, (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108. 109. 110, (51-52)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, (52-53) 210, 303, 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 . 312; (56-57)305. 306. 309. 310,

311. 312; (57-58)214, 403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420

STANFIELD, S. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 : (47-48) 308, 312, 31 4, (48-49) 401 ,

402. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 493. 494

STANFIELD, S. (43-44) 307. 311. 312. 313. 314; (44-45)

203, 205, 206, 208, 211 , 212. 401 . 402. 408. 410; (46-47)

501,502,505,508

STAROSTOVIC,E.(51-52)103,104,107,108,109, 110;

(52-53) 209, 210, 211 . 212. 213. 214, 215. 216: (55-56)

303. 304. 305. 306. 309. 310. 31 1 . 312. (56-57) 403, 404,

409, 414, 463, 464, 420, (57-58) 413, 459. 460. 461 . 462.

465.466

STATHOPULOS, J. (53-54) 209. 211.213

STAUBER, R. (45-46) 102. 108. 203. 205. 207. 211; (46-47)

307. 308. 311. 312. 313. 314; (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412,

494

STAVRIOIS.T, (54-55)505

STEARNS, D. (45-46) 101 , 102. 105, 107. 203. 205. 207.

211. (46- 47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312, 313. 314; (47-48) 402,

408,410,412,494

STEED, T. (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; 46-47) 203, 204, 205, 206,

207, 208, 21 1; (47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402, 407,
408,409,410,411,412,493,494

STEINBERG, G. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106. 107. 108. 109
STEINBRENNER, L. (48-49) 101. 102. 105, 106. 107. 108,
(49-50) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211,212
STEINER.S. (45-46)101,105

STEINWEG, G, (38-39)201 , 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207.

208. 31 2. (39-40) 303. 304. 307. 308. 312. (40-41 ) 401 . 402,

403.404,407,408,409,410,411.412

STEVENS, D. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

STEVENS, R. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, (52-53)

209,210,211,212,213,214,215.216

STEWART, H

(50-51)103,104.107, 108,109,110,(51-52)209,210,

211 , 212, 213, 214. 215, (52-53)209. 303, 305, 306, 307,

308, 31 1,312, (53-54) 403. 404. 409, 413. 414. 420. (54-55)

415.416.417.418.443.444

STIFTER, C. (54-55) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110, (55-56)

209,210.211,212,213,214,215,216,413,414,(56-57)

303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, (57-58) 403, 404,

409,420,463.464.465.466

STINCIi;, L. (44-45) 101. 105. 107. (45-46)203. 205. 207

STOGINSKI.J. (48-49)101. 105. 107

STOLTIE, 8.(52-53) 103. 107.109

STORZ, G. (38-39) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107. 108. (39-40)

203. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 21 1, (40-41) 303, 304,

307, 308. 31 1,312. (41-42) 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408,
409,410.411,412.(42-43)501,502

STOVER. H. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108

STOWELL, T, (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 204. 205, 206, 207,

208, 312, (39-40) 303, 304, 307. 308, 312; (40-41) 401 , 402,

403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412

STRAKA.E. (47-48) 102, 106, 108: (46-49) 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 211. 212: (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308, 311 , 312, 313, 314. (50-51)403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414,(51-52)453,454

STREET. R. (38-39) 204, 307, 308, 312, 314, 401 , 402

STROMBEHGER, H. (57-58) 103, 107, 109

STROMSLAND, K. (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

STRUCK, G. (54-55) 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,

413; (55-56) 303, 304, 305. 306, 309, 310, 31 1,312, (56-57)

110, 403, 404. 409. 420. (57-58)415. 416. 417. 418. 443,

444

STUBSJEON. H. (51 -52) 501 . 502. 505. 509. 593. (52-53)

591.599,(53-54)599

STUDNICKA, J. (49-50) 101. 102. 105, 106, 107, 108,

(50-51 ) 209, 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215, 216: (51-52)

303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 311.312

STUDTMANN, P. (52-53) 103, 107. 109

STUTZMAN, J. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107, 108;

(50-51 ) 209, 211 . 213. 215, (51-52)209. 210. 21 1,212,

213.214,215,216

SUDARSKY, E. (48-49) 503. 505, 599: (49-50) 502, 509,

510,521,591,594,595,(50-51)599

SUGDEN, J. (45-46) 106, (46-47) 102, 107, 108, 205;

(47-48) 204, 208, 212, (48-49) 307, 308. 31 1 , 31 2. 313, 31 4;

(49-50) 301 . 302. 407. 408. 409. 410. 41 1.412. 493. 494.

