PAUL RUD LPH Acknowledgments Program 13ll

' \ This booklet and the exhibi- Chicago architectural com- Exhibition Front cover: tion it accompanies are the munity to learn more about May 6-28, 1987, in the second- Overall perspective of a fourth in The Art Institute of his work through this exhibi- floor gallery of the Graham corporate office building for Wisma Dharmala Sakti. Chicago's in tion and his lecture at the Foundation for Advanced , , 1982 Context series, which is in- Graham Foundation. Studies in the Fine Arts, [no. 29). tended to highlight aspects We wish to thank Robert 4 West Burton Place, Chicago. of architecture that Bruegmann, Associate Pro- Graham Foundation hours: Back cover: Atrium perspective of a have not received sufficient fessor of Architecture and Monday through Thursday, corporate office building for critical attention. The current Art History at University of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Wisma Dharmala Sakti, exhibition broadens that Illinois at Chicago, for his Jakarta, Indonesia, 1982 focus by concentrating on insightful essay and for work- Lecture [no. 32) . the current work of ing with Paul Rudolph to Paul Rudolph, "The Archi- © 1987 Graham Foundation architect Paul Rudolph, who, select the drawings for inclu- tectural Space of Wright, for Advanced Studies in the admittedly, has been pro- sion in the exhibition. We Mies, and Le Corbusier," May Fine Arts and The Art Institute foundly influenced by Chica- also wish to thank Ronald 6, 1987, the Graham Founda- of Chicago. All rights reserved. go architects Frank Lloyd Chin, for coordinating the tion Auditorium, 8:00 p .m. Printed in the United States Wright and Ludwig Mies van organization of the exhibition of America. der Rohe and their French and publication in Rudolph's Previous Architecture in Designed by counterpart, Le Corbusier. office; Robert Sharp, Context booklets are availa- Susan Johnson Design, Although Rudolph is well- Associate Editor at the Art ble in the Art Institute's Chicago, Ulinois. known for his important Institute, for editing and Museum Shop: modernist buildings of the coordinating publication of Architecture in Context: 1960s and 19.70s, his current this booklet; and Susan 360 North Michigan Avenue work is comparatively un- Johnson for her design of known. The purpose of this this publication. Architecture in Context: exhibition is to redress that The exhibition, booklet, The Avant-Garde in oversight by presenting a and accompanying lecture Chicago's Suburbs, Paul selection of drawings, more by Mr. Rudolph were jointly Schweikher and William than half of which represent sponsored by the Graham Ferguson Deknatel four of Rudolph's recent pro- Foundation for Advanced Architecture in Context: jects - a mixed-use complex Studies in the Fine Arts and The Postwar American and an apartment building, the Architecture Society Fel- Dream both in , a pair of lows and the Department of office towers in , Architecture at The Art Insti- and a corporate headquarters tute of Chicago. We wish in Jakarta. We are extremely especially to acknowledge grateful to Paul Rudolph for Carter H. Manny, Jr., Director his enthusiasm and coopera- of the Graham Foundation, tion in organizing this exhibi- for his continued support of tion and for enabling the the Architecture in Context exhibition series and for his advice and support of the Rudolph exhibition.

Pauline Saliga Assistant Curator of Architecture The Art Institute of Chicago Robert Bruegmann

