III.  Buildings and Facilities

Eric Hutchinson’s chronicle clearly delineates the process that took place to enlarge the chemistry facilities from the original Main Chemistry Building through the expansion of the chemistry complex to include 1) the Organic Building and 2) the three Stauffer Buildings. It also included some of the preliminary planning for what became the S.G. Mudd Building. The expanding chemistry complex in 1975–76 was described in Hutchinson’s account as follows: “During the 1960s the du Pont company generously provided funds which permitted the Department of Chemistry to employ Edward Leys, an architect in the University planning office, to work with a faculty subcommittee to consider the problems of a new building which would serve the needs of undergraduate teaching and provide some additional research space. That subcommittee performed its work diligently but for some years it appeared unlikely that funds would become available to translate the group’s concepts into physical reality”.

One option not mentioned in the Hutchinson account was the seriously considered possibility of remodeling and enlarging the old Main Chemistry Building to accommodate the increased requirements being imposed on the chemistry facilities. Many of the original buildings on the quad had been gutted and reinforced concrete walls installed behind the sandstone facades, thus successfully converting them to suitable modern academic facilities. Why not do the same with old Main Chemistry? The Stanford Planning Office had hired the architectural firm of Spencer and Busse to work with Chemistry to develop just such plans. Some first floor load-bearing studies were made on the structure with the conclusion that it was sound. Prof. Skoog recalled that there was a study made earlier by Prof. Bert Wells in Civil Engineering that confirmed this conclusion.

In due time William Busse made a formal presentation of his firm’s studies at a meeting to a group including Provost Terman, University Business Manager Alf Brandon, Chemistry Department Planning Committee Profs. Skoog, Eastman, Mosher and architects Busse and Spencer. An interesting aspect of the plan included a large lecture hall that was to occupy the space between the north and south wings of the building where the rear courtyard is now located. This major hall would be without pillars and the ceiling would be suspended from steel girders that would be supported by new reinforced concrete walls on either side. This was a feature that had been used in the reconstruction of the old Physics corner of the outer Quad. Busse’s presentation with suitable diagrams continued until it was interrupted by Provost Terman with the question “What is the estimated cost of the project?” After hesitating, Busse said it was hard to estimate in this early planning stage. Terman insisted on an answer until Busse admitted that a good guess would be in the order of 2 million dollars. Terman then replied: “You are wasting our time; I told you that it had to be under one million. Meeting adjourned!” The end of the meeting really was that abrupt. Terman had not been educated as to how much it was going to cost to replace the old Main Chemistry Building if he were to realize his plans for developing the Chemistry Department. This ended the consideration of renovating old Main Chemistry at that time; however, the question “What will happen to the old Main Chemistry Building?” remains unanswered even at this time.

A basic major problem, other than funding, which was not addressed with remodeling old Main Chemistry was: “How would we be able to teach the laboratory courses while any remodeling was being done?” We could probably solve the lecture and recitation space problem, but laboratories presented a much more difficult problem. The renovation of Main Chemistry was not the answer. But something had to be done. There was no more space for office and laboratories for any new appointments in the Stauffer Buildings; the space in Main Chemistry down to the areas under the lecture hall and the stairways was of such antiquated quality that its occupants really needed new modern laboratory facilities. In addition, there was the added concern about safety during earthquakes. In spite of any consideration of the historical value of the building, from a scientific laboratory viewpoint it was a dinosaur from an earlier era. The inescapable conclusion was that a new building to replace the functions conducted in old Main Chemistry had to be built. To continue with the Hutchinson account: — “a very sharp (and apparently lasting) increase in the number of undergraduate students reading chemistry (as a substantial part of premedical education) convinced the University administration that a new building must be given a high priority. In spite of a tightening financial situation, the Board of Trustees approved the proposal for a building somewhat reduced in scale as compared with the subcommittee’s estimates. Birge Clarke was appointed architect—”.

