Seminar Architectural Studies - AR1Au030
Aldo Rossi _ Architecture of the city
Teacher
_ S. Valla
Students
_ Mauro Lugaresi _ 9532257
_ Ingrid van der Lans _ 1089757
_ Lenny Vink _ 1142267
Fall semester _ January 2006
Content table
1) Introduction
p. 3
2) Scheme notions Rossi
p. 4
3) Analysis statement and methodology
p. 5 - 7
4) Definition of notions
p. 8
5) Analysis projects
p. 9
A) Plan Friedrichstadt
B) Plan Voisin
C) Rockefeller center
p. 9 - 15
p. 16 - 19
p. 20 - 24
6) Conclusions
p. 25
7) Bibliography
p. 26
2
1) Introduction
During the seminar architectural studies we studied the book of Aldo Rossi, The architecture
of the City. Aldo Rossi was an important member of the Neo-Rationalism movement ‘La
Tendenza’. This movement was a reaction to the Modern movement, for them the function
did not provide the form, but the form gives the reason for the functions. They focused on
the importance of the history, the memory of the city. The architecture of the city is an
important writing of this movement. This essay is the result of our study, we made a scheme
to connect the notions Rossi used in his book. We used a set of notions to analyse three
projects according to Rossi’s theory. In the end of this essay we will compare the projects
and the theories behind the projects.
3
2) Scheme notions Rossi
This scheme is result of our study of the book Architecture of the city, in one scheme we
show how all the notions of Rossi are related to each other and above all how the notions
together built up the architecture of the city.
4
3) Analysis statement and methodology
Statement:
Scale and monument
Koolhaas states in ‘Delirious New York’ that every building project with a mass from a certain
scale becomes automatically a monument, the so called auto-monument.
Even when the different functions within the buildings are not having a monumental
expression. The most pure form of the auto-monument is the skyscraper.
We take this statement of Rem Koolhaas as our hypotheses and aspect that the projects of
Le Corbusier, Hilberseimer and The Rockefeller Center become a monument because of their
scale.
Monument
A monument according to Rossi is an element of permanence. This permanence can have
two directions: a formal permanence, through which it becomes pathological, not being able
to change function, and thus becoming just a physical sign of the past, a symbol of the past;
on the other hand a permanence can be vital, propelling, meaning that it is able to change
function over time and continue participating in the development and changing of the city. In
this last case it becomes more than a sign of history or collective memory: it continues to
have a meaning for the city of today and becomes more than a symbol.
A propelling element is defined as a primary element of a city, where Rossi adds that a
monument is always a primary element, the opposite not being always true. But otherwise
he does not state that a pathological permanence is not a monument. Here we have
difference in meaning. It seems that there are two types of monuments: one in relation to
how we experience it and the other in relation to it’s meaning for the city. So on the one
hand we have ‘a historical building’ as the most general definition of a monument
(containing both pathological and propelling ones) and more specific a building or built fact
that has a permanence thanks to its vital role in the city.
Koolhaas also talks about the monument in his “Delirious New York’. We can derive his
definition of a monument from his discourse on the auto-monument. He states that a
building automatically becomes a monument when it is blown up to a certain scale. He says
that we conceive a skyscraper automatically as monument, or a premises of it. It
automatically becomes a symbol, but an empty one. To fill this gap it has to accommodate
‘the change which is life’. This latter notion is of course very intimately related to Rossi’s
notion of propellingness, as to the notion of the architecture of the city. Monumentality to
Koolhaas has a much more symbolical meaning, being the physical manifestation of an
abstract ideal, an institution of exceptional importance, a three-dimensional, readable
articulation of a social hierarchy, a memorial. In fact he uses permanence as a
formal/aesthetic quality of the auto-monument, where its meaning can be acquired like
publicity on a billboard. The auto-monument seems to constitute a new type of monument
(having an impact factor similar to monuments like the pyramids or obelisks that we find in
history), but needing an actual function and even the possibility to change it to be able to
survive or even exist. So now form is not the only factor of its permanence, but its abilty to
change it, to house whatever it can or needs to.
