A Decade of Progress
Building of a New Campus
1966-1972
By 1969, nearly the entire Chicago State College operation took place in rented facilities. The main campus, at 6800 South Stewart, was leased from the Chicago Board of Education, with additional nearby space leased from the Chicago Dwellings Association and the Englewood Manor Apartments Corporation. In addition, the College owned the office building erected in 1967, and three mobile classroom units. The grounds adjacent to the main campus buildings included parking spaces for 750 automobiles, an eighty by forty yard playfield, and five tennis courts.
For all but the first two of its 102 years of operation, the College functioned on the same site. In 1869, the twenty-six acre campus was located in a rural environment, which over the past century had changed successively to a suburban and by 1969, to an urban area of high density with 100 percent black residents. The immediate community surrounding the College was characterized by dilapidated housing, high incidence of unemployment, and poor community services.
Prior to Dr. Byrd's appointment in 1966, a search had been' launched to find a new location for the College. Criteria for the site included location within the city limits, displacement of as few people as possible, and a geographic counter-balance with the Illinois Teachers College sister institution on the north side.
On the basis of the College's projected needs and the State's Master Plan to accommodate a campus for approximately 15,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) commuter students, six sites were initially suggested by a faculty committee of the College. All but one of these sites, which included the former location at 6800 South Stewart, were within the area bounded by 63rd Street, Stony Island, 103rd Street, and Kedzie Avenue. All but one contained the minimum of fifteen acres of vacant land needed for the first stage of campus construction
had adjacent area suitable for long-range redevelopment to the eventual full size of the site; and were deemed to be appropriate for college use according to the Basic Policies for the Comprehensive Plan of Chicago, Department of City Planning, City of Chicago, August, 1974.
In the evaluative process that followed, the sites were rated against the set of primary conditions which the Department of Planning indicated should be satisfied. These conditions included site size and condition, accessibility, present and future environmental conditions, and integration with the City of Chicago Comprehensive Plan. After initial consideration of the six site possibilities, the Board of Governors selected for the new campus the Burnside Yards of the Illinois Central Railroad, located at 95th Street and King Drive in the Roseland community.
Roseland, during the early years of Chicago's history, was mostly swampland with occasional patches of dry prairie. In 1852, two railroads came through the area, the Illinois Central to the east along Cottage Grove Avenue, and the Chicago and Rock Island to the northwest. The entrance of seven new trunk-line railroads into the south side of Chicago during the early 1880s, the development of the Calumet and South Chicago industrial region, and the establishment of the town of Pullman exerted a great influence upon the south side of Chicago. The marked growth in population on the south side affected a wide area, with some German, English, Irish, and especially Swedish workers moving into Roseland, which had as yet very little industry within its borders. There was still farmland and much vacant land in the coinmunity. During the years 1889 and 1890, all the territory that constitutes the-present Roseland community came within the city limits.
While there was no extensive industrial development in Roseland proper during the next few decades, the number of industries in the Calumet and South Chicago region grew, as did those located along the belt-line railroads. As a consequence, workers bought lots and built homes in communities close to the industrial plants, including some in Roseland. The Burnside Yards of the Illinois Central, located between 95th and 100th Streets from Martin Luther King Drive to the Illinois Central tracks, fostered settlement of the northeastern part of the community.
Roseland participated in the building boom which prevailed generally in Chicago in the 1920s. Modern brick bungalows, two-story single-family residences, some two-flat and small apartment buildings were erected. By 1929, the residential pattern of the community was fairly well established, although undeveloped land and vacant land, especially in the northern part, was not utilized for residential purposes until later years.
Growth of population in Roseland, which had slowed during the 1930s, resumed during the 1940s when the population increased twenty-nine percent, partially as a result of an influx of blacks who comprised eighteen percent of the population by 1950. This new growth was due in all probability to the expansion of industrial activity in neighboring communities and suburbs which were easily accessible to Roseland by automobile, and to the community's comparatively easy access to the Loop by the efficient suburban service of the railroads.