Seeley G. Mudd Building

The Seeley Mudd Foundation, whose funds came from the Seeley G. Mudd family who owned oil fields in southern California, had supported academic projects in many California universities. Their Foundation now came forward with a generous gift to Stanford that allowed the new Seeley G. Mudd Chemistry building project to proceed. This was a key project in the Terman plan that brought Prof. W.S. Johnson to Stanford as Head of Chemistry in 1960 with the mandate of raising the level of the Stanford department to that of other major chemistry departments in the United States, such as Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Cal Tech and Univ. of Cal Berkeley.


SEELEY G. MUDD BUILDING, dedicated 1977

This was the kind of challenge Prof. Johnson thrived on and with Terman’s strong support he was able to bring it about in a relatively few years. As Prof. Hutchinson said in his chronicle of this period “the changes—were fascinating to participants and spectators alike”. Prof. Johnson detailed the philosophy behind the rebuilding of the Department in his autobiography A Fifty Year Love Affair with Organic Chemistry, elaborated in the section on Faculty.

Birge Clark was retained to develop plans for this new chemistry building that was initially planned to occupy the space where the “temporary” Organic Chemistry Building was located. The first idea was to convert the area directly behind the Main Chemistry building into a mini-quad which would have the three Stauffer buildings with their joining arcade on one side, the new S.G. Mudd building on the museum side (replacing the Organic Chemistry Building), and Biology on the side towards the Main Quad. However, this was not to be since there was no solution to the problem of providing laboratory space for the current occupants of the Organic Chemistry Building (four professors with their 30 or more research students) if the Organic Chemistry Building were to be demolished and the new building constructed in its place. The plans that were finally approved by the Trustees placed the construction of the S.G. Mudd Building in its present location between the Organic Chemistry Building and Campus Drive, to the north of the Stauffer buildings. This new building would contain the main lecture halls, the undergraduate laboratories, department offices, offices for about eight professors and laboratories for their graduate students. It would not be big enough to house the chemistry library or stock rooms. These would have to be located in some temporary place, as yet unidentified.

The planning of S.G. Mudd Building with Birge Clark as the architect was coordinated by a faculty committee chaired by Prof. Skoog who was at the time (1974–75) not only Professor of Analytical Chemistry but also Associate Administrative Head of the Chemistry Department with Prof. Johnson as Executive Head. This was a perfect arrangement since Prof. Skoog was ideally situated to know the physical requirements of the undergraduate courses, as well as the administrative aspects of such a major construction undertaking. Birge Clark, a Stanford graduate of 1914, was very familiar with the Stanford Planning Office and Chemistry, having been the architect for the recently completed Stauffer buildings. As it turned out, this was a propitious time to be designing a new building; the undergraduate laboratory curriculum was undergoing a significant change with innovations that would greatly impact the laboratory design. The move from the old to the new chemistry building would coincide with major changes in the nature of the laboratory course and the design in the new facilities could be made to accommodate these changes. As pointed out in the section on curricula, these changes involved a totally new arrangement for handling student glassware which would be washed, not by each student, but by commercial dishwashing machines operated by chemistry staff personnel. Furthermore, instead of the students occupying one large laboratory, they would be grouped in small sections of 15–20 in separate rooms. Special instruments (infrared and gas chromatography) would be required, preferably located in separate, but adjoining rooms. Other special requirements included an office for a laboratory administrator etc. This new building would feature two lecture rooms, situated side-by-side, one with 100 seats and the second with 300 seats. They would share a lobby that would open onto a courtyard area, affording ample and pleasant space for students to congregate before and after classes or for special seminars such as the many Industrial Affiliate Symposia held by the department. A special gift from the Braun Foundation made these lecture halls possible, the smaller one named the Braun Lecture Hall and the larger, the Braun Auditorium.

In the design of the S.G. Mudd Building, Birge Clark made a special effort to ensure that it would meet the highest earthquake standards. In addition to the regular reinforced concrete construction, there was a central rectangular reinforced concrete core down the middle of the structure that contained the stairwells on both ends as well as enclosed sections carrying air ducts and other utilities and service rooms. This core served as an integral structural unit that anchored the building firmly as one unit. In the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, there were some hairline cracks along a few of the joints but no structural damage and no cost for repairs.

