Cooper and 40 Bond

Posted on November 10, 2009 by Elvira

The Cooper Union

The visit started with one my favorite pieces of architecture: the brand new Cooper Union building. It is one of the most fascinating buildings in New York City. The first apparent reason is that there are so many details to look at. From the font of the letters – The Cooper Union – to the texture of the shape of the clones, the eye never rests. As a compliment, Performa (the performance biannual) chose their transparent lobby as their headquarters. The building inspires a game of hide and seek. The facade hides the interior and the crack shows a part of it. Moreover, the building appears very different during the day than during the night. The interior illumination magically erases the metallic pierced facade to show exactly how the inside looks. During the day, we only see the strange pattern made by the holes and polished patches of the exterior.

40 Bond

The concept of the facade plays a central role in urbanism. What do we see of the city when we travel it but the facades of buildings. The Center for Architecture’s exhibition CONTEXT/CONTRAST is indirectly point out to this idea of changing the visual impression of a neighborhood by changing the facades of buildings. The 40 Bond design is focused on the idea of the facade. It transformed an ephemeral facade – the graffitis added to buildings – into a concrete facade. The pattern is so abstract and strickingly contrastes with the straight lines of the upper facade. Here, the facade doesn’t conceals but shows.

Posted in Field Visit | Tagged , | Comments Off on Cooper and 40 Bond

The sky is the limit

Posted on November 10, 2009 by Elvira

A visit to the Skyscraper Museum – China prophecy: Shanghai

Skyscrapers are the modern building for many reason. They are safe because of the steel structure. Further, they are very productive, for a small passel of land, many units of space can be sold and occupied. The fact that in side they are divided in rectangular units, this
Towerstype of building is very versatile. It can be used for offices and than can be transformed in a condominiums rental.  All those aspects make skyscrapers very standard. However, city planners and commissioners seek to find ways to identify their buildings to modernity and to their city more than other buildings around the world. Shanghai shows this appetite for becoming the modern city of Asia. They plan to build higher and more impressive buildings than cities that are seen as competitor for the “modern award”.

Here again the design of the building is synonym of power. It symbolizes the place and the ideal of the builders. A great example for this is the change of deign for the Shanghai World Financial Center from a circular hole (at the top) to a rectangular hole. The reason being that the commissioners thought the circle would be interpreted as a reference to Japan’s power.

There is no doubt that in designing the modern city, planners have to acknowledge the symbolism of buildings. To build high is not enough. You have to built an original building that inspires power, freedom and grandiosity all at once. The Shanghai Tower will illustrate this once it is finished. It is of the highest building in the worlds with a design that respects any standard of modernity. A spiral shape to inspire progress and  a transparent facade made of glass, the material of choice for modern structures. The building will be used for multiple purposes. It will contain offices, indoor gardens, residential structures, observatory deck etc… This poly-valence underlines the desire to show the world how Chinese modernity brings together all the layers of society in a common space.

Posted in Field Visit | Tagged , | Comments Off on The sky is the limit

Robert Moses, the corrupted czar or the father of modern NY?

Posted on November 3, 2009 by Elvira

The great problem posed by Robert Moses is whether this city can build what’s needed while adhering to democratic principles. – Robert A. Caro

Robert Moses incontestably changed the urban scheme of New York City. He changed the way we move inside and out from New York and the way we conceive New York as a modern city.  In order to do so, he had to make  compromises of the size of his monumental achievements.  Could it have been done in another way, in a better way that would not have displaced people or deepen racial segregation?

Moses arrived at a moment in the history of the city where the rationale behind urban life was no longer the people but the car. The car promised a new mean of transportation and freedom for the growing middle-class of NY.  With less working hours and more buying power, middle-class New Yorkers began to define their life not only around needs but also around desires. Moses answered their call while satisfying his dream of power. He was neither a professional designer (architecte or engineer) nor an elected official which gives him a contestable auhority. However, his strong understanding of how power functions in governmental institutions made him the greater builder of the century . During his 50 years “in power”, he managed to be decisive for the construction of seven bridges, many parkways, beaches, parks and some of the staple building of NY (Lincoln Center and UN Head quarters among others).

Moses had the obvious tendency to privilege his vision and his need for power over New Yorkers’ vision of their city and wellbeing. For example in the case of the Bronx Expressway he chose to destroy an entire neighborhood over destroying a strategic point for Bronx corrupted officials. Is this example symptomatic for Robert Moses corrupted ways or does it show the generalized corruption in American official institutions? Might be both. Robert Moses was a corrupted man but he played by the rules of the democratic game, he never infringed any law or took any monetary advantage from his position.