(50-51 ) 501 . 502. 505. 51 1 , 593, 594; (51-52) 591 , 599

SUMMERS, G. (49-50) 501 , 502, 505, 509, 594, 595;

(50-51)591,593,595,599

SUSMAN, B. (42-43) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

SVEC, fl. (50-51) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110: (51-52)209.

210,211,212.213.214.215

SVINICKI, E. (45-46) 101. 102. 105. 107. 203. 205. 207,

163

IIT ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS

211 ; (46- 47) 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313. 314; (47-48) 402,

406,410,412,494

SWAN.D. (57-58)104,108, 110

SWAN, N. (41-42) 501, 503

SWANN. J. (47-48) 204, 208, 313; (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1 ,

312, 313, 314, (49-50) 301 , 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 ,

493, 494

SWANSON, R. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49)203, 204, 205,

206. 207, 208, 211, 212; (49-50)301 , 302, 305, 306, 307,

308. 31 1 , 31 2, 313, 31 4; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410,413,

414; (51-52) 453, 454

SWART, E. (45-46) 101, 105, 107

SWEARINGEN. G. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110;

(51-52)209,210,211,212,213,214,215

SWENSON, A. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 209,

210, 303, 304; (56-57)211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 464;

(57-58)305,306,309,310,311,312

SWETMAN, H. (47-48) 106, 108, 206; (48-49) 203, 205, 207,

211

SZKIRPAN. E, (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 209

TAKAYAMA. M. (57-58) 501 , 502, 505, 506, 597

TAKEUCHI, A. (49-50)101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (50-51)

209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52)303, 304.

305, 306, 307, 308, 311 , 312; (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410,

413, 414; (53-54)415, 416, 417, 418. 443, 444; (56-57)501,

502, 509, 510, 597; (57-58)591

TALLET, A. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 205, 207, 21 1

TAMMINGA, D. (42-43) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108;

(46-47)203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 211, (47-48) 308, 312, 314,

(48-49)401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 493, 494;

(49-50) 501 , 502, 509, 51 0, 594, 595; (50-51 ) 521 , 522,

591,593,594,595

TAN, M. (42-43) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (43-44)203,

205, 207, 211 , 307, 311 , 313; (44-45)204, 206, 208, 212,

401,412;(45-46)408,410,501

TAPLEY. R. (57-58)103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

TEMPLETON. P. (51-52) 109, 110; (52-53) 103, 104, 107,

108,215,216

TERMAN. M. (45-46) 102, 106, 108; (46-47)203, 204, 205,

206,207,208,211

TERHOVrTS,E.(56-57)103, 104,107,108, 109, 110;

(57-58)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

TERZIS, N. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (56-57)

209,211.213,215

THOMAS, P. (49-50) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 203;

(50-51)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52)

303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 . 312; (52-53, 403. 404.