5
So we can conclude that the notions of permanence are quite similar in Rossi’s approach as
well as in Kollhaas’, but with subtle differences: Rossi’s monument is a permanent element in
form due to its continuously propelling function, while Koolhaas’ auto-monument is already a
monument in form, that has to acquire a propelling factor to be able to have continuity.
The starting point is different, but the result is the same: a permanence of form with a
propelling character for the city.
So in conclusion Rossi defines the monument much more thorough, not just in its historical
and formal/aesthetical meaning, but their views on propelling quality and the transformation
of the city is very similar. It is mainly the vocabulary that is different.
As a matter of fact a remarkable thing is that Aldo Rossi regards American architecture as a
perfect example of his theory of the ‘architecture of the city’, because of its primary
elements, monuments and parts. The American city plans that were made two hundred year
ago consist of these elements. In the introduction to the First American Edition he after
visiting and working in America he can say that the American city is the confirmation of his
book; ‘New York is a city of monuments such as I did not believe could exist’ A. Rossi. The
historical aspect of these monuments can be found in the ‘style’, He sees the framework of
the American urban context as a new style that arose through the scale, and can be
regarded as a style like Renaissance and Gothic architecture.
Scale
Rossi does not explicitly talk about the relation of monument and scale. He describes the
problems relating to the scale of the city, but towards scale of an individual project he can
only state that a lot of wrong conclusions are drawn from the ‘new scale’ of cities. These
huge proportions distort the relation man and space, which should be avoided. Although he
acknowledges that the dimensions of (city-) space have grown, normal relations of man and
space are still possible. Adapting a bigger scale should be avoided seems the message.
Koolhaas on the other hand underscores the impact of large dimensions, its beauty also (in
the case of the skyscraper), but also makes clear that this impact has no actual meaning. In
its being a symbol it is not one of history or the collective, just of itself, an empty one that
has to be filled by program.
6
Definition scheme:
We take monuments and primary elements as the subject of the analysis of the projects. The
notion permanence and the subnotions propelling and pathological will help us to extract the
specific elements in the plans.
Subjects
Notions
subnotions
Propelling
Monument
Permanence
Primary element
Pathological
Methodology:
To get a clear comparison in the end we will first define the subject, notions and subnotions
according to the meaning of Aldo Rossi and Koolhaas.
After a global overview of the plan and the architect we will extract the specific elements
that are important to relate the plans to the theories of Rossi and to the statement of
Koolhaas.
The analysis of the following primary elements will be build up in the following aspects:
-Urban grid
-Street structure
-Monuments
We will analyse these elements in the plans in the new and old situation and the connection
between them. We will check the plans according to scale, permanence and to the
subnotions propelling and pathological.
In the end we will compare the plans and the conclusions and will come back to the aspect
of the monument and the influence of scale.
7
4) Defenition of notions
Permanence: A past that we are still experiencing now
Propelling element is a form of a past that we still experience.
Propelling monument: The physical form of the past has assumed different functions
and has continued to function, conditioning the urban area in which stands and
continuing to constitute an important urban focus. The building is still in use, it
proves vitality.
-> VITAL PERMANENCE
Pathological element is something that is isolated and aberrant
Pathological monument:It stands virtually isolated in the city nothing can be added. It
constitutes, in fact an experience so essential that it cannot be modified.
-> FORMAL PERMANENCE
Only the importance that can be given to the experience of its forma and beauty can
keep it from losing its permanency (being torn down). It will remain a monument as
long as this importance is maintained but nothing more.
> The most meaningful permanences are those provided by the street and the city plan.
A monument’s persistence or permanence is a result of its capacity to constitute the city, its
history and art, its being and memory.
Dynamic process of the city tends more to evolution than preservation, and in evolution
monuments are not only preserved but continuously presented as propelling elements of
development.
Primary element:
Urban artefact with a dominant nature, participating in the evolution of the city, over time in
a permanent way, often identified with the major artefacts that constitute the city.
Acting as catalysts for the process of spatial transformation.
Monument
->
always
primary element ; except for pathological monuments
Primary element
->
Not always
monument
Monument:
Within the monument the complex consistency is show between the architectural forms and
the history, and in the monument the architectural form is surviving its original reason of
construction. The form is permanent and open for changing functions and a development of
meaning.