Le Corbusier thought of the city as “dispersed, rational, flowing, radiant and decentralized – a city built as much around the needs of the automobile as around the needs of people” and so did Moses. He had a coherent vision behind his plans and not a blinded thirst for power. Thus, he managed to implement his vision to open and organize the city with monumental public work. I think that it is what NY needed back then and that the City would have never become the example for the construction of modern cities around the world.

During Robert Moses’ reign the value of his impact over New York transcends the corruption and the prejudices behind it; put in other words, the end justifies the means.

———————————————————-

Further readings:

A Tale of Two Cities

How Robert A. Caro came to write The Power Brooker

Complex, Contradictory Robert Moses

Posted in Readings | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Robert Moses, the corrupted czar or the father of modern NY?

3 men, 1 city

Posted on October 27, 2009 by Elvira

DeWitt Clinton John Jacob AstorAlexander Hamilton

There are periods in the history of a city when things changes so fast that after only 2 decades the place is unrecognizable. The early 19th. century was this kind of period for New York City. In 20 years, the population doubled, the economical activity was blooming, the grid dramatically changed the landscape and overall the place of the city in the world changed.

A paramount figure of that time was John Jacob Astor. He started his commercial endeavor in the city in the fur trade. The first great real estate broker of NYC, he bought most of the empty parcels of land north of the city in order to resell them for a considerable profit. He was also a kind of visionary. Betting on the fact that the city would grow enough in his life time that he could sell all his holdings, he managed to participate to the first real estate boom NY faced.

Another pivotal figure was DeWitt Clinton who is responsible for the first two mega projects that would make way for the future of the city. As early as 1800, the city had this visionary energy. People saw opportunities at every corner and took them. The only limit was the one’s own imagination. The turn of the century seemed to promise a city forever growing, expanding and prospering. Clinton’s implementation of the grid and construction of the Erie Canal added up to that spirit.

Surely the most important New Yorker of that time, Alexander Hamilton paved the way for New York to become the great city it is and for Astor and Clinton to prosper. At the fragile age of 18, Hamilton was already a successful business man. He is the emblematic figure for self-made men. He educated himself in philosophy, military strategy and law among others. With his economical power and his brilliance he succeeded in making a name for himself in politics. Like many New Yorkers after him, economical involvement resulted in political involvement. He over saw the future if the city as a place of manufacturing and industry and most importantly as a place of social fluidity. His vision and his hard working changed NY forever. Nevertheless, because of his tremendous power he made enough enemies to be forced to retire outside of the city. From there he continued to be influential but he felt he was not anymore the central figure he wished to be. The end of his life was not rewarding compared with the influence he had on the history of the city and of America. in this sense he wrote to a friend before dieing in the infamous duel: “Mine is an odd destiny”.

Posted in Readings | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 3 men, 1 city

Wall Street Then and Now

Posted on October 20, 2009 by Elvira

wall-street-sign The street known today as Wall Street, was once called Het Cingle. At that time, Manhattan was a Dutch settlement and there was an actual wall along the street. actually the wall was a fortification intended to protect the settlement from natives or other bellicose intrusions. This rampart was fortified during Stuyevan’s rule using slave labor (which became common in New York by the 17th century). when the British came, they wanted to extend the city and so destroyed the original wall to construct another fortification north in 1699. The story of wall street is one of strategies. At first it was a strategic separation from the natives. Then it become a point in the city where businessmen would gather – it is said under a tree – to informally trade. Then, this gathering became so important that the Stock Exchange was born.

The path that makes Wall street was early on an important commercial and residential place. Along with Broadway, they become the first mythic streets of NYC. The most amazing pictures of Wall Street are those taken after the crash of 1929. The street symbolizes the growth and decay of capitalism at once and this is what makes it so special.

Crash, 1929.

Posted in Readings | Comments Off on Wall Street Then and Now

Lower Manhattan Tour

Posted on October 20, 2009 by Elvira

Trinity Church

It amaze me to think that walking in Battery Park centuries ago, one would walk on water. Land was moved from one part of the island to create another, it seems the island is a big piece of plasticine. Furthermore, there actually are excavations in NYC. When thinking about excavations one thinks about an ancient city with a heavy history like Cairo or Athens. Nevertheless, Manhttan has its own history that has been covered by centuries of change and construction. Visiting Castle Clinton, is like visiting. You finally realize the evident past of NY, a past in which buildings were made of stones. The same is true for monuments, we have few monuments in NY to remind us of its past. The city seems to be an instantaneous place, she seems to be born everyday anew. The not-so-imposing monument with the beaver steal on it recalls our Dutch past. The few buildings left down-town with the design of their facade imitating 17th century Dutch facades are also there to discreetly recall this forgotten past.