409. 410. 413, 414; (53-54)459, 460. 461, 462, 463, 464,

465,466

THOMASON, G. (48-49) 101 , 102. 105, 106, 107. 108;

(49-50) 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 21 1 . 21 2; (50-51 )

303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 31 1.312; (51-52) 403. 404,

409, 410, 41 3, 414; (52-53) 41 5, 453, 454

THOMPSON, 0, (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

THRANE, P. (56-57)209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216;

(57- 58) 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312

TOBEH, R. (56-57)209, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 303, 304

TODD. J. (40-41) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108. 109; (41-42)

203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 210. 212. (42-43) 307. 308,

31 1 , 312, 313, 314; (43-44) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ; (44-45) 402,

408,410,412

TOM, R, (49-50) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, (50-51 ) 209,

210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (51-52) 303, 304, 305,

306, 307, 308, 31 1,312, (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413,

414, (53-54) 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466

TORGERSEN, T. (48-49) 105, 106, 203, 204, 211, 212

TOSI, 0.(42-43)101,107

TRAUTH, F, (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (42-43)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, (46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 312,

313, 314; (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412, 494

TREITLER, F, (43-44)203, 205, 207, 211; (44-45) 101 , 102,

105, 106, 107, 108, 308, 312, 314; (45-46) 407, 409, 410

TSHIELDS, I. (48-49) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (49-50)

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212

TUCKER, R. (56-57) 103. 104. 107. 108, 109, 1 10; (57-58)

209,210,413,414,465,466

TULLOS, E. (52-53) 1 03, 1 04, 1 07, 1 08, 1 09, (53-54) 209,

211,213

TULLY.A. (52-53)103,104,107, 108, 109, 110; (53-54)

209,211,213,215

TURCK, 0. (45-46) 203, 205, 207, 21 1; (46-47) 307, 308,

311 , 312, 313, 314; (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412, 494; (48-49)

501 , 502, 594; (54-55) 508, 521 ; (55-56) 51 1 , 522, 597;

(56-57)512

TURLEY,J.(50-51)103.104. 107.108. 109. 110; (51-52)

209, 210, 21 1 , 212, 213. 214. 215. 216; (52-53) 303. 304.

305. 306. 307, 308, 311 , 312; (53-54) 403, 404, 409, 413,
414, 420; (54-55)405, 406, 415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444
TVRDIK, R. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108; (57-58) 209, 210,
211,212,213,214,215

TWERDY, F. (55-56)306. 310. 312

ULBMAN, R. (45-46)203. 205. 207. 211

URBAIN, L. (38-39)204. 401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410

URBASZEWSKI, J. (55-56)103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110;

(56-57) 209. 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216. (57-58)

303.304.305.306.309.310.311.312

UTHE, R. (57-58) 103. 104. 107. 108. 109. 110

UTSUNOMIYA, S. (49-50) 101 . 102. 105. 106. 107, 108;

(50-51 ) 209, 210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215; (51-52) 305,

306, 307, 308, 31 1,312; (52-53) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413,
414; (53-54)415, 416. 417. 418. 443, 444

VAGALE, R. (51-52) 306, 312, 508, 594; (52-53) 209, 210,

311,413,414,458,511,591,594

VANDERMEER, W, (45-46) 101 , 105, 107; (46-47) 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 ; (47-48) 308, 312,31 4; (48-49) 401 ,

402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 493, 494

VANDUYS.R, (48-49) 106, 205

VEGAS, M, (46-47) 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1 ; (47-48)

308, 312, 314; (48-49)401 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1 ,

412,493,494

VENTURA, A, (54-55) 310, 312; (55-56) 305, 409, 463, 501 ,

593. 594, (56-57) 501 . 502, 505, 508, 597; (57-58) 51 1 , 521 ,

599. 600

VEnE, C. (38-39) 202, 203, 208, 312

VIACIULIS, A. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (52-53)

209,211.213,215

VIKS, J. (52-53) 501 , (53-54) 501 . 502. 505. 508; (54-55)

591. 599; (55-56)511. 512

VILLAQUIRAN. S. (51-52)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214;

(52-53) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1,312; (53-54)

403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (54-55) 405, 406, 415, 416,

417,418,443,444

VINCI, J, (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (56-57) 209,

210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, (57-58)303, 304. 305.

