IIT has a unique place in Architectural history. In 1938, the esteemed Architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe set up shop there. He started from scratch and created a masterplan which was only partially implemented in the following decades. By the early 1990s, the school was in financial trouble and there was talk of selling the campus and moving to the suburbs. An alternative to keep the school in its historic modernist campus was proposed--it was led by the idea to host an invited competition to design a new student union. The McCormick Tribune Center is the result of that competition.

It's kind of a truism to say that Muschamp is interested in ideas and Blair Kamin, urban planning and public policy. But the theory holds up and I think their points of view reveal some interesting and provocative distinctions about the new Campus Center. These interests show in the point of view when discussing architecture.

Kamin's criticsm is this: We were promised a very sexy building and a building paradigm for the 21st century--Did it pan out? Kamin's verdict is that while it is an interesting piece of planning--it isn't great architecture. Much of it is theater like the "el" train entering the tube which rests atop the student center. Spaces are arranged in a way that the architect says reflect the pathways of students when they crossed the no-man's land the site was previous to the new building. Many different rooms and functions flow together in this "universal space." (my use of the expression) Whereas Mies let structure create the shell into which to put activities, Koolhaas assembles the activities along the paths like buildings in a village. Kamin likes the layout and the emphasizes the fact that the "el" was in fact a wall and that Koolhaas' building has bridged it uniting the east and west sides of the campus.

Kamin is more critical of the architecture calling it "crude." He compares the detailing to the Mies structures and finds it lacking. He, like with Soldier Field, takes issue with idea of putting a large object on top of a building. He finds the proportions to pale in comparison to the Miesian surroundings. The west facade with its image of Mies in orange dots is a "look-at-me billboard" a lá Robert Venturi. Kamin takes issue with the Vegas-like (my words) zebra-striped, plastic fascia. Originally it was meant to be wood framed like the Virendeel roof truss of Crown Hall. He sums it up: "Ugh! It's a ridiculous cartoon." He observes that Koolhaas is taking a lot of chances with materials and wins with the wavy, 3-d vinyl wallcovering and is less successful with the unfinished green board ceilings. Kamin enjoys how Koolhaas has excavated and carved out the spaces. The outdoor courts and the rooftop garden are successful touches that make the building the bright bee hive it is.

Kamin concludes by taking issue with architects that don't work things through. Koolhaas had a provocative idea but let the details slide. This is consistent with other projects by Koolhaas and Daniel Libeskind. The engineer Cecil Balmond's book "Informal" brilliantly illuminates this and gives lessons on rigor, clarity and coherence. Although Ove Arup is listed as the enigineer it is unclear if Balmond lent his talents to the IIT Student Center.

Muschamp enters the building without considering the competition hype. He was in town to review the Soldier Field (see accompanying comparison) and kills two birds with one stone.

While Mies was known for his quiet, contemplative spaces, Muschamp remarks on the contrast. He remarks that the building gives you a song instead of silence. His review is thus entitled "A Building with a Song in its Heart." To some extent, their points of view reflect their geography--Kamin has been famliar with the project since its genesis, whereas Muschamp arrives from New York with his eye geared towards an MLA-like (Modern Language Association) take on the building. He sees the background as a Miesian and refers to the IIT Campus as the "immaculately modern desert." Funny, but what's the point? The context is an Oedipal one where Koolhaas the son has adopted Mies as his father. Koolhaas has opposed the "tendency towards Oedipal overthrow that has run rampant in his profession." He states the relationship between Koolhaas and Mies is "fraught with ambivalence" and is evident in the V-shaped roof. Muschamp compares the building to a cubist painting and marvels at the way the interior spaces are sculpted and the seamlessness between inside and out and different interior functions.

Muschamp says the tube is a "metaphor for absorbtion." Koolhaas gets himself into trouble because a ride on the tube shows that the tube is open at the top and is a bit of artiface. Furthermore, it was pointed out by Helmut Jahn in the competition that soundproofing comes in many different forms, some of which don't look like they are doing anything at all. Reportedly the top of the tube was removed due to fire code issues. (I assume that the engineer Cecil Balmond was not there to help out as he did on Koolhaas' Flying House in France.) The tube is still fun but is more Balaban and Katz than serious architecture.

Muschamp concludes with his catchy phrase "Daddy is in the details" and complements Koolhaas for transforming Mies's ideas into something new and fresh. Something many observers thought was not possible at IIT.

What do you think?