8
5) Analysis projects
A Friedrichstadt, Berlin (1928)
B Plan Voisin, Paris (1925)
C Rockefeller Center, New York (1929-1940)
A
B
– Hilberseimer
– Le Corbusier
– Associated Architects
C
Obviously these three projects all have considerably large proportions, individually dealt with
in a different way. Strong similarities in grid, street structure and layered functions, but very
different in form and composition and relation to the existing city and its monuments.
The propelling quality of the grid and street structure plus the fact that are the first elements
that constitutes the architecture of the city and thus its main fixed elements
In certain (new) conditions scale is a pre-condition for a building to function within the city
and thus for permanence.
9
5 A) Friedrichstadt, Berlin
Introduction to the plan
Ludwig Hilberseimer is the architect of Plan Friedrichstadt in Berlin, designed in 1928. The
plan has never been realised. Hilberseimer lived from 1885 till 1967 and was well-known as
an architect, educator, urban planner and author. He was born in Karlsruhe on September
14th, 1885. His place of birth must had influence his work. This autocratically and
geometrically planned city is a classic example, illustrated in every handbook handling about
the history of city planning. His first design was drawn in 1905 before he entered
architectural school. It’s a classical baroque palace. Hilberseimer will almost immediately
renounce this use of structure, relief and ornament. In 1906 Ludwig Hilberseimer entered
the Grand Ducal Technical University in Karlsruhe. He graduates in 1911. Shortly after
graduating he moved to Berlin. In the first half of his career we can find many projects in
this city. He was an urban teacher at the Bauhaus in Germany. Later in the United States he
worked at the Illinois Institute of Technology and did a lot of projects in Chicago.
The work of Ludwig Hilberseimer is counted to the Modern movement. Some other architects
of his time and movement are, Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. Together with
Van der Rohe he worked at the Bauhaus.
Hilberseimer major book is Groszstadtarchitektur. His early ideas are represented in this
writing from 1927. “Die Groszstadt” explained in Hilberseimers writing is a new creation of
large scale industrial capitalism, without historical precedent, with more than 100.000
inhabitants. It wasn’t shaped by nation, ruler or typography: “only in a socially ordered
society where production corresponds to the needs of man, not to the greeds for profits of
privileged individuals, will the metropolis become a meaningful organism.” The only way to
organize the chaos of the city, Hilberseimer says, is to develop theoretical solutions which
solve all the problems of the city as a whole. According to Hilberseimer only two of such
proposals existed: Le Corbusier’s and his own. The main types of buildings which compose
the metropolis is the residential building. Apartments had to be grouped into big blocks and
be standardized as much as possible. The dominant type in die Groszstadt would be the
commercial building. These were very open and transformable buildings because of their
metal frame and horizontally organized façade. Another important aspect for Hilberseimer is
the transport. He gave much space to buildings organizing the transport. The Groszstadt of
Hilberseimer seems to be a city for work and rest. Yet there is not any reference to buildings
for government, education, monuments, universities or libraries. Housing, commercial
buildings and transport are the backbone of the Groszstadt.
Groszstadt from Groszstadtarchitektur
10
The images which are illustrating Groszstadtarchitektur drawn by Ludwig Hilberseimer show
a very repetitive plan. Forty years after designing this, the architect wrote: “The repetition of
the blocks resulted in too much uniformity. Every natural thing was excluded: no tree or
grassy area broke the monotony . . . the result was more a necropolis than a metropolis, a
sterile landscape of asphalt and cement, inhuman in every aspect.” Yet in the year of design,
the twenties of the 20th century his vision was accepted without reservation
The plan which is analysed in this paper is realised short after publishing his book
“Groszstadtarchitektur”. The principles from this writings are visible in Plan Friedrichtstadt
designed in 1928. He wanted to solve the traffic problem and the problems with dwellings.
That very period the car came up and due to the industrialization many people were living in
the cities mainly in small dwellings in a bad state. Hilberseimer looked for a solution to these
problems by using layers, both for the traffic and the buildings. He splits up working and
living, driving by car and walking, and piles up the different functions. The result is a vertical
city.