The second floor of the S.G. Mudd Building has a wide, outside reinforced concrete balcony around the building with four stairways leading it to the outside ground level. Each second-floor laboratory has a door opening to this balcony that serves as a fire escape as well as an outside access. The second-floor hallways also open onto this balcony. Stairs connect the third-floor hallways to the second floor and thus the third-floor rooms are also readily accessible to this balcony as a fire escape. This balcony also serves as an overhang to give sun and rain protection to the outside ground floor area, especially on the west side onto which the lecture rooms and the lobby open.

Twenty years after its construction, there was some major remodeling of the ventilation system to comply with changing air quality standards imposed by stricter Santa Clara County regulations. In the summer of 1999, after 23 years of occupancy, a major overhaul of the seating, lighting and projection facilities in the 300-seat Braun Auditorium took place. This Seeley G. Mudd Building has proven to be a well-planned, durable and completely satisfactory replacement of the old Main Building, except for the lack of space for the library, the stockroom and some offices for professors. As we will see, however, only some 20 years later it did not satisfy the Santa Clara County’s more stringent building codes for laboratory facilities handling toxic chemicals.

Insufficient funds were available from the original Mudd Foundation grant to equip and furnish the third floor and some of the first-floor research laboratories. Thus this building was not completely occupied when opened in 1976. However the lecture halls, undergraduate laboratories, department offices and several faculty offices and conference rooms were fully functional. Later, a special gift by the Syntex Corporation allowed completion of the first-floor research laboratories which were then occupied by Profs. John Brauman, Nathan Lewis and Richard Holm. The third-floor laboratories were completed by gifts from the Arthur Varig Daner, the Gates and the Green Foundations and from Mr. and Mrs. Paul Cook. This added space made possible the new appointments of Prof. Paul Wender from Harvard University in 1981 and Prof. Barry Trost from the University of Wisconsin in 1987.

The S.G. Mudd Building did not solve all of the space problems. Several faculty members with their research students still occupied the old Main Chemistry Building (Frank Weinhold, John Ross, Michael Fayer, Wray Huestis and Eric Hutchinson). Furthermore the stockroom, machine shop and glassblowing shop remained in the basement while the chemistry library occupied the first and second floors of the north wing.

William M. Keck Science “Surge” Building

Chemistry was not the only department suffering from the pressure of limited space for expansion. Biology especially was overcrowded and Chemical Engineering had outgrown its quarters in Stauffer III. At that time, in the early 1980s, the University was initiating a study of a major development to be known as the Science and Engineering Quad (Western campus addition, SEQ). Again, a basic problem was where to quarter the faculty and research students while new buildings were being constructed. These ambitious plans, at a total estimated cost of $125 million, required removing some existing buildings. A solution that the Stanford Planning Office developed was a “surge” building—a building that would be so constructed with easily repositioned walls and flexible arrangements for utilities that it could accommodate multipurpose laboratories and could be readily modified to adapt to changing needs. This was the Keck Building, initially planned for occupancy by the Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Biology departments for their expanding research programs. It was planned that the Biology research activities would move in and stay until their new research facility, now known as the Gilbert Bioscience Building, for which they already had funds, could be constructed. When the Gilbert Building was completed, after about three years, the Biology research groups moved out and Chemical Engineering “surged” into the vacated space; thus the Keck Building now is occupied half by Chemistry and half by Chemical Engineering.


WILLIAM M. KECK SCIENCE BUILDING, dedicated 1988

William M. Keck willed to the University, in trust, $5.6 million in Superior Oil Company stock in 1964. The trust was dissolved in 1984 at which time the value of the original gift had increased to $35 million. Stanford Trustees in 1984 approved use of a portion of this for the Keck Science Building. The design emphasized flexibility, but in reality broad designation for the use of the space was made very early. The location was in the parking lot adjacent to the Organic Building along Roth Way between Main Chemistry and the Rodin Sculpture Gardens of the Museum.