PAUL RUD LPH Four Recent Proj ects in Southeast

I. Introduction

o story in recent architecture is more compelling than modernist ideas, was to reason that, since man's most basic needs that of Paul Rudolph and his recent work in Southeast are everywhere similar and since modern engineering could NAsia. On the one hand there is his towering figure and meteoric overcome almost all site and climate problems, a solution from career. From a small practice in in the 1950s Rudolph's Berlin should be applicable, with only minor modification, in talent for drawing, design, and teaching rocketed him by the late Teheran or Manila. At the other extreme were those who in the 1960s to the pinnacle of the architectural world. While he was last few years have argued that local building traditions and ver- chairman of the School of Architecture at , his nacular techniques are more appropriate than self-expression as major commissions were found on the pages of every architec- bases for design, and that, therefore, a building in the West tural journal. But as the architectural world started to undergo should look entirely different from a building in the non-Western fundamental changes in the 1970s and as modernism came under world. Needless to say, most architects have tried to chart a mid- attack, Paul Rudolph proved an oversized and irresistible target dle course between these extremes, but few observers would to critics of modernism such as Robert Venturi. Refusing to accept claim that the results are usually satisfactory. When Rudolph's many of the basic assumptions of the new cultural climate, teacher , for example, proposed a mosque for Rudolph continued to work, though he did so increasingly on Damascus in the shape of a great onion dome, it seemed to many commissions far from home and outside the spotlight of public- observers more like a parody of the long Islamic tradition of ity. Now, in the late 1980s, almost 70 years old but still erect and monumental architecture than an intelligent use of it. In the case intensely involved in his work, Rudolph is tackling some of the ofmultistoried office and commercial buildings in regions where most challenging commissions of his career, and he is apparently the vernacular consists mostly of frame dwellings, the problem being rediscovered by a younger generation who see in him a becomes even more acute. Thus, the case of Paul Rudolph in great master, a heroic figure who refused to capitulate to what Southeast Asia is especially interesting. they see as the self-indulgent, permissive trends of the last two Resolutely modernist in his thinking, unyielding in his insis- decades. tence on working out his own architectural ideas, and totally The second main theme of this story is the collision of the unsympathetic to the borrowing of applied historical motifs, Western and non-Western architectural worlds. Since the Rudolph has nevertheless throughout his career rejected the nineteenth century architects from Europe and America have minimalism of those he calls the "international stylists," and he struggled with the problem of how to create buildings that are has tried to accommodate his work to very specific sites and fully modern by Western standards but also accommodate site contexts. The four projects featured in this exhibition are tes- and climate as well as the cultural traditions of lands elsewhere timony to the struggle of a committed modernist to adapt Western in the world. One extreme solution, the ultimate extension of modernism to the context of a totally different environment. II. Paul Rudolph and his Career