306,309.310,311.312

VODICKA, E. (39-40) 101 , 102. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109

VON BROEMBSEN, M. (56-57)209, 210, 211 , 212. 213, 214,

215, 216, 303, 304, 309, 310; (57-58)403, 404, 409, 413,

414,420

VON MUELLER, E, (39-40) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

VON SEIDLEIN, P. (51-52) 306, 501 , 502, 505, 509, 593,

VOSS,J, (50-51)103, 107,109

WAGECK, 0.(47-48)206,208,212

WAGNER, F. (57-58) 501 , 502, 505, 506

WAGNER, T, (57-58) 210, 212, 214, 216

WAGNER, W. (38-39)402, 407, 408. 409. 410

WALKER, R. (56-57) 466, 501 , 502, 505, 508. 597; (57-58)

511,599

WARD, H, (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 205, 207, 211;

(47-48) 307, 31 1 , 313; (48-49) 308, 312.31 4. 401 , 407.

409. 41 1 . 493; (49-50) 402. 408, 410, 412. 494

WARD, R. (51-52) 501

WASIK, G. (49-50) 101. 102. 105. 106, 107, 108, (50-51)

209. 210. 211 . 212. 213. 214, 215, 216; (51-52) 303. 304.

305.306.307,308,311.312

WASON. D, (46-47) 503. 504, 505, 506; (48-49) 501 , 509;

(49-50)591, 599; (50-51)599

WASSON, R. (46-47) 102, 106, 108, 203, 204, 205, 207,

211; (47- 48) 307, 311,31 3; (48-49) 308, 31 2, 31 4, 401 ,

407, 409, 41 1 , 493; (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 41 2, 494

WEBER, E. (47-48)204, 206, 208, 212; (48-49)309, 313

WEESE, J. (39-40) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 21 1 ;

(40-41 ) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312; (46-47) 401 , 402,

407,409,411

WAGECK, 0. (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (48-49)307.

308, 31 1 , 312, 313, 314. (49-50) 204, 301 , 302, 31 1 , 409,

410,411,412; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 493, 494

WEIL, N. (42-43) 101 , 1 05, 107; (43-44) 203, 205, 207, 21 1 ;

(44-45)101,102,107,108

WEILGUS, R. (52-53) 209, 210. 211 , 212, 213. 214. 215,

216

WEINBERGER, J. (47-48) 102. 106. 108; (48-49) 207. 21 1

WEINER, S. (46-47)203, 205, 207, 211; (47-48)307, 311,

313; (48-49) 308, 312,31 4. 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 , 493; (49-50)

402,408,410,412,494

WEISS, J. (47-48) 204. 208, 31 3; (48-49) 307, 308, 31 1 ,

312, 313, 412; (49-50)301, 302, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 ,

493. 494

WENDELL, M, (53-54) 103. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110; (54-55)

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56)303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 31 1,312; (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 420,

(57-58)415, 416, 417, 418, 443, 444

WENDELL, W, (40-41) 205

WENDT, £.(54-55)104, 108

WENGERHOFF, A, (45-46) 203, 205, 207, 21 1 ; (46-47) 102,

1 08, 308, 31 1 , 31 2, 31 3, 31 4, (47-48) 401 , 407, 409, 41 1 ,

494; (48-49) 105, 106, 402, 408, 410, 412, 493, 494

WEST, B. (56-57) 501 , 502, 505, 508, 597

WEST, 0.(41-42) 501, 502, 503, 504

WETTERMAN,T. (55-56)103, 104, 107, 108; (56-57)209,

210, 21 1,212, 213, 214, 215; (57-58) 303, 304, 305, 306,
309,310,311,312

WIELGUS, R. (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108. 109, 110; (53-54)

303, 304, 309, 310, 311 , 312; (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413.

414. 420; (55-56)415. 416. 417, 418, 443, 444

WIESINGER, F, (49-50) 408. 410. 494

WIESNER.E. (49-50)501. 505. 594

WILBUR, F. (46-47) 204. 206. 207. 212; (47-48) 308. 312.

314; (48-49) 401 , 402. 407. 408. 409. 410. 41 1 . 412. 493.