Plan Friedrichstadt Berlin
The plan and its surroundings
The project was located close to the old centre of Berlin and in the vicinity of the
Schauspielhaus. One block to the south Leipziggerstrasse is running and Unter den Linden is
finishing the plot at the north side. The plan consisted of parallel rows of office and
commercial buildings on super blocks. At that time the plan was a socially progressive
development of building blocks without bush or tree.
Layering
Ludwig Hilberseimer uses layers to organise the functions within his plan. He splits up the
commercial functions and the dwellings. The project can be divided in four layers. The traffic
is organised on the ground floor, being the arteries of the city. The commercial functions are
located on the lower levels of the building blocks, in relation with the traffic. On top of the
commercial levels, there is a system of walkways and bridges to serve the pedestrians. On
this level also little shops are established. From this layer you can enter the commercial
levels and the dwellings which are on top of the commercial block. And finally the building is
finished with a roof-terrace layer.
11
Level 1 / commercial & traffic
Level 2 / pedestrians & shops
Level 3 / dwellings
Level 4 roof terrace
By this layering Hilberseimer designs a vertical city. Living and working is organised in the
same building. This is one aspect of solving the traffic problem together with splitting up the
pedestrians and the cars, and the arteries for traffic. With these arteries Hilberseimer seems
to have a visionary eye, taking in account the traffic queues we know nowadays.
The architect chooses to split up the functions vertically by layering, instead of horizontally,
which was a common thing among the modernists. By this he develops the building type of
the old city, where people lived above their own small shop or firm, the house-drivenindustry. The blocks of Hilberseimern have the same concet about layering activities, but are
more collective and have a bigger scale.
Primary elements
Ludwig Hilberseimer enlarges the grid, it becomes twice as big. Looking to the structure of
the plan we can say that the direction north-south is dominating. This is due to the length of
the dwellings in the north-south direction, and the doubling of the block, by removing half of
the west-east running streets. The old blocks do not have such a specific direction, being
almost a square. Hilberseimer designs nine blocks looking all the same. This repetition makes
the plan very uniform, which is different from its surroundings. The grid is a primary element
with the most meaningful permanence. It’s the basis of a city. The way this grid structure is
developed makes this primary element propelling.
Location with the main roads
Grid of the old structure
Grid with the new structure
12
Hilberseimer broke up half of the streets running east-west. The streets which are broken up
end at the boundary of the plot in the middle of a building block with the possibility to take a
parallel road of Friedrichstrasse. The streets which Hilberseimer kept are a permanent
element. The value of Friedrichstrasse, as a primary element, running through the middle of
the plot is decreased by shifting it a bit to the east. The long axis which it was before is
broken up now. The part of Friedrichstrasse in the project gets the same value as the
parallel street one block to the east.
Due to the changed structure the building block is enlarged, but maintained as a block. Like
the surrounding of the plot the blocks of Hilberseimer have facades directly at the street,
shaping the street profiles. The facades of the new building blocks are about the same
height as the existing block. Except the addition Hilberseimer made by putting on top the
dwellings.
13
Monuments
The monuments at Bebelplatz and the square as a monument itself are not directly
influenced by the plan of Hilberseimer, because of the distance. Gendarmen with its
churches and concert hall are directly related to the plot of Plan Friedrichstadt. The backs of
the buildings are facing the first blocks of the plan. We can assume that the impact of the
monuments at the square Gendarmen, the two churches and the concert hall, is enlarged.
Plan Friedrichstadt is very uniform. The contrast between the plot and the square is huge
when talking about the architectural form. The monuments are less comparable to its
surroundings. Looking from this point of view they are a quite isolated from its surroundings,
which is a characteristic of a pathological element. Yet the monuments are still functioning,
they remain propelling. They continue to constitute an important urban focus. The buildings
are still in use, it proves vitality.
Bebelplatz
Gendarmen
Gendarmen
14
Conclusion
The project of Hilberseimer is of a different scale compared to its surroundings. He reaches
this different scale by repeating the block. This results in a very uniform area. This approach
differs from blowing up according to Rem Koolhaas, who is talking about one specific
building. An interesting thing to note here is that Hilberseimer believed that the skyscraper
couldn’t be seen as an individual building as long as it didn’t have adequate space around it.