Paul Marvin Rudolph was born in 1918 in Elkton, Kentucky, the according to a local method using native limestone as a perma- son of a Methodist minister. After attending a succession of nent formwork for the reinforced concrete. schools across the South, Rudolph studied architecture between During his early years in practice, Rudolph was in demand as 1935 and 1940 at the Alabama Polytechnique Institute in Auburn, a guest teacher at schools of architecture across the country. This, Alabama, and then entered the Harvard Graduate School of in turn, led to the most conspicuous event in his early career, his Design in 1941 to work under Walter Gropius. After a stint in the appointment in 1958 as chairman of the School of Architecture Navy between 1943 and 1946, he returned to Harvard to finish at Yale University. During his brilliant but controversial chair- his master's in architecture in 1947. Moving to Sarasota, Florida, manship (1958-65), he brought to the school a flood of new ideas he practiced in partnership with for four years and many famous designers from around the world. At the same before starting his own practice in 1951. His early commissions time he produced a series of important commissions. The most were primarily for houses and guest houses in the southern states prominent single building was the Art and Architecture Building (fig. 1). While heavily influenced by the International Style at Yale (fig. 2) . In that structure Rudolph provided one of the most architecture he was exposed to at Harvard, Rudolph's houses spectacular monuments of the movement in architecture in the were marked by a lightness and airiness made possible by his 1960s away from the smooth minimalism that characterized adventurous use of structure, new building techniques, and a much of the work of the day. Like his colleagues Eero Saarinen responsiveness to site achieved through the careful organization and Louis Kahn, Rudolph attempted to take the tenets of moder- of plan and the use of overhangs, sun screens, and louvers. nism and push them further in an attempt to regain richness and In the mid-1950s Rudolph received three prominent commis- monumentality. In the A & A Building the large number of very sions for works outside the South. One, for a United States particular and complex spaces was in part a response to elements Embassy in Amman, Jordan, was not built, but two others - an in the program. In part they also represented an attempt to fuse office building for Blue Cross-Blue Shield in and the spatial and structural elements derived from Le Corbusier and Jewett Arts Center for - were constructed. In Frank Lloyd Wright, his favorite architects. The result was a com- all three cases Rudolph turned to a more complex, heavier, and plex and aggressively monumental, if somewhat forbiddingly more monumental manner. Like Eero Saarinen, Rudolph was complicated, building that more than held its own on its promi- among the first American modernist designers who attempted to nent corner site. For many it was the prime symbol of the rejuve- give their buildings something of the character of the older struc- nation of , but for others it represented all of tures in their immediate context. At Wellesley, for example, the its arrogance and insensitivity. siting of the building, intended to suggest a quadrangle, and the While he continued to work on single buildings during his elaboration of vertical elements in the structure and sun screens, years as chairman, Rudolph turned more and more to questions as well as the spiky silhouettes created by high skylights, were of urbanism. His urban designs were marked by the same strenu- obviously intended to give the building a feeling akin to the older ous effort to create spatial complexity and visual incident by Gothic buildings around it. At Amman, his first encounter with elaborating structure and program. For Boston, for example, he a non-Western site, the building's vaulted canopy was related to designed, for a site across from City Hall, a governmental com- the Arab tradition of double tents and was to be constructed plex (fig. 3) in which a ring of building extending out to the sidewalk surrounded an elaborate interior plaza that swirled like a pinwheel around a highrise tower (still unbuilt) that formed the center of the composition. No longer a discrete element in the cityscape, the building became a whole precinct. The furthest extension of this urban thinking came with two schemes for Lower Manhattan. In these projects, Rudolph tried to grapple with the challenge posed by large-scale building pre-fabrication and the mobile home, an element that, while it loomed larger and larger on the American landscape, was largely rejected out of hand by other serious designers as aesthetically unacceptable. Instead of turning his back on the challenge of the idea of the mobile home, Rudolph accepted it as a new vernacular incor- porating all necessary elements of structure and services. He call ed it the "twentieth-century urban brick." In his Graphic Arts Center project (fig. 4) on the west side of Manhattan he explored the idea of hanging individual pre-fabricated units in giant fixed frames. In his Lower Manhattan Expressways project he envisioned an even larger megastructure that accommodated transportation and utilities and allowed for considerable growth and change. When the heady years of the 1960s came to an end in the eco- nomic woes and retrenchments of the 1970s, Rudolph's earnest manner and aggressive style came to look anachronistic, and the magazines turned to the ironic, anti-heroic manner of Robert Venturi and Charles Moore. Rudolph, however, continued to uphold the modernist commitment to rational problem-solving and reacted strongly against the move to recapture public mean- ing by reusing literally the forms of historic architecture. Aban- doning the fireworks of the megastructures, he continued to pro- duce a steady stream of complex, weighty buildings in the United States and abroad. Received indifferently for the most part in the architectural press, projects like the Daiei Building in Nagoya, Japan, the William R. Canon Chapel at Emory University, and his own apartment in gave evidence of a doggedly persistent quest for an architecture whose richness came not from applied ornament but from the spatial complexities developed from structure and the three-dime.nsional elaboration of the program . .

2

4

Fig. 1 Guest house fo r Dr. and Mrs. W. W. Walker, Sanibel Island, Florida, 1952.

Fig. 2 Secti on perspective of the Art and Architecture Building, Yale Univer- sity, New Haven, Connecticut, 1958.

Fig. 3 Isometric perspecti ve of the Boston Government Service Center, Boston, Massachusetts, 1962 [no. 12 ).

Fig. 4 Secti on of th e Graphic Arts Center. New Yo rk. 1967 [no. 15 ). III. Four Recent Projects in Southeast Asia