Trinity Church might be our monument to the past. Even if it is not the original building that we see today we still get a sense of a rich historical past. If you know that Hamilton was buried on its grounds, you would look at it as a sanctuary of NY’s history. Additionally, it faces one of oldest streets of NY: Wall Street. This street is the emblem of the high and lows of capitalism. To see if the economy is doing well one has only to take a look at Wall Street. The mood of the street would tell you the mood of the economy.

Posted in Field Visit | Comments Off on Lower Manhattan Tour

The High Line

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Elvira

From wild and abandoned…  Before

to controlled and populated… After…with a wild touch.


For now, the High Line is a bit overrated. There is not much to see and the experience of the neighborhoods surrounding it is limited. However, what is visitable now announces a great future for the High Line. When it would be finished – hopefully it would – the High Line promise to provide a unique New York experience. When more local vendors will show up – on our trip I only saw a tiny cupcake trolley – it would bring so many people to the HL that it risks to be overcrowded all year round. Anyway, the landscape design looks in real much better than it looks on pictures. The reason is that any piece of the HL relates to its environment and cannot be appreciated alone. The benches design is a symbol for how the HL is intended to look and feel. The HL conveys a simple concept of integrated natural envrionement embelished by the human hand to make it confortable both physically and visually.  The smell of wild grass, the mix of colors, the strange plants that seem to have naturally popped-up there etc… all give a feeling of controlled wilderness. Industrial chic has many ramifications, nevertheless the HL shows an example of the transformation of an early 20th century structure to a 21st century architectural staple.

The highline is a project initiatited by the Friends of the High Line (a non-profit, private partner to the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation), thus it is a grassroots project. Neither the government or the real estate moguls challenged its destruction. The design of the entire park is under the supervision of architects Diller Scofidio + Renfro. If you have a look at their website, their portfolio seems so extensive (The Alice Tully Hall at Lincoln Center, The School of American Ballet among others ), that you wonder how come they didn’t became a house name for NY earlier. The High Line would certainly be the turning point in their popularization. One of their projects, the Nolita Townhouse, shows their unique view of what modern architecture should be. An architecture that fits in its environment by creating a dialogue with its surroundings while remain a singular complex.

Reusing a space to transform it in something dramatically different is not new. Nevertheless, what the HL is planned to be would completely take the notion of space recycling to another level. It makes me think of a huge art piece conceived for the people of New York. The views that it gives of the city and the different neighborhood has never before been experienced like that. It would be similar to a helicopter flight at low altitude over the west-side. Although the flight would be free! It is hard to believe that it is a public space and contractors won’t make it a high-end sports club, spa, casino, restaurant, or anything else that involves big money. Anyone from the city would have access to it, tourists included, and I believe that as Central Park brings together all the levels of NY’s society, so will the HL.

Map

Posted in Field Visit | Tagged , | Comments Off on The High Line

Modernity. Say what?

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Elvira

“Everything is absurd, but nothing is shocking, because everyone is accustomed to everything” – Rousseau about the modern city, 1761.

Architecture has an ambivalent power. We think of architecture as a mean to build buildings that succeed in their design to provide what the building is intended for. Nevertheless, sometimes buildings are intended for an agenda. It is supposed to be for the people who inhabit it; to be efficient and pleasing for them. However, more often, imposing works of architecture glorify the person who financed the project or sometimes the architect himself (a prominent example is the buildings designed by Frank Gehry).

If architecture has the power to impress and intimidate, who else than political leaders would want to use it for their own goals. A very relevant example of this phenomenon is the Hands of Victory  in Baghdad, Iraq. The double arch was commissioned by former president Saddam Hussein and designed by Adil Kamil and Mohammed Ghani (inspired by a sketch made by Hussein himself!). The arch was to represent the military power of Iraq over Iran. During the American invasion of Iraq, it was one of the first monument to be looted and up for destruction. However, the disablement was postponed because of the strong negative symbolic impact it would have on the Iraqi population.

Thus, architecture has also a symbolic power carried by many aspects of the project: who built it, what for, what is it used for, who designed it etc… a building can carry a message and this message can be shaped by the person who has the power to make make the building. Too often, this power is in the hands of the commissioner, as to say the entity with the money.

Even so, the Edifice Complex argues that “architectural forms need not in themselves be the embodiment of a dictatorship”. This exemplifies modernity: an atomization of responsibility and involvement. The architect designs, the politician deals with power, the population deals with ideology and symbolism. Moreover, conceiving modernity for the people is a paradox. Making a pure object to be used by a society with a lifestyle in flux and constantly changing is impossible. The result is  a city for the sake of a city and not for its inhabitant, a city that is not organic but conceptual, a city like Brasilia.