The Keck Building is designed with two separate, mirror-image halves that are three-story units connected in the middle by a full three-story high spacious atrium. On the second and third floors a balcony hallway surrounds this atrium; each of these floors has two conference rooms, one on the east and the other on the west side of this open atrium. Hallways lead from this central section to the offices and laboratories. The elevator and stairways are located off this atrium that is the main entrance to the building.

The architect/builders were McLellary and Copenhagen. Prof. John Ross, department Chairman at that time, described the first meeting of representatives of the occupying departments with Steve Copenhagen. Ross and the others were prepared for a general discussion of the plans and requests for needed space. Instead, Steve Copenhagen said that they planned to start construction in one month and were ordering the steel for the building in the next week. The external size of the structure of the building was set and the detailed planning of the interior would proceed while the steel structure was being erected. He said this was not a radical concept in building construction, but was not commonly employed. It was used in the construction of some buildings currently being built in the Stanford Industrial Park. He reported that the idea had not been used more often because it was thought to be more costly, but in this case, was necessary because of the time schedule for the finished structure. So construction of the Keck Building started months before discussions and details for the interior laboratories and offices were complete. The major feature to accommodate the flexibility in use of the building by different groups was an extra “interstitial” floor above each of the three main floors. The building actually had six floors, three of which were about eight foot “attics” and contained all the facilities—gas, water, steam, ventilation ducts, vacuum line system, electrical conduits etc.—that were fed from above to the laboratories on the floor below. At the end of each floor, farthest from the atrium, was a section that was the full height of combined regular floor and interstitial space. It was used for the heating and ventilation machinery for that floor in that half of the building. The interior walls could be easily taken out and the configuration of the laboratories expanded and changed to fit the requirements of a new occupant.

A most interesting feature of the Keck Building is the material used for the external facing. It has the appearance of solid sandstone but is actually blocks of polystyrene, up to twelve feet long, about one foot deep and two feet high. A person could easily lift one such piece and put it in place. The surface of these blocks was colored and textured to achieve a fair simulation of real sandstone. These were installed after the entire steel and window framework was in place. The seams were closed and the blocks held in place with a silicone sealant. This facade is obviously an excellent thermal insulator and was installed with great ease and rapidity in comparison with real sandstone. It seems to have weathered very well, but perhaps the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake opened some of the seams so that water leaked in around the windows during heavy rains. In the summer of 1999 it was necessary to recaulk many of the seams and spray the surface with a waterproofing sealant. This type of outer surface does not appear to have been used on any other new building in the Campus West Addition. The building was completed in record time with the first occupants moving in in January 1986. It was formally dedicated on April 2, 1986 with members of the Keck family and Keck Foundation being present in the impressive atrium of the building.

In the summer of 1999, when the earthquake retrofitting and renovation of Stanford Museum was being completed, a modern sculpture that had been located outside the main entrance to the Museum was moved into the center of the atrium of the Keck Building. It is a striking addition in an appropriate location. This art piece is a bronze cube, about five feet on each side, balanced on one corner. The piece was “Given in memory of Pamela Djerassi, 1971, by her parents 1977–78.” The artist is Amaldo Pomodoro, Italy, 1926 and titled “Cubic 1966–67, Bronze 1/2”.

Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Library / Organic Chemistry Building

When the Keck building was complete, the occupants of the “temporary” cement block Organic Chemistry Building moved into Keck and their vacated quarters were gutted of all non weight-bearing walls and the building remodeled for the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Library. Originally this building was constructed in 1949 with University funds when Prof. Leighton was Department Head. It was occupied in 1950 by Profs. Noller, Eastman, Bonner and Mosher with their graduate and undergraduate research students. It served its purpose well for 36 years, but by 1986 it fell far short of modern laboratory standards with its wooden hoods and table tops, its open outdoor sumps for laboratory waste water and lack of proper heating system. Now as the new library building, it could look ahead for a second life. And it proved to be an excellent solution to the library problem. One feature was a section of compact shelving for the older, lesser-used, bound journals. Massive rows of shelves are stacked against each other, but in rows with a handle at the end of each row of shelves. Thus with very little force, the whole row of shelves can be made to move apart and give an entry space. This manual system has worked without complications since its installation while an electrically controlled system in the Medical School’s Lane Library was frequently not working and was recently replaced by a manual system.