Largely ignored by major clients in America's big cities, Rudolph Fig. 5 has found his most important clients ofrecent years in Southeast Aerial perspecti ve of a residential- Asia. In the four projects presented in this exhibition, as in most offi ce-shopping complex, Singapore, 1979 [no. 19). of his recent work, Rudolph has acted as design consultant rather than as architect. Because of this arrangement he has been able Fig. 6 to keep his office small and to concentrate on the one thing that Atrium perspecti ve of a res idential- interests him, design, leaving many of the problems of local offi ce-shopping complex, Singapore, 1979 (no. 20). building regulations, engineering, and construction supervision to local firms. This arrangement, however, also makes it difficult to keep control over all details of the projects, and it necessitates frequent and grueling trips to Asia to meet with clients, contrac- tors, and local architects. While work on the first project dis- cussed below has been temporarily halted because of an eco- nomic slump in Singapore, construction of the other three pro- jects was nearing completion in spring 198 7. The largest project, along a major commercial thoroughfare in Singapore, is a mixed-use complex whose total floor area is divided equally among commercial, office, and residential uses (fig. 5). The commission was received in 1979 as a result of one of the famous competitions used by the Singapore government to select developers for prime sites. Dubbed Beach Road I by Rudolph's office, the complex contains underground parking, a large shopping atrium recalling the atria of John Portman's early hotels, which Rudolph greatly admires; a low "village of offices" set on top of the podium created by the commercial portion; and a 45-story tower containing offices below and residential units above. Constructed, like all four of his Southeast Asia projects, of reinforced concrete, the complex is sheathed in ceramic tile 5 to protect the concrete from humidity. The entire complex is characterized by the use of dynamic asymmetry. Instead of putting the tower on top of the podium, the usual practice in this kind of complex, Rudolph positioned it in a location eccentric to the shopping atrium and outdoor plaza so that the visitor can read it as a self-sufficient unit, inter- twined with the podium but clearly rising on its own columns and shading the plaza at its base, an important feature in the trop- ical climate. The pinwheeling interaction of parts is continued in the shopping atrium where the exposed elevator rises off-cen- ter in the space (fig. 5); in the outdoor plaza, which swirls around the base of the tower; and in the tower itself, where the residential units, deeply eroded in their massing to permit the mandatory exterior exposure of kitchens and bathrooms, seem to rotate around the structural system. In fact, Rudolph has described the complex as a "whirling dervish." The second of the four projects is an apartment complex for Pontiac Land Private Limited (called Grange Road in Rudolph's 6 office), also located in Singapore (fig. 7) . Commissioned by a Chinese family, the building is again made of reinforced concrete but here it is protected by a masonry paint. The Grange Road building is divided into four quadrants each beginning and end- ing at a different elevation. The most striking visual feature of the exterior of Grange Road is a series of projecting blocks cantile- vered well forward of the structural columns (fig. 8). Inverting the usual logic found in buildings in cooler climates where the pub- lie rooms are pushed to the perimeter, these nearly windowless Fig. 7 blocks contain the bedrooms and private elements of the apart- Grange Road Condominium, under construction, Singapore, 1987. ments and shade the balconies and glassy walls of the more reces-

sed living and dining areas. At the top of the building are a Fig. 8 number of spectacular multilevel penthouse units with elaborate Frontal perspective of Grange Road vertical penetrations of space allowing views through the house Condominium, Singapore, 1980 to gardens, pools, and balconies. The piling up of units is (no. 25). intended by the architect to create a "village in the sky," in some ways similar to French or Italian hill towns. The third commission, for a pair of office towers in Hong Kong, was given to Rudolph after foundations had already been poured for an earlier scheme by a different architect for previous owners. Although the buildings were nearly identical in exterior treat- ment, one was to have been about 10% larger than the other in plan. Disturbed by what he considered an incongruous relation- ship between the towers, Rudolph m_anaged to persuade the new owners - two families from Hong Kong, one family from Singa- pore, one ·from Japan, and one representative of the People's Republic of China - to spend a considerable amount of money offsetting the foundations on the larger structure so the two towers would match. The architect was unable, however, to con- vince the clients to use an early scheme that incorporated bridges between the two structures (fig. 9), because one of the families also owned textile companies in Indonesia and felt that the bridges too closely resembled those of his factories there. In a sharp departure from his usual practice with concrete buildings, Rudolph chose to cover the two structures completely with a cur- tain wall of painted aluminum and grey glass (fig. 10), perhaps in an attempt to have his building hold its own amidst a prolifer- ation of glassy buildings around it. The final project, in Jakarta, was commissioned by the Dharmala Corporation, a prominent Indonesian firm that, among its many activities, exports tea and coffee, imports motorcycle parts, and develops land. Of all the work in Southeast Asia, the Jakarta project is clearly the most ambitious and the one closest to Rudolph's heart. Unlike his mixed-use project in Singapore and the office towers in Hong Kong, the Jakarta building is not a speculative venture but is intended as a corporate headquarters and a monument to the company (fig. 11). It exhibits the same kind of swirling geometry seen at Beach Road I. Wrapped around an open courtyard is a podium containing a garage, exhibition space, and a bank. Spiralling up from the outdoor area and podium, the floors of the office tower, each with its wide over- hangs, rotate around the structural columns creating a complex interweaving (figs. 12, 13). The outwardly splaying shape of the spandrel panels, which also form the terrace parapets, was based on roof forms found in indigenous houses in Indonesian villages. Reinterpreted in rein- forced concrete, the overhangs shield the glass walls of the office below from the sun. On the inside, the position of the elevators at one corner of the plan and the off-center cores, containing fire stairs, toilets, and special Muslim washing facilities, allow dramatically different kind of spaces on different floors as the floors rotate around the structural columns (figs. 14, 15).