Posted in Readings | Tagged | Comments Off on Modernity. Say what?

Museum with a view

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Elvira

Impressions on the Panorama of New York @ Queens Museum of Art

© Elvira Lupsa

© Elvira Lupsa

Arriving at the Queens Museum of Art (for the first time) I’ve realized how different it looks from museums in Manhattan. There was no coat check. Instead there was an unsupervised metallic hanger. This detail alone made me think how differently ran are cultural institutions across the five boroughs.

Entering the exhibition room, the first thing that caught my attention was the miniature planes landing and taking-off at La Guardia Airport. The planes were the only thing moving in the model and their shadow upon the buildings made the feeling of watching New York form the air realistic. However, they made me laugh because there were only two of them. When you think about it,  New York’s landscape is also shaped by what is going on above the ground. Planes, helicopters and advertising dirigibles (my favorites) compose New York busy skyline like automobiles compose its street landscape.

It was a strange feeling to be looking at a model and in the same time being inside what the model reproduces. Thus, I’ve was struck by the size of New York. The model was much vaster than I’ve expected. So many streets, houses, buildings, parks, churches etc… were filling my eyes to make me realize that I’ve actually seen in reality only a fraction of New York. I would say that New York daily life is focused on the neighborhood you are living in. New York has many cores or center of activities and each neighborhood provides its inhabitants with all their needs (deli, pharmacy, park, cultural institution etc.). Consequently, there is no need to to travel far from home each day, so the only place which structure seems familiar is your neighborhood. The rest looks like another city to you.

Moreover, New York looks so different according to each neighborhood. Some neighborhoods show off an architectural pattern and other seem more organic or eclectic. From the distance of perspective the model gives us, we can appreciate also the elevation and the concentration of architectural landscape. It made me think that a map with the density of population would not follow the same pattern (high and dense building in the financial district are not inhabited by a dense population).

The model brought back to my memory my repeated landings at JFK and the ponds (Jamaica Bay) I always look at from my window. I never managed to figure out where they are located in New York. It is so different to look at New York from a flat map than to look at it from a 3D model. Even on Google Earth the impression is minimized by the fact that you are looking at a flat screen. Only this model made me apprehend New York as I do from a plane.

Something also striking was that it took me 20 minutes before seeing that the Twin Towers were reproduced in the model. I never saw the Twin Towers in reality, but from what the model depicted they surely were a very impressive piece of architecture. They dominate the city landscape as they dominate pictures of New York took before 9/11.

Looking at the model from the highest point of the room, I wondered about borders. What are the borders that limited neighborhoods? Where does Murray Hill starts and end? One could see that the border between Long Island (part of New York State) and Long Island (part of New York city aka. Queens and Bronx) is very arbitrary. The model becomes black after a straight line somewhere east of JFK. It was very strange to conceive that people live at “the border of New York city”.

Posted in Field Visit | Tagged | Comments Off on Museum with a view

Early politics in New Amsterdam

Posted on September 15, 2009 by Elvira

Russell Shorto

Island at the Center of the World

New Amsterdam

In early 17th century, Manhattan was not a village anymore. fourty five thousands people lived on the island. In the beginning the cohabitation between natives and settlers went well. Certainly because they depended on the natives’ knowledge of the land, agriculture and fur trade. Moreover the micro-society of Manhattan was based on a religious tolerance and thus the population was tolerant of different cultures – the Lenape were certainly seen as one of the many ethnicities that were around. Most of all, the idea that diversity enhances business sustained the status-quo among the inhabitants.

All this societal ideas are coming directly from the Dutch culture of that time. As early as 16th century (yes 500 years ago), life in Amsterdam was one of cultural diversity and possibility for all t succeed was offered. New Amsterdam was then thought on this ideas.

All was good and well for the populace before Kieft arrive. The city was indeed a bit chaotic, with taverns at every corner and an idle population. However prosperity was not completely compromised. Then settled on the island a very determined man: Willem Kieft. He came to New Amsterdam with the firm idea that power can only be expressed in an authoritarian way through the power of life and death.

What was latter called the bloody war or Kieft’s war came about only because of this man. He persuaded his population that natives should not be trusted and persuaded natives that they should not trust the other tribes but their own. Pushing everyone against an “other” who is considered to be evil is a traditional way to start a conflict.

Posted in Readings | Tagged | Comments Off on Early politics in New Amsterdam