The population remained relatively stable between 1950 and 1960. Italians, Swedes, Germans, and Poles were the dominant groups among the foreign stock. The black population increased slowly and by 1960 made up twenty-three percent of the total population of Roseland. The black population remained concentrated in the northern part of the community, north of 99th Street. Roseland has remained a predominantly residential community, certain portions of which were still experiencing new growth and development in 1968, as construction began on the new campus for Chicago State College.
The 161-acre property was purchased in February 1968 for $8 million. By 1966 the Illinois Central Railroad had been in the process of removing the functions carried on in the Burnside Yards to new facilities outside the city. Acquisition of the site had been simplified by the fact that the entire 161-acre tract was in only three ownerships. To the community's residents, the site acquisition was a relief. The yards had become an eye-sore to the community, limiting access in and out of the residential area and effectively isolating the community. Further, the Burnside location more than fulfilled site selection criteria for the new campus. In addition, the new campus would be easily accessible from the Dan Ryan Expressway, the CTA Rapid Transit Line, bus routes, and the IC commuter line. The Board of Governors believed it to be an excellent location to serve the residents of Chicago's south side and the city's southern and southwestern suburbs.
The community anticipated many of the mutual benefits—cultural, social, recreational, economic - which could be generated as the College began to function on its new campus in a living-working relationship with the surrounding area. How best to make this relationship fully effective was a question carefully explored during early stages of planning, when representatives of the College sought the counsel of numerous community organizations, groups, and individuals. City and State officials who participated in the planning included Senators Cecil A. Partee and Charles Chew, Jr., Representatives Harold Washington, J. Horace Gardner, James Taylor, Raymond Ewell, Lewis A.H. Caldwell, Elwood Graham, Aldermen Wilson Frost and William Cousins. Among community organizations participating were the
Old Burnside Yard formerly owned by the Illinois Central Railroad, and the present site of Chicago State University.
Roseland Heights Community Association, Rosemoor Community Organization, and representatives from West Chesterfield, Chesterfield, Chatham, Avalon, and Cottage Grove Heights.
A committee, composed of representatives of the student body, faculty, staff, and the neighborhoods surrounding the new campus site, was established to draft criteria for the new campus design and architecture. It was agreed that the new campus should be constructed in a way that would promote close interaction between students and faculty; that the size and the materials used in the building construction should complement the surrounding residential neighborhood; and that the buildings should be designed to permit maximum flexibility for rearrangement of interiors to assure that they would not become obsolete because of changing or expanding programs.
More than twenty meetings were held during which many of the long-range needs of the communities were discussed, needs for such facilities as parks, playfields and meeting places, for access to a fine library, and for opportunities to participate in cultural activities. During
the series of meetings with community representatives, considerable discussion centered on the characteristics of the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the site. Even though it was recognized that the new campus would be a great improvement over the present site use, concern was expressed that the College might grow to be an overly massive complex, out of scale and character with the predominantly one-story homes nearby. Thus the recommendation was advanced that the College buildings be held to minimum practicable heights, and that exterior materials be compatible with those of residential construction.
Even more critical in the minds of the home-owners was the problem of heavy automobile traffic to be generated by the College and a related parking problem. Areas adjoining the campus site were primarily residential neighborhoods consisting of single-family homes built since World War II, small businesses, and the normal complement of schools and churches. Streets were reasonably quiet and safe for the many children in the area. It was therefore essential to plan properly for the traffic approach routes to the campus and for the provision of adequate parking space on campus, thus preventing as nearly as possible an automobile invasion of surrounding streets.
In September 1968, Dr. Byrd introduced "A Plan For a Master Plan," a three-and-a-half page paper which briefly set forth some basic assumptions about Chicago State. Whereas the plan was offered to stimulate discussion and exchange, it produced an immediate negative reaction from faculty members, particularly those active on the Master Planning Committee and the Committee on Curriculum Development.
The plan, as conceived by Byrd, was to design a series of physical modules of limited size to be located throughout the campus. Each module would consist of one or more buildings and would have some given number of students and faculty assigned to it as their "home." The module would have lecture halls, classrooms, seminar rooms, faculty offices, social lounges, student lockers, quiet study areas, and a dining area to serve this group of students and faculty primarily.