494

WILD, F. (46-47) 102. 105. 106. 107, 108

WILDGRUBE, C, (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110;

(54-55)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56)

303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 31 1 , 312; (56-57) 465

WILKINSON, J. (38-39) 401 , 407, 408, 409, 410

WILKINSON, P.(56-57)211, 213

WILLIAMS, 0. (54-55) 501 , 502. 505. 508; (55-56) 521 . 522.

594

WILLIAMS, R. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, (57-58) 209, 210,

211,212,213,214,215

WILSON, G. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108; (54-55) 209, 210,

21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215; (55-56) 209, 303, 304, 305, 306,
309, 310, 31 1 , 312, (56-57) 403, 404, 409. 420; (57-58) 415.
416.417,418.443.444

WINTERGREEN, R. (56-57) 1 10; (57-58) 103, 104, 107, 108,

109

WISHNEW, W. (55-56) 103, 104, 107, 109

WOEHRL, C. (38-39) 102, 106, 108; (39-40)203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 208, 210, 21 1 , (40-41 ) 303, 304, 307, 308, 31 1 ,

312; (41-42) 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 ,

412

WOLFE, R. (52-53) 103. 104, 107, 108, 110; (53-54)209,

210, 211 , 212, 213, 214. (54-55)305. 306. 309. 310. 312;

(55-56)210. 403. 404. 409. 413. 414. 420; (56-57) 416.

417.418.443.444.463

WOMELSOORF, W. (50-51 ) 501 . 502, 505, 509, 593, 594;

(51-52)521,599

WONG, Y. (48-49) 503, 505, 599; (49-50) 502, 509, 510,

591 , 593, 594; (50-51) 521 , 593, 594, 599

WORLEY, 0, (39-40) 307, 409, 410, 501 , 502; (40-41 ) 501 ,

502

WOTKOWSKY, V. (42-43) 101, 105, 107

WRIGHT, C. (39-40) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109;

(40-41) 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211 ; (41-42)

307, 31 1 ; (46-47) 307, 308, 31 1 , 31 2, 313, 31 4

WRIGHT, E. (41-42) 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 409, 410,

411,412

WROBEL, N, (54-55)103, 104, 107, 108, 109

WROBLESKI.D. (49-50)101,102, 105,106,107, 108;

(50-51)209, 210, 211. 212, 213. 214. 215. 216; (51-52)

303. 304. 305, 306, 307, 308, 31 1 , 312; (52-53) 403, 404,

409, 410, 413, 414; (53-54)415, 416. 417. 418, 443. 444

YAMAMOTO.T. (54-55) 103. 104. 107, 108, 109, 110, 303,

304, (55-56)209, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 414;
(56-57) 305, 306, 309, 310, 31 1,312. (57-58) 403, 404,
409,413,416,420

YANAGI, H. (42-43) 312, 401 , 408, 410

YOHANAN, J. (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10; (54-55)

209, 210, 21 1 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216; (55-56) 303, 304,

305, 306, 309, 310, 311 , 312; (56-57) 403, 404, 409, 420;
(57-58)415,416,417,418,443,444

YOSHIOA, E, (45-46) 203, 205, 207, 21 1 ; (46-47) 307, 308,
311 , 312, 313, 314; (47-48)402, 408, 410, 412, 494
YOST, H. (47-48) 102, 106, 108; (48-49) 203, 204, 205, 206,
207, 208, 21 1 , 21 2; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305, 306, 307, 308,
311,312,313,314; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409, 410, 413, 414;
(51-52)455,456,458

YOUNG, A. (48-49) 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108
YOUNG, D. (46-47) 102. 106. 108. 203. 205. 207, 211;
(47-48) 307, 31 1 , 31 3; (48-49) 308, 312, 31 4, 401 , 407,

409, 41 1 , 493; (49-50) 402, 408, 410, 412, 494
YOUNG, M. (38-39) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108. (39-40)
203. 204. 205. 206. 207, 208. 210. 21 1 ; (40-41 ) 303. 304.
307. 308, 31 1 . 31 2; (41-42) 401 , 402, 403, 404, 407, 408,
409,410,411,412