This is also applicable on his project, we can assume. The buildings itself has no
individuality. Together they can be seen as one project.
The ideology behind the project can be seen as propelling. The aims of the plan, solving the
problems with dwellings and to solve the traffic problems, would have caused vitality for the
city. It offers possibilities for the city to develop further on.
15
5 B) Plan Voisin Le Corbusier
Introduction of the plan
Le Corbusier played an important role in the urbanism. He introduced a new vision on town
planning which he showed in some plans and argued this in various essays that were
collected in the book l’Urbanisme (1925). For the exhibition of Salon d’Automne in Paris in
1922 the question that was asked by the organization: ‘what is meant by urbanism? He
answered this with his first big urban plan: Le Ville Contemporaine of 1922, a city for three
million inhabitants. With this plan he wanted to move the discussion of urbanism to a bigger
scale. In this plan the city would be divided in functional zones, cross formed towers in the
center would form the commercial district separated from the industrial and residential
districts by enormous green belts.
Panorama view Plan Voisin
Plan Voisin as a part of Paris
In 1925 le Plan Voisin was presented at the Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau exhibition. Le Plan
Voisin brings the Ville Contemporaine back to its origin: the city of Paris. These plans can be
seen as a radical reaction to the need of a reform of Paris. Post war Paris needed large-scale
housing, office buildings and a new traffic pattern. The need was high for a new plan
because of bad living conditions, unhealthy situation, increasing of the number of
automobiles. The basic principles of the plan were: de-congesting the centers of the city,
augmentation of the density, increase the meaning for getting about, increase parks and
open spaces. The importance of the new traffic plan occurs in the name of the plan which is
derived from the automobile firm from Gabriel Voisin. It was this firm that gave financial
support for the project. Plan Voisin was based on a new traffic pattern.
Only by a good traffic structure the city would work according Le Corbusier. He introduced a
traffic system in different layers and widened the roads enormously to increase the
efficiency. Because: A city made for speed is made for success. In 1924 he had published a
redefinition for the street; the superhighway is ‘the machine for circulating’. In this definition
the superhighway functioned as the central axis of the urban scheme, separated as much as
16
possible the pedestrian circulation with the automobile circulation and layered the
mechanical transportation on different levels arranged by function, speed and range. There
are 6 levels in his plan:
Upper level:
First level:
Ground level:
First level below ground:
Second level below ground:
Third level below ground:
Landing- stage for taxi planes
Crossing for fast motor traffic
Access to various railway lines; booking hall.
The tubes (main crossing)
Local and suburban lines
The main lines.
View of the central station, flanked by four skyscrapers.
Layers
The functional structure of the plan consists of three different areas. The commercial area
has eighteen skyscrapers which are only used for business and commercial purpose. These
skyscrapers are able to house 20000 to 40000 employees. Tube railways serve every
skyscraper to enable the enormous flow of people. Then you have the residential area which
is divided in the residential blocks, more luxury dwellings and the Garden city, for the
working class.
The skyscraper in his plan was not a new intervention but he introduced a new cross shaped
form. This form was according to Le Corbusier the most pure. Le Corbusier was critical about
the skyscrapers in Manhattan because by increasing the density they didn’t pay attention to
keep some space for increasing circulation this resulted in chaos, congestion and an
unhealthy situation. In plan Voisin he plans a lot of open space, only 5 % of the area is build
and 95 % is planned for green parks and infrastructure. So his plan with a high density (3
million people) would not congest but function well.
17
Primary elements
The grid of the new structure is the opposite of
the old. That was more closed (introvert) and
the new structure is open and very extrovert.
The scale difference of the old and new
structure is very obvious (see image), the
connection between them is very radical. The
Old grid
increasing density could not be solved in the
old grid. The same for the street structure, the
new structure was very radical and had an
impact on the city as a whole. For Le Corbusier
the traffic plan was the main principle of his
design. The success of the city depends of that
system. The old street structure was partly
New grid
Scale difference
preserved in his plan, some roads were
preserved and on the edges of the plan some
connections are made. Important squares like
Place Vendôme, Place de la Madeleine and
Jardin du Palais Royal are respected in the new
structure. These primary elements represent
the respect of Le Corbusier toward the old Paris.