8 Fig. 9 Fig. 11 Perspective of alternative design of an Overall perspective of a corporate office building. Hong Kong, 1984. office building, Jakarta, 1982 [no. 29).

Fig. 10 Overall perspective of an office build- ing. Hong Kong, 1984 [no. 36).

9 ..; - ,.- 11

10 Fig. 12 Elevation of a corporate office build- ing, Jakarta, 1982.

Fig. 13 of a corporate office building, Jakarta, 1982.

Fig. 14 Ground level floor plan of a corporate office bui lding, Jakarta, 1982.

Fig. 15 Atrium perspective of a corporate office building, Jakarta, 1982 (no. 32).

12 13

. - I \ . ' ..

14

15 IV. Rudolph and Southeast Asia

How do these four projects deal with their sites and the cultural ous thing on it. .. . Architects and others talk till it comes out environment of Southeast Asia? At first glance they seem to have of their ears about a national identity from an architectural little that is specifically Asian in imagery and a great deal that is viewpoint. They see in this building a step in that direction. recognizably like Rudolph's earlier work in the United States. But then Rudolph characteristically throws in an immediate The most immediately conspicuous feature of all of them is the disclaimer: complex three-dimensional rotation and interpenetration of ele- I don't see it that way; I see it purely as a response to a climate ments molded out of concrete, a feature that has characterized and the feeling of an accommodating environment.t much of Rudolph's work since the 1960s. The Grange Road pro- ject recalls the stacked units of the Graphic Arts Center, for exam- While he was willing to use the Indonesian examples as a point ple, while the configuration of the Beach Road project harks back of departure for his own imaginative use of the forms, Rudolph to the forms of the Boston Government Service Center. obviously rejects the notion that he is obliged to use these or any It is, however, undeniable that the local conditions played a other elements from this tradition to make them meaningful to major role. All four projects incorporate substantial areas of local inhabitants. It is in fact apparent that however much the unenclosed outdoor plaza space, terraces, and balconies - wel- Jakarta building yields to site and to local economic and cultural come features in warm climates. Three of the four use heavy pro- restraints, it remains in the end very much a personal statement jecting elements to shade other parts of the complex. Certainly of its designer, a personal exploration of certain ideas about struc- Rudolph was also constrained by important local economic and ture, space, and light that have obsessed Rudolph from his first political realities. In an area like Southeast Asia, where manufac- commissions. The Jakarta building, like much of Rudolph's tured materials are relatively expensive and labor relatively inex- recent work, will probably be criticized by proponents of "con- pensive, it makes sense to use inexpensive concrete and then to textualism" as just another isolated tower, related neither to its have workmen shape it into elaborate configurations. The current context, a street lined with slick glass towers, nor to trad- remarkably strict Singapore building by-laws are another kind of itional architecture. But the Jakarta building will probably be restraint. Because they are based in part on American laws pro- criticized equally from the opposite standpoint. Rudolph also mulgated during the heyday of postwar modernism, the Singa- refuses to justify his form from the modernist functional-techni- pore laws incorporate a number of features that are fast being cal viewpoint. He is not at all interested in anonymous teamwork abandoned in the United States: for example, the setback require- producing the most efficient and least expensive building possi- ments that make it all but necessary to create freestanding towers, ble nor in breaking new ground in technology the way Norman a solution Rudolph considers antithetical to successful Foster's enormously influential Bank of Hong Kong and Shan- urbanism. Even outside Singapore where the laws are not as ghai does. The Jakarta building is not up-to-the-minute in plan, stringent, the tradition of modern Western architecture has led structure, or equipment. It uses fairly standard parts and a rela- Rudolph to design isolated towers along the street. The result, tively low-tech, labor-intensive structure. regretted by the architect, is that each of these projects is largely In the end, it is this obstinate estrangement from both these cur- inward looking and self-sufficient, with the tower near the mid- rently ascendant movements that is so compelling. In no build- dle of the site and making little gesture toward its immediate ings being produced today does the insistence on the preroga- neighbors. tives of the individual creator play such a major role. Rudolph, Although he has, in all four projects, clearly responded to the virtually alone among major American architects, still functions physical realities of the sites, it is primarily in the Jakarta build- like Ayn Rand's character Howard Roark in Th e Fountainhead: ing that Rudolph appears to try to engage in any kind of dialogue solitary, seemingly unmindful of public acclaim or condemna- with the vernacular tradition of the place. At first glance the tion, harkening to the voice within. Whether judged successful approach seems almost contradictory. Although Rudolph incor- or not, these four projects in Southeast Asia undoubtedly con- porates forms derived from Indonesian village architecture, it stitute one of the boldest attempts seen anywhere in the world could well be argued that, reinterpreted in concrete and used on today to maintain the spirit of modernism without sacrificing the an air-conditioned highrise, these forms have little to do with possibility for the untrammeled personal expression of architec- their prototypes. Furthermore, although Rudolph did see some tural art. local village architecture, he would be the first to admit that he had neither the time nor the interest to make a thorough study of the subject. tlnterview conducted by the author with Paul Rudolph in 1986; transcription avail- What was the intention? When he speaks of the Jakarta build- able in the Ryerson and Burnham Libraries of The Art Institute of Chicago. ing, Rudolph obviously relishes the response it has gotten: This building in Jakarta is being received extremely well because people instinctively understand that it has to do with their climate, etc. I don't mean just architects and engineers. Their equivalent of Time magazine, for instance, ran a marvel- Checklist of the Exhibition