YUH, N. (57-58) 501 , 502, 505, 506, 597

YUKAWA, M. (52-53) 501, 502

ZABLOTNY, R, (53-54) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110

ZAGULA, T, (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48) 204,

206, 208, 212; (48-49) 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (49-50)
301 , 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 41 1,412, 493, 494
ZAJCHOWSKI, J, (47-48) 102, 106, 108, 204; (48-49) 105,
203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 21 1,212; (49-50) 301 , 302, 305,

306, 307, 308, 311 , 312, 313, 314; (50-51 ) 403, 404, 409,

410, 413, 414; (51-52)453, 454
ZAJICEK,B. (44-45) 102, 106, 108

ZEITLIN, P, (51-52) 103, 104, 107, 108; (52-53) 209, 210,

211, 212, 213, 214, 215; (53-54) 303, 304, 309, 310, 311,

312; (54-55)403, 404, 409, 413, 414, 420; (55-56)459, 460,

462,463,464,465,466

ZEPEDA, R. (45-46) 101 , 105; (46-47)203, 204. 205. 206.

207, 208, 21 1, (47-48) 308, 312, 314; (48-49) 401 , 402, 407,
408,409,410,411,412,493,494

ZEPP, A. (56-57) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 303, 306;

(57-58)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

ZERNING, J. (55-56) 209; (56-57) 463

ZIEBELMAN, 0. (45-46) 101 , 105. 107. (46-47) 203. 205,

207,208

ZIELINSKI, P. (55-56) 108, (56-57)209, 210, 211 , 212, 213,

214, 215; (57-58)303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312

ZILLMER, C, (48-49) 102. 106. 108; (49-50)203. 204, 205,

206,207,208,211,212

ZISOOK, E, (46-47) 102, 105, 106, 107, 108; (47-48)204,

206, 208, 212; (48-49)307, 308. 311 . 312. 313. 314; (49-50)

301 . 302. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411 . 412, 493, 494, (50-51 )

501, 502, 509, 511, 593, 594; (51-52)591, 593, 599

ZIVEN. S. (38-39) 201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

312

ZOERN, J. (41-42) 101 , 102, 105, 106, 107, 108

ZUBKUS, S. (50-51) 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 1 10

164

SOLVED PROBLEMS: A DEMAND ON OUR BUILDING METHODS

A lecture at the public convention of the Bund Deutscher ArchlteKten 12 De-
cember 1923 In the large lecture hall of the Museum for Applied Arts, Berlin,
Prinz Albrechtstr. 8. Published In Sauwe/f 14. 1923. No. 52, p. 7 19. Translated by
Rolf Achilles.

On the farm it is customary to till weed-infested fields without regard to

those few blades of grass which still find the energy to survive.

We too are also left with no other choice if we are truly to strive for a new

sense of construction.

You are all aware of course of the condition of our buildings and yet I

would like to remind you of the fully petrified nonsense along the

Kurfiirstendam and Dahlem.

I have tried in vain to discover the reason for these buildings. They are

neither liveable, economical, norfunctional and yet they are to serve as

home for the people of our age.

We have not been held in very high esteem, if one really believes that

these boxes can fulfill our living needs.

No attempt has been made to grasp and shape. In a basic manner, our

varying needs.

Our inner needs have been overlooked and it was thought that a clever

juggling of historical elements would suffice.

The condition of these buildings is mendacious, dumb and injurious.

On the contrary, we demand of buildings today:

Uncompromising truthfulness and renunciation of all formal lies.

We further demand:

That all planning of housing be dictated by the way we live.

A rational organization is to be sought and the application of new

technical means towards this end is a self-evident presumption.

If we fulfill these demands, then the housing of our age is formed.

Since the rental unit is only a multiplicity of individual houses we find

that herealsothesametypeandquantlty of organic housing is formed.

This determines the manner of the housing block.

I cannot show you any illustrations of newer structures which meet

these demands because even the new attempts have not gone beyond

mere formalities.