By his new grid and street structure he demolished the old permanent grid and street
structure because it didn’t function anymore. According to Rossi’s notions we can say that
the old grid and street structure had become pathological because it was not able to change
and help the city with its evolution. Primary elements should act as a catalyst for the process
of transformation, but in the old situation that was not the case. For Le Corbusier the
solution laid in a different scale. The enormous skyscrapers that formed the new grid and the
widened traffic system in different layers would vitalise the city and offers possibilities for
evolution and can be regarded as propelling elements, these elements constitute the city.
Street structure
Top view plan
18
Monuments
The skyscrapers become a primary element in Plan Voisin. Can these elements be regarded
as monuments because of their scale and impact on the city?
In his plan Le Corbusier preserves historical monuments and by this he says that he respects
the past in his plan, and even more he rescues the past. The monuments obtain a new
character standing in the open park structure; the monuments are placed in the park as a
work of art, acting as a table of memories. It’s almost an open-air museum. If you just look
at the plan you would think this old monuments would become pathological, museum pieces.
But in the explanation of Le Corbusier you can read that these old monuments are vital and
are able to change in function. They become monuments of the nowadays Paris. In the old
situation these monuments could have been pathological because of the density they had no
possibilities to transform and in Plan Voisin they get a new perspective.
The skyscrapers on the other hand are according le Corbusier also monuments. In the
‘Architectural strip’ he represents every historical period by a monument and in the last
drawing you can see Plan Voisin and the text that belongs to this drawing is: Paris must
continue. The skyscrapers are a monument of the present Paris and they enable Paris to
transform. Le Corbusiers statement about permanence is that it can be reached by works
that go further than mathematical formulas: architectural works. The products of reason
should be most carefully differentiated from the products of passion. Because where a man’s
passion for creation has taken form, his work will endure for through the ages. I think he will
regard Plan Voisin as such a product. And even it is not build we still talk about it nowadays.
Conclusion
To conclude we can say that the skyscrapers can be regarded as monuments for the city,
due to the scale more to Koolhaas explanation than to Rossi’s explanation for the
monument. The form of the building, the big scale, is the factor for the skyscraper to obtain
its propellingness.
Monuments Paris
Architectural strip
Skyscrapers monuments in plan Voisin?
19
5 C) The Rockefeller Center, Associated Architects
The economical and geographical limitations, or
‘forces’, present Manhattan with a new problem in
the architecture of the city: due to the limitation of
surrounding river and major economical interest the
ground prices are extremely high, so to bring forth a
maximum amount of rent it is necessary to duplicate
the already large plots to as many floors as possible,
thus creating the skyscraper. This can be considered
as a special type of urban artefact, that due to its
overwhelming size impresses us and becomes what
Koolhaas calls an auto-monument.
The initial plan for a New Metropolitan Opera
In the case of the Rockefeller Center a new problem
presents itself: for the allocation of the New
Metropolitan Opera a three-plot location in midtown
Manhattan is found the most suitable for this
prestigious public building. An initial plan for a low
rise opera building soon finds its end in the Crash of
1929, when the funds behind the opera have to
retrieve and John D. Rockefeller is left with the rent
for the plot and the plans for a new addition to
Manhattan in a period of economical downfall.
These prove to be the perfect factors for the
creation of a new symbol, under the visionary
guidance of two great skyscraper architects
Raymond Hood and William Corbett.
20
Size does matter
The retrieval of the opera program and funds requested a new
program for the site. First of all the maximum allowed bulk
(spatial occupation of the plot) had to be reached in order to
make the project economically feasible.
(P)(P)This meant that the plan for a low rise building was
replaced by a tower with the maximum allowed size, both in
its floor plan as its height. The Manhattan law forms a spatially
limited envelope that sort of predefines its eventual shape (for
instance only 25% of the total floor plan can reach unlimited
height but only on a certain distance of adjacent plots).