All dimensions are in centi- 12. Isometric perspective (with 22. Section perspective of 33. Night perspective of The meters, width preceding height. tower removed) of the Health, a residential-office-shopping Bond Centre, an office building All drawings are lent by Paul Education, and Welfare Building complex for Hong Fok Centre, in Hong Kong, 1984. Rudolph, Architect. for the Boston Government Singapore, 1979. Prismacolor on print, 137 x 76 cm. Service Center (final scheme), Ink on vellum, 106.5 x 127 cm. 1. Interior perspective of a guest 34. Interior perspective of the Boston, Massachusetts, 1962. house for Mr. and Mrs. Healy, 23. Section of a residential- lobby of The Bond Centre, Hong Ink on vellum, 152.5 x 172.5 cm. Siesta Key, Florida, 1948. office-shopping complex for Kong, 1984. Ink on vellum, 56 x 43 cm. 13. Aerial perspective of a new Hong Fok Centre, Singapore, Ink on vellum, 106.5 x 132 cm. campus for Southeastern Mas- 1979. 2. Exterior perspective of a resi- 35. South entry perspective at sachusetts Technological Insti- Ink on vellum, 124.5 x 106.5 cm. dence for Mr. and Mrs. Eugene grade of The Bond Centre, Hong tute, North Dartmouth, 1963. Knott, Yankeetown, Florida, 1952. 24. Elevation perspective of a Kong, 1984. Ink on vellum, 139.5 x 91 .5 cm. Mylar print, 140 x 79 cm. proposed office at Beach Road/ Ink on vellum, 106.5 x 173 cm. 14. Perspective of a design for a Nicoll Highway, Singapore, 1980. 3. Exterior perspective of a resi- 36. Overall perspective of The New City Hall, Syracuse, New Ink on vellum, 165 x 106.5 cm. dence for Mr. and Mrs. David Bond Centre, Hong Kong, 1984. York, 1964. Cohen, Siesta Key, Florida, 1952. 25. Frontal perspective of The Prismacolor on print, 157.5 x Ink on vellum, 152.5 x 89 cm. Ink on vellum, 76 x 46 cm. Colonnade, Grange Road Con- 84cm. 15 . Section of the Graphic Arts dominium, Singapore, 1980. 4. Exterior perspective of a guest Center plus apartment units Ink on vellum, 91.5 x 132 cm. cottage for Mi. and Mrs. Ingram utilizing mobile house tech- Hook, Siesta Key, Florida, 1954. 26. Overall perspective of The niques, New York, 1967. Ink on vellum, 76 x 48 cm. Colonnade, Grange Road Con- Ink on vellum, 162.5 x 89 cm. dominium, Singapore, 1980. 