To lift your sights over the historical and aesthetic rubble heap of

Europe and direct you towards primary and functional housing, I have

assembled pictures of buildings which stand outside the greco-roman

culture sphere.

I have done this on purpose, because an ax bite in Hildesheim lies closer

to my heart than a chisel hole in Athens.

I now show you housing, the structure of which is clearly dictated by

function and material.

1. Teepee

This is the typical dwelling of a nomad. Light and transportable.

2. Leaf Hut

This Is the leaf hut of an Indian. Have you ever seen anything more
complete in fulfilling its function and in its use of material? Is this not
the involution of jungle shadows?

3. Eskimo House

Now I lead you to night and ice. Here, moss and seal fur have become
the building materials. Walrus ribs form the roof construction.

165

SOLVED PROBLEMS

4. Igloo

We're going farther north. The house of a Central eskimo. Here there
is only snow and ice. And still man builds.

5. Summer tent of an Eskimo

This fellow also has a summer villa. The construction materials are
skin and bones. From the quiet and solitude of the north I lead you to
turbulent medieval Flanders.

6. Castle of the Dukes of Flanders, Ghent
Here, the house has become a fortress.

7. Farm

In the lower German plains stands the house of the German farmer.
It's necessities of life: house, stall and hayloft are met in this one
structure.

What I have shown you in illustrations meets all the requirements of Its
inhabitants. We demand nothing more for ourselves. Only timely mate-
rials. Since there are no buildings which so completely meet the needs
of man today I can only show you a structure from a related area which
has been only recently perceived and meets the requirements which I
also long for and strive towards in our own housing.

8. Imperator (Luxury Liner, Hamburg-America Line).

Here, you see floating mass housing created out of the needs and

materials of our age.

Here I ask again:

Have you ever seen anything more complete in its fulfillment of

function and justification of materials?

We would be envied if we had structures which justified our main

land needs in such a way.

Only when we experience the needs and means of our age in such a

primeval way will we have a new sense of structure. To awaken a

consciousness for these things is the purpose of my short talk.

166

EXPLANATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

With the following prospectus Mies defined his educational program for the
School of Architecture at Armour Institute of Technology In the winter of 1937-
1938.

The goal of an Architectural School is to train men who can create
organic architecture.

Such men must be able to design structures constructed of modern
technical means to serve the specific requirements of existing society.
They must also be able to bring these structures within the sphere of art
by ordering and proportioning them in relation to their functions, and
forming them to express the means employed, the purposes served,
and the spirit of the times.

In order to accomplish this, these men must not only be trained in the
essentials of construction, professional knowledge and in the creation
of architectural form, but they must also develop a realistic Insight into
the material and spiritual needs of their contemporaries, so that they
may be able to create architecture which fittingly fulfills these needs.
Finally, they must be given the opportunity to acquire a basic architec-
tural philosophy and fundamental creative principles which will guide
them in their task of creating living architecture. The accompanying
program is intended to provide an education which achieves this pur-
pose.
The period of study is divided into three progressive stages, namely:

MEANS, PURPOSES, AND PLANNING AND CREATING, With 3 ShOrt

period of preparatory training. Parallel and complementary to this
creative education, general theory and professional training will be
studied. The subjects In these latter two divisions will be timed to

prepare the students for each successive step in his creative develop-
ment.

Work in mathematics, the natural sciences, and drawing, in these two
divisions will be begun before the principal course of study begins. This
is the preparatory training referred to above and is indicated on the
program by raising these subjects in the two columns at the extreme left
of the program In advance of all other subjects. This preparatory train-
ing is to teach the students to draw, to see proportions and to under-
stand the rudiments of physics before starting the study of structural
means.

The subjects in the column design[at]ed General Theory are designed
to give the student the necessary scientific and cultural background
which will give him the knowledge, the sense of proportion and the
historical perspective necessary in his progress through the other
stages of his education. Only those aspects of these subjects which have
a direct bearing on architecture will be treated.

