No Bauhaus in Ebert’s House?
Roger Ebert isn’t afraid to admit he likes lighter films Get Him to the Greek and Iron Man 2 (three stars) but is also smart enough to enjoy higher-brow fare like The White Ribbon and I Am Love (four stars). Maybe that’s why he’s trusted as America’s foremost film critic—he sees quality wherever it is, often resisting conventional wisdom. He even loved Air Bud, the tale of a basketball-playing dog — so democratic!
As seen in his review of Air Bud, Ebert may be a fan of tugged heartstrings: “The climactic scenes are not only absurd and goofy but also enormously entertaining.” Ebert says, “By the end of the film I was quietly amazed: not only could Buddy play basketball, but I actually cared how the game turned out.”
Many design fans wonder aloud, who will be the Roger Ebert of architecture, combining populism and artistic knowledge with just a smidgen of emotion. How about, say. . . Roger Ebert!
In a rant published online, Ebert proclaims his dual populist/intelligentsia views on this new subject in a convincing piece whose title is based on a Louis Sullivan quote, “Every building is the image…” Sullivan is a seminal figure in Chicago architectural history, and likewise revered by Ebert as the inspiration to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie School of Architecture and the Arts and Crafts movement.
Ebert doesn’t revere Sullivan as much for his ability to find a new vocabulary for the skyscrapers, but for his ornamentation; as Sullivan once said, “a building’s identity resides in its ornament.” Turns out Ebert is a softie when it comes to architecture in his Chicago. Sullivan’s buildings, such as the Wainwright Tower in St. Louis, was amazing for its cornices, decorations and entrances—but Sullivan was a transitional figure to Mies van der Rohe’s “deliberate simplicity.”

Wainwright Building (Thumbs up!), St. Louis Photo by Matthew Black

Crown Hall, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago (Thumbs down!) via Art Net
Mies van der Rohe is Ebert’s foremost target: “He and his generation seem to have pointed us down the road to an architecture that is totalitarian in its severe economy.” It’s hard to refute that; in spite of whatever beauty Mies found in his proportions, the Farnsworth House, or Crown Hall on the Campus of IIT, he may also have lead the way to the mediocre glass towers we find in downtowns throughout the U.S. So why didn’t we stick with the Hogwart’s charm of Ebert’s ideal, the gothic University of Chicago?
Like Tom Wolfe’s entertaining From Bauhaus to Our House , Ebert has oversimplified modern architecture to a point in architectural history that was soon refuted by its own members. Even Le Corbusier moved on from the Villa Savoye to Ronchamp, a curving, mysterious shape that is immune to description. True, the damage was already done, but the rise of industry and population demanded cheap solutions fast, which had little to do with Mies’ Crown Hall.
But even if you give Ebert his anti-Mies point, on the same IIT Campus in Chicago is an example of more promising modern architecture built recently: the McCormick-Tribune Campus Center designed by the Office of Metropolitan Architecture headed by Rem Koolhaas. This is a glass and steel building, but filled with electrifying experiential cues: orange walls, bold and funny graphic design, a strange tunnel above that wraps the L tracks, interior gardens, sculptural stairways, and above all jagged forms that come from its location in the middle of campus. It does not have stone carvings. But it does warm this heart.

McCormick-Tribune Campus Center, Chicago
But if that doesn’t do it for you, there are still other examples of humanistic modern architecture — even in Chicago — created after Mies (Ebert should feel free to visit these and judge for himself). Looking through the Architizer database yields a few Chicago winners:

Brick Weave House, Chicago
Studio Gang’s Brick Weave House uses a porous screen to dapple sunlight. At night the house becomes a lantern. Its ornamentation is better than stone: light.

State Street Village, Chicago
Yet another example of heart-warming modern architecture on the IIT Campus, State Street Village by Murphy/Jahn uses large curving metal screens as both ornament and shield. The building is one of a kind, with its own unique identity.
Many people agree with Ebert’s love of gothic ornamentation: campuses are continuously being added to, not with modern architects, but Gothic facades. “Collegate Gothic Style” feels about as empty to me as Mies does to Ebert. At least Mies was being truthful to his time, as were his less than perfect followers.
[...] read this piece by Roger Ebert, tearing apart modernism. Was drawn to it, courtesy of this Architizer [...]
If you’re going to rebut Ebert’s argument, you’re going to have to find some much better examples. None of the counter-examples you’ve got here even come close to having the same visual resonance as Sullivan’s Wainwright Building. Surely we can come up with some better examples of Modern design than these.
I agree with the previous poster. 3 examples used don’t really address what Ebert is hinting at. He doesn’t know it himself, but he’s really reminiscing at the loss of human scale in modern architecture. All that ornamentation, well, you can picture human hands molding or carving those shapes. All those hung windows in Wainwright building, well, you can picture a human face smiling behind them, even mom’s baked pie cooling on the sill. It’s taking (seemingly) everyday objects and re-presenting them at a much grander scale. It’s what Sullivan did well. Technical gap between commercial and residential building technologies has never been greater. Three projects used in the counter-example could easily be twice as large (or small) and would still be valid modern artifacts to an untrained eye. Now, if you were to present Ebert with a 70-story tower built entirely out of Home Depot (or Lowes…) off the shelf components, you might get a different response. There is a large discontent between engineering capabilities of modern architecture and iconography of welcoming/familiar. I don’t blame Ebert for speaking from his heart.
The three examples I highlighted were intended to show how Ebert’s notion of “modern architecture” is limited; these buildings, i find, can evoke feeling and heart, and 2 of the 3 examples were at the heart of the campus of IIT in Chicago, mentioned by Ebert himself. I’ll give him his point about Mies not gladdening his heart (he’s entitled to his opinion), though I don’t necessarily agree, and I agree that the Home Depots of the world aren’t wonderful places. I think that Ebert’s thoughts reflect an unfortunatley common notion that all modern architecture falls under one umbrella; Mies doesn’t equal Home Depot, and there are countless examples of “modern architects” that design warm experiences–one such experience I find at the McCormick-Tribune Campus Center.
Thanks for responding Jim. I forgot to say that I quite enjoyed this article. The fact that it immediately opens up an even bigger discussion is only a positive thing!
Thanks for the feedback, and I’m glad it opened up a bigger discussion. Hope to hear more from you in the future.