The size and shape of the tower and of skyscrapers in general
give it a slender beauty as well as an over-whelming
appearance: the feeling standing beneath it and looking up
makes it by itself a symbol of human engineering and the
achievement of the (current) technical limits, a modern
pyramid, with the form of a giant size obelisk (the classical
‘pure’ monument), but with an inside world. So it is not only
on the outside that it brings a radical new power to the
architecture of urban artefacts but also the inside, that now
can house an entire city and thus create its own inside worlds,
horizontally free and vertically as much connected as wanted.
Bulk model Opera
Bulk model Rockefeller
In Manhattan however ‘just’ being big and tall does not constitute a particular quality in the
city for the competition in height is still ongoing as it was then. Its significance as a symbol
can therefore only lie in its meaning for the city and its structure as a whole, but I will come
back to that later. Nonetheless some of the very first ‘skyscrapers’ are now possibly less big
than some common residential flats.
But still these skyscrapers seem to fit both Rossi’s as Koolhaas’ definition of a monument
respectively auto-monument. You could even say that in beyond a certain height a building
becomes auto-propelling, a postcard identity for a city, a symbol of it like Eiffel-tower in
Paris.
Function follows form
Also a new function was needed, and a lot of visionary thought was let
loose to come up with the perfect infilling of the public program on the
lower floors and in the lower buildings, since Rockefeller could account for
a great deal of the space in the tower, but a lot of extra money had to be
made by the possible clients for the remaining space. The principle idea of
a public program was maintained and as a general scheme they came up
with a landscape of theatre spaces, so big and many that it would form a
new type of public space. Combined with the plaza, a city-square (open
space) in the middle of the plot connecting the tower with 5th Avenue, (that
being the most prestigious surrounding street; all according to the principle
Spatial restrictions; models
opera-layout), it would form a cultural center, not just one but the biggest
rendered by Ferriss
ever, just due to its size. In fact only a portion of the space actually
became theatre, but with a size as never seen before or after. It was so big that it could not
21
function as a conventional theatre and had to invent a new use of theatre that could make it
work. This led to the low-end culture of variety and dance shows which made it very
successful. So the visionary realisation of big spaces evidently had a natural propelling
quality.
The remaining space was filled with the NBC studios, making Rockefeller Center a physical
symbol of the new media, housing several of the by that time biggest studios in (part of) one
building. Of course it also was a very hybrid building, a city in a city, in contrast to being the
city as a part of it.
Primary elements
The building completely respects the surrounding and
intersecting streets, nestling itself on the three islands
created by the singular plots. For a continuous access of the
building as a whole a series of upper level pedestrian
connections were thought with the intent to turn Manhattan
into a modern Venice (inspired by the visions of Corbett).
This idea did not come to life, yet an underground tunnelstructure connected the three parts and later in time even
spread itself further to the surrounding plots, making an
Underground connections
expansion of the Rockefeller Center outside its initial
envelope possible.
So it didn’t in any way change the basic layout of the city, but they tried to add a new layer
for ‘human’ traffic, respecting the force of the initial street pattern, and its persistence as a
primary element, but these plans didn’t make it. A small cross-street was introduced on GF
to get a better internal organization, but that is as far as it goes in transforming the citystructure
The actual location: top-down 5th and 6th avenue and crossing 48th to 51st street
22
City structure
It did however have large consequences for the
spatial structure of the city, for it presented in itself
a plan for the city as a whole. This was partly
thanks to the visionary Architect Raymond Hood ,
who already started a theoretical as well as
practical study of Manhattan as a city of towers. In
these plans the beauty of the City as a whole came
forth in a futuristic but realistic plan for the
erection of a structure of towers. Also the need for
open (public) space was combined with the towers
to once again create a real city, with real city
space. Among the skyscrapers of course. A city in
itself, and at the same time a miniature model of
the city as a whole
Model by Raymond Hood of a ‘perfect Manhattan’
Propelling
The Radio City Music Hall, a result of the enormous size of the cultural program incorporated
in the Center, together with creation of public space in Manhattan, gave it a propelling
quality and with that an important meaning for the collective, another factor in becoming
the monument (or symbol) it is today.