The subjects in the column designated Professional Training cover the
specialized architectural knowledge which the student will require to
give him the technical proficiency necessary to carry on his creative
work In the school and take his place in his profession upon graduation.
The first major stage of the student's education entitled Means, covers a
thorough and systematic study of the principal building materials, their
qualities and their proper use in building. The student's work In his
parallel course in Natural Science will be arranged to help him make
this Investigation. Similarly his work in the field of Profess/ona/Tra/n/ng
will be timed to enable him to design structurally In the various mate-

167

EXPLANATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

rials he is studying. He will study the construction types and methods
appropriatetothematerialssingly and in combination. Atthesametlme
he will be required to develop simple structural forms with these mate-
rials, and then, as a result of the knowledge so gained, he will be
required to detail original structural forms in the various materials.
This study of materials and construction will be carried beyond the
older building materials and methods into the Investigation of the
manufactured and syntJnetic materials available today. The student will
analyze the newer materials and make experiments to determine their
proper uses, their proper combination in construction, their aesthetic
possibilities and architectural forms appropriate to them.
This stage of the student's work is designed to give him a thorough
knowledge of the means with which he must later build, a feeling for
materials and construction and to teach him how architectural forms
are developed from the necessities and possibilities inherent in mate-
rials and construction.

In the second major stage of the student's education, entitled Purposes
on the program, the student will study the various purposes for which
buildings are required in modern society. He will make a systematic
study of the various functions of different kinds of buildings and seek
reasonable solutions for their requirements from a technical, social and
humanitarian standpoint. The construction, purpose, and arrangement
of furniture and furnishings in their relation to the buildings and their
occupants will also be studied.

After studying the requirements of various types of buildings and their
solution, the student will progress to the study of ordering these types
into groups and into unified communities — in other words: city plan-
ning. City planning will be studied from the point of view that the
various parts of a community must be so related that the whole func-
tions as a healthy organism. The student will also study the reorganiza-
tion of existing cities to make them function as an organic unity. The
possibilities of Regional planning will also be sketched.
Naturally the student's general theoretical education and professional
training will be running along parallel to these studies and will be far
enough advanced at each point so that he fully understands the techni-
cal, social and cultural aspects of each problem.
At the beginning of his study of the purposes of buildings, he will have

begun the study of the nature of man; what he is, how he lives, how he
works, what his needs are in both the material and spiritual sphere. He
must also have an understanding of the nature of society; how man has
organized himself into groups, apportioned and specialized his work to
lighten it and allow him more leisure to pursue his spiritual aims and
evolve a communal culture. This sociological study will also investigate
former civilizations, their economic basis, their social forms, and the
cultures which they produce.

The student will also study the history and nature of Technics — so that
he may comprehend the compelling and supporting forces of modern
society. He will learn the methods and principles of Technics and their
implications in his own creative sphere. He will realize the new solu-
tions of the problems of space, form and harmony made possible and
demanded by the development of modern Technics.
The relationship between culture and technics will also be studied so
that the student will be able to appreciate his part in developing a new
culture so that finally our technical civilization may have a unified and
integrated culture of its own.

Likewise the student's professional training will have advanced far
enough at each point for him to solve the professional and technical
factors of the problems that are being analyzed.
The third and last stage of the student's education has been entitled
Planning and Creating.

When the student has advanced this far he will have mastered the
technique of his profession; he will understand specific purposes and
problems for which society requires his knowledge, and he will have
acquired a general background which should have given him a
thorough comprehension of modern life and have imbued him with a
sense of professional and social obligation. He must now learn to use
his knowledge of the means, and the purposes to produce architecture
which is creative and living. This final and most important phase of his
education is intended to enable him to do so.

During this phase of his education, all the facilities of the school will be
directed towards training him in the fundamentals of creative design
based upon the principles of organic order, so that he will attack his
architectural problems with an essential philosophy whose guidance
will enable him to create true architecture.

168

\. - .■

'.^'l^-

y'^.-T-

m^Mmm-'^&m^'''wmwm^m^^^^r