5. Front elevation of the Art 16. Section perspective for Ford Ink on vellum, 61 x 94 cm. and Architecture Building, Foundation Grant to study the Yale University, New Haven, 27. Section perspective of The Lower Manhattan expressway in Connecticut, 1958. Colonnade, Grange Road Con- the project "New Forms of the Mylar print, 76 x 94 cm. dominium, Singapore, 1980. Evolving City," 1967. Ink on vellum, 91.5 x 165 cm. 6. Perspective of upper studios Mylar print, 122 x 96.5 cm. in the Art and Architecture 28 . Elevation of a corporate 17. Section perspective of cor- Building, Yale University, New office building for Wisma porate headquarters, research Haven, Connecticut, 1958. Dharmala Sakti, Jakarta, Indo- and other related facilities for Mylar print, 91.5 x 68.5 cm. nesia, 1982. Burroughs Wellcome & Co. Print on paper, 86.5 x 127 cm. 7. Aerial perspective of the (U.S.A.), Inc., Research Triangle Art and Architecture Building, Park, North Carolina, 1969. 29. Overall perspective of a Yale University, New Haven, Ink on vellum, 183 x 91.5 cm. corporate office building for Connecticut, 1958. Wisma Dharmala Sakti, Jakarta, 18. Perspective of the cafeteria Ink on vellum, 61 x 76 cm. Indonesia, 1982. for the South Building expan- Print on paper, 89 x 107 cm. 8. Exterior perspective of a park- sion, Burroughs Wellcome & Co. ing garage for 1500 automobiles (U.S.A.), Inc., Research Triangle 30. Entry perspective of a for the City of New Haven, Park, North Carolina, 1982. corporate office building for Connecticut, 1959. Mylar print, 134.5 x 73.5 cm. Wisma Dharmala Sakti, Jakarta, Ink on vellum, 152.5 x 73 .5 cm. Indonesia, 1982. 19. Aerial perspective of a resi- Ink on vellum, 89 x 68.5 cm. 9. Interior perspective of the dential-office-shopping complex Interdenominational Chapel, including a plaza for Hong Fok 31. Courtyard perspective of Tuskegee Institute, Alabama, 1960. Centre, Singapore, 1979. a corporate office building for Print on paper, 127 x 160 cm. Ink on vellum, 132 x 104 cm. Wisma Dharmala Sakti, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1982. 10. Exterior perspective ofa resi- 20. Atrium perspective #1 of Ink on vellum, 79 x 61 cm. dence for Mr. and Mrs. Arthur a residential-office-shopping Milam, Jacksonville, Florida, 1960. complex for Hong Fok Centre, 32. Atrium perspective of a Mylar print, 61 x 71 cm. Singapore, 1979. corporate office building for Ink on vellum, 81x104 cm. Wisma Dharmala Sakti, Jakarta, 11 . Section perspective of the Indonesia, 1982. Christian Science Organization 21. Atrium perspective #2 of Ink on vellum, 132 x 99 cm. Building, University of Illinois, a residential-office-shopping Urbana, 1962. complex for Hong Fok Centre, Ink on vellum, 137 x 71 cm. Singapore, 1979. Ink on vellum, 91.5 x 101.5 cm.