Dr. Edmund Kearney, in a memo to the Committee on Curriculum Development (November 11, 1968), and seconded by Dr. Vernon Brockman, recommended that the Committee on Curriculum Development transmit to the Master Planning Committee its urgent concern and broad disagreement with the philosophy of the presidential paper. Kearney strongly urged the Master Planning Committee to act in such a way as to present to the Board of Governors and to the architects, in adequate time for proper consideration, an alternative more responsive to the desires of the faculty.
Shortly following Byrd's plan, Dr. William Card submitted "An Alternative Plan for the Master Plan," (November 11, 1968) which
agreed with some of the basic assumptions on which Byrd's plan was founded, for instance: "Chicago State students would need the close and direct attention of wise and humane faculty members dedicated to aiding the young." But even that statement was "narrow" according to Card's report, because it ignored those members of the faculty who were also dedicated to expanding the fund of human knowledge and wished to do so by engaging in research and writing, or other creative arts.
Both Card's report and that of the Committee on Curriculum Development rejected the implications in the president's paper that Chicago State "should become primarily a liberal arts college," citing that the statement failed to see clearly the class composition of the Chicago State student body in the coming years. in their view, the typical student at Chicago State would want such training and education as would enable him to step into a job upon graduation. Another concern of the committee was the lack of a student union, which according to Byrd's plan would be dispersed amongst all of the triads, rather than concentrating student union facilities in one building. The committee argued that unless a design was developed immediately which incorporated income-generating facilities, it was unlikely that bonds could be issued for construction to be completed in Phase I.
Byrd contended a second time in a memo on November 14 that the statement presented in "A Plan for a Master Plan" was offered to stimulate discussion and exchange. "I have long felt, " wrote Byrd, "and recent developments have confirmed for me, that higher education in America needs radical rethinking and restructuring. I hope that as a college with an open future before us we shall avoid the trite and the business-as-usual approach at a time that calls for dramatic innovation."
The committees and Byrd battled this problem back and forth for almost a year. Then in August 1969, the Master Planning Committee again became very visible when it voiced its concern that meaningful participation by faculty and students in planning the new campus was seriously reduced, since Byrd had once again revived a variant of the college cluster plan for the new campus, promoting the dispersal of academic departments and faculty.
In spite of assurances that no final decisions regarding design would be made without prior consultation with the Master Planning Committee and all departments, a final design development report was submitted to the Board of Governors without a conference with the Master Planning Committee. The report represented a modification of the design as presented to the Master Planning Committee at an earlier meeting. It had been clear to the committee members from the outset that Byrd's proposed plan left little room for change.
Two months later, Associate Professor Frederick Blum, Chairman of the Master Planning Committee, resigned in protest because of the Senate's "recent inability to overcome the administration's complete disregard of the Senate's official policy regarding the Master Plan as reflected in the Master Planning Committee report of August 14." This action was but the culmination of a long series of frustrations for the committee in its effort to provide for the full participation of faculty and students in meaningful decisions and review of architectural designs before they were approved by the Board of Governors.
Ground was broken for construction of the new campus in September 1970, and the 26-month construction schedule to complete Phase I began. On June 13, 1972, Dr. Byrd issued a memo to give members of Chicago State some clear and definite information about the status of the move to the new campus.
All along it had been clear that the construction schedule was a tight one. Strikes and inclement weather had thrown the schedule off by two months, and as the building project neared completion, University members became increasingly impatient and had a tendency to "drop by" to see how things were progressing. Unauthorized visitors were reportedly walking on floor tiles which had not yet dried, accidentally overturning paint, and causing minor damage to uninstalled equipment.
To move was not an easy decision to reach. The Task Force on Moving to the new campus, consisting of students, faculty members, administrators, and a representative of the new community, met for two hours on October 13. They heard reports on the uncompleted state of the new campus. They learned that six weeks of rain had kept the site development contractors from making significant progress on construction of walkways, roads, and parking lots. They learned that a good deal of interior finishing had not been completed in accordance with the promises of the contractors and that some deliveries of critical equipment and furnishings would be made later than originally scheduled. After long and difficult deliberation, the Task Force voted 13 to 1 (with 2 abstentions) to recommend that the University proceed to move in accordance with the schedule.