This is the Swain library that has now been in use for fourteen years in this location. Its storage capacity for the increasing number of volumes has become inadequate; it seems that the need for additional space never ceases. Before 1962 the Chemistry Library was located in two rooms on the second floor of old Main Chemistry. The room resembled a scene from an old English novel. Two walls were filled with bound journals from the floor to the 12 ft. high ceiling. A ladder along each wall ran on a rail at the top, which permitted access to the highest shelves. Miss Mildred Hall (Chemistry major, class of ’23, M.A. ’24) who was the lecture demonstrations person also served as librarian. The library was open during daytime hours and users checked out books on the honor system. The graduate students and faculty had keys to this room for after-hours use, a tradition that has carried over for the present library. This turn-of-the-century space and location became totally inadequate for a modern chemistry department and in 1962 the walls of a lecture room and offices in the northeast corner of the first floor of Main Chemistry were reinforced from the foundations to the second floor to be earthquake safe and the room converted to a modern and spacious library, enlarged to include the Chemical Engineering collection. Mrs. Florence Furst was appointed as full time librarian. It was dedicated as the Swain Library of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering in April 1962, in honor of Prof. Robert Eckles Swain, a former Department Head. His portrait and a brass plaque, which reads as follows, were installed on that occasion:

“Swain Library of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
Dedicated April 1962 in Memory of
Robert Eckles Swain  1875–1961
Member of Stanford Faculty  1898–1940
Executive Head, Dept of Chemistry  1917–1940
Acting President of Stanford University  1929–1933”

When the library was moved to its new quarters in the remodeled Organic Chemistry Building, this portrait and plaque were installed in the new location.

Chemistry Stockroom

Even with the completion of the Keck Building and the renovated Organic Chemistry Building, the chemistry stockroom remained in the basement of Main Chemistry. This problem was solved in about 1988 by moving it into a triple modular, mobile home type structure, which was installed between the Organic Chemistry Building and the S.G. Mudd Building. The stockroom takes up less room now than in the past because fewer organic chemicals are stored for checking out. It is now quite convenient to order chemicals by computer directly from the supplier. Delivery by air from Sigma Aldrich Company requires only one or two days, unless the substance ordered has been banned from shipping by air. In addition, since most of the research experiments are carried out on a much smaller scale than previously, starting materials are ordered in considerably smaller amounts. Sylvia Barton, who has been with our stock room for many years, took over its management from Chuck Murden who retired about 1990.

Soon after the stockroom was moved out of the basement of old Main Chemistry Building, which was then totally unoccupied, the University Planning Office declared the building closed and unsafe for occupancy because of possible earthquake hazard.

“Wake” for Old Main Chemistry

Some of the chemistry faculty members, thinking that the old Main Chemistry Building should not be decommissioned without some kind of a celebration of its 80 years of service, suggested to the University Development Office that a “wake” be held for the building with all Chemistry alumni invited to attend. The message came back that the last thing they were interested in was “something as negative as a wake”. We concluded that there were no Irishmen involved in that decision.

Nevertheless, we went ahead with plans for such a celebration in collaboration with the Stanford Historical Society. We received reluctant permission from the Planning Office, making an exception, for a few hours, of the condemnation of the building as earthquake unsafe. Invitations were sent to Stanford Historical Society members and all Chemistry alumni in the Bay Area and environs to join in a celebration on Jan. 24, 1988. The affair included guided tours through the old Main Chemistry Building, followed by a reception in the atrium of the Keck Building and a lecture “History of the Old Chemistry Building and the Early Days of the Stanford Chemistry Department” by Prof. Eric Hutchinson in the Braun Lecture Hall of the S.G. Mudd Building. The event was a big success with about 300 in attendance. We received letters from individuals in more distant locations regretting that they had not been notified. The oldest alumnus present was Duncan Stewart from San Jose who had graduated 66 years earlier, in the class of 1922. Since this occasion the old Main Chemistry Building has been officially closed, surrounded by a chain-linked fence.

