(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "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_. 



^ 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 



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 



- 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. 




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-U rTTT II I I I I 



I I I I i 



J 1 



"TT 




^ir~iiT 



TG 



I I I I I I I I I TTTI 



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. ' l jji.-».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 



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 Architec ture 
Technics and Architectur e 
Applied City Planning 



Architecture 



Architecture 



Theory of Regional Planning 



Theory of Regional Pla nning 

Applied Regional Planning 

Physical Factors of Planning 
Analysis and Representation 

Physical Factors of Planning 
Analysis and Representation 

History and Analysis of C ities 

Architecture of Cities 

City Planning Practice 

City Planning Practice 



'56-'57 ■57-'58 



415 


1 


416 


1 




(J) 


417 


m 

z 


418 




3) 


420 


- 




> 


443 


:a 




o 




T 


444 






H 




m 


453 







H 


454 


C 




JO 




m 


45b 




456 




458 




459 




460 


w 




r^ 


461 


z 







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 



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 , 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