Byrd understood fully how eager everyone was to occupy the new campus and understood, too, that members of the campus community were not prepared to tolerate further delay. He knew that they would have to be prepared to contend with a good deal of inconvenience during the first several months after their occupancy of the campus. In certain instances they would have to use substitute locations, resulting in some hardship. In other instances equipment and facilities scheduled to be fully installed and operational would simply not be ready for use.
Final decision to move came in a memo on October 23. The baseline consideration hinged on the expenses that would be incurred in renewing the lease to the Chicago Board of Education for the facilities at 6800 South Stewart. Similarly, a decision was reached, after much soulsearching, nor to renew the leased quarters for the West Center campus. It was decided that the money paid on the leased properties could be put to better use on the new campus.
At long last, in its one hundred third year on its Englewood site, and six years after beginning intensive planning for a new campus, the final move came. It was estimated by Byrd that it would take at least until the beginning of the new term in January before the University could begin to fully enjoy the amenities programmed into its new facilities. In reality; it was not until 1974 that construction was actually completed.
Classes were suspended from the last session on October 28 until eight o'clock on the morning of November 20. This was not to be regarded as vacation time, however, for there were hooks and files and records to be packed and unpacked. It was a short period within which Literally up to their ankles in mud, Chicago State University's faculty and 5,500 students entered their new campus November 20, 1972. Instead of grass and trees, on opening day, CSU was "stuck in the mud."
much had to be done — activities for which there were no precedents to serve as guidelines. Chicago State University's faculty and 5,500 students entered their new campus on Monday morning, November 20, 1972.
As in 1867 when the school opened classes in a leaky freight car, once again less than ideal circumstances attended the school's opening. Literally up to their ankles in mud, students and faculty entered their new campus wearing boots and old clothing. Landscaping had been delayed after it had rained for eleven consecutive weeks, so instead of grass and trees, on opening day Chicago State was "stuck in the mud."
Regardless of the inconveniences, students arrived by the bus loads and were met by humorous signs saying: "CSU will muddle thru" and "It's deep here." Even President Byrd joined in by meeting students with mud maps. Out of the mire rose Mirewire, a special issue of University News, created on November 20, 1972, to inform faculty, students, staff and administrators of campus activities, which buildings were ready for occupancy, and provide an overall calendar of events. Originally issued as a collector's item, the name Mirewire stuck and the newsletter has become a permanent publication of the Office of University Relations.
The first months on the new campus were, for most, a dream come true. For the first time, each faculty member had exclusive use of his or her own office. The decentralization of the student body into identifiable segments created an environment conducive to active interchange among students and faculty. In earlier plans the architects had proposed an additional system of enclosed bridges, connecting the second level of all buildings and allowing continuous, indoor passage from one end of the campus to the other. The Board, with Byrd's endorsement, had decided that the bridge system would be an unnecessary expense. However, the buildings were designed so that the bridge could be added at some later date, should multiple travel routes through the campus become necessary.
Many of the criteria for design and architecture established by the committee of representatives from all sectors of the University community had been met. The campus, designed by the architectural firm of Perkins and Will, complemented the surrounding neighborhood with the preservation of natural wooded areas and landscaping to provide many parklike areas. Further, no buildings extended above four stories, and the warm, tan exteriors meld with the residential neighborhood. A wide variety of informal meeting places on the campus grounds and within the buildings provided for easy interaction between faculty and students. Flexible interiors avoided building obsolescence and facilitated future University expansion.
From a box car on a railroad siding in 1867, a 161-acre, S65 million campus had evolved. The new campus buildings, nearly completed in Phase I of three proposed stages of development, included two classroom triads, the Daniel Hale Williams Science Center, the Paul and Emily Douglas Library, a physical education complex, the Raymond Cook Administration building, a University Center building that served as a student union, and a physical plant building.
Cook County Normal and Chicago Teachers College had changed names several times; the school had changed its role in life from that of a teacher-training institution to that of a multipurpose university; it had changed racially; and now it had changed its address. When Chicago State University moved to its new campus, it took with it a long tradition of service to the community and a history of strong achievement as a teacher-training institution. Yet for Chicago State University, the move, while creating a welcome change on the one hand, brought with it unforseen problems on the other.