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

On October 17, 1989 at 5:04 PM, the Loma Prieta earthqake occurred. The Keck Building was built to the earthquake standards that by then were well developed. The steel I-beam frame was strong, well braced and slightly flexible. There was no apparent structural damage to the building; only a few hairline cracks showing on the paint on interior non-structural walls. Perhaps the earthquake also opened cracks between the styrofoam blocks, causing leaks in the rainy season.

However, there was considerable clean-up work to be done in all the laboratories, as shown in the pictures here. Although all shelves in the Keck Building had been equipped with a one-inch high front lip to prevent bottles from sliding off, bottles on the shelves facing north jumped over the lip and littered the desks and floors. On the opposite wall the bottles were jarred to the back of the shelf. Refrigerators on installation had been secured to the walls, but the doors of those refrigerators and cupboards facing north flew open and the contents tumbled to the floor; creating a huge jumble of broken glass, bottles and their contents. Compressed gas cylinders had been securely fastened to walls or desks by strong chains. However, many were jiggled loose and slipped out from under moorings. In spite of these and many special situations, there were no fires, no serious injuries or accidents involving falling objects. There were many scared laboratory workers, especially several foreign postdoctoral students who had not been indoctrinated in the California attitude toward earthquakes.

Old Main Chemistry did show some hairline cracks between sandstone blocks; the one remaining main central chimney, which had survived the 1906 earthquake, was shaken down; a large sandstone block from the chimney landing squarely on a car parked (illegally) behind the building in the loading zone of the courtyard. The large block carried down a certain amount of red tile debris from the roof as it fell. The picture of this damaged car was widely used in news reports. The earthquake set off the automatic sprinkler system causing wet plaster to fall from the ceilings. Thus the timing on condemning the old building had been fortuitous.


Dislodged chimney stones from old Main Chemistry Building made direct hit on car in the courtyard.

The question concerning what will happen to this old historic Main Chemistry Building arises repeatedly. In 1989 there were rumors that the facade would be saved and perhaps the building converted to a joint chemistry-biology library. Now in 2000, it has become a real issue because of the pressure for more building space and because the square footage maximum area imposed by Santa Clara County based on some previous agreements has almost been reached. A major article written by Karen Bartholomew appeared in the spring 1999 issue of the Stanford Historical Society’s publication Sandstone and Tile. It detailed the history of the old Main Chemistry building, including the role that Jane Stanford played in its planning and construction as well as how it survived the 1906 earthquake with only minor damage (the center front of the building fell out and all of the many chimneys which were used to ventilate the laboratories and lecture halls tumbled down and were never replaced). The article made the point that this building was of great historical significance to the University and should be saved. On the other hand, the experience of the University in remodeling old buildings to meet modern building standards indicates it is much more expensive to remodel than to build new. This is especially so for laboratory type buildings. Accordingly if any part of the old Main Chemistry Building is saved, it probably will be for offices or for library usage; no recent official comment has been made.

Planned Lokey Chemistry-Biology Research Building

In June of 2000 the University announced that a new $50 million research laboratory building, made possible by a gift of $20 million from Lorry Lokey (class of 1949, Communications major) was being planned for completion by Sept 2002. About 2/3 of the building would house Chemistry research and 1/3 would house Biology. The remaining $30 million will be funded by institutional debt served by general funds. The necessity for this building for Chemistry arose because the laboratories in Seeley G. Mudd Building for synthesis research no longer meet the Santa Clara County strict building codes. This will be a three-story, 85,000 sq. ft. structure located along Roth Way where the S.G. Mudd building parking lot is currently situated. The construction of this new space will require the demolition of the temporary modular stockroom and the Organic Building (now the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Library). These facilities, in some way, will be incorporated into the renovated space vacated by the synthesis laboratories in the S.G. Mudd Building.

The lack of sufficient space has hindered the ability of the Biological Sciences Department to make important new faculty appointments; this new Lokey building will allow Biology to proceed with its plans for the future.

Previous: Undergraduate Curricula | Up: Contents | Next: Students