Also the Rockefeller Center proved to be a catalyst factor in the spatial structure of the city:
not its streets, which it left practically unaltered, but to the three-dimensional grid of it.
As for the streets the underground connections (not being quite the Venice in Manhattan,
but possibly more practical) proved to have a persistence of their own, sprawling the
building across its limiting envelope. This method of pedestrian and metropolitan traffic is
now exemplary for Manhattan.
Monumentality
A lot of historical typology was adopted
in the development of the Center that
did not make it. To start with a
traditional monumental low-rise opera
building and later on grand schemes of
Venice in Manhattan brought back to
Venetian bridges and Babylonian
gardens did not reach it to actual
production, but it did manage to give
make this building the physical
realisation of ‘the dream of Manhattan’,
the Perfect City according to Koolhaas
Monumental typology
Old versus new
(and also Rossi as we will see later on).
In fact the building complex makes Manhattan a monument avant la letter representing a
perfect part of it as well as a miniature representation of it as a (perfect) whole. So where
the metaphores became pathological the symbolism had a highly propelling effect, giving
beauty not only itself but to the city as a whole in its collective memory but also in its later
development setting a new standard.
23
At the same time it puts old monuments in a very different relation because of its size. The
most striking example is the St. Patricks cathedral right in front of the Rockefeller Center. It
seems to transform it towards a pathological monument, for in the new Manhattan its size is
not proportionate to the city anymore.
Form
So as a Skyscraper it becomes a natural beauty,
which ís related to scale. However most of its
form is due to the perfect
configuration/composition of the limiting
envelope. It proved to be a perfect scheme for its
functioning as well as its beauty.
Grid / Street structure
The grid as a primary element was completely
adopted in the plan, making the Center a spatial
derivative of it. So in a way the building is the
street structure and vice versa. Not only by
conforming to the permanence of the streetstructure but also by using it for a greater
flexibility it tries to pre-acquire a condition for
permanence and hence monumentality. Scale is
The Rockefeller Center presently with added towers
of importance here for the building has to be an
intermediate between the human scale and that of the plots in the grid.
Collective -> the city
It brought a propelling function to Manhattan that was most importantly public, bringing the
design in the realm of the public. (In fact with the NBC studios the building could be
broadcasted into every living room, but this is a different matter). With this public function,
closely connected to the Plaza as a city it tried to make itself part of the collective and
transform the life in the city.
Conclusion
So starting from being an auto-monument in Koolhaas’
opinion, we can also say that it is a true monument in
the notion of Rossi, for it had not one but various
propelling functions not just for itself, but for the
Architecture of the City that is Manhattan.
But more than anything else it is a true monument or
symbol of persistence itself, of its creators, but also of
the city. A true monument of Manhattan, thanks to its
scale; of the American Dream.
24
7) Conclusion
Primary elements
The street structure as a primary element is proposed as a geometrical grid: with
Hilbersheimer mainly adapts it to the old with only a enlargement of scale; Le Corbusier
radically places it over Paris, only connecting it to certain (important) points of the old
structure; The Rockefeller Center is completely conformed to the existing grid (which of
course already had this clear geometry), it is almost a direct extrusion of it.
Rossi in fact attributes the most meaningful permanence to the street-structure as a primary
element of the city, and the analysed project seem to confirm that the monumentality of a
straight grid has the most propelling qualities for a city. Where the old structure has a
pathological influence for the modern cities, the straight grid lends itself most for future its
permanence.
A layered traffic structure is also introduced as an extra propelling element to further
develop the functioning of the city now and in the future, since the growth of the city will
only demand a higher capacity in time, which street structure combined with the layered
system could provide.
Scale
All three deal with a blow up in scale, putting it in a more direct relation to the city. This
blowing up of the size has a psychological effect and it is in the light of this effect that
Koolhaas refers to the auto-monument. This however is not the same definition of a
monument that Rossi uses (as explained in chapter 3). For Rossi a monument is an element
of permanence, with a possible vitality for the city. In this case it is a propelling element.
What we can conclude is that the scale of the building can also generate a propelling force,
making it also an monument in Rossi’s notion due to it scale.
Monuments
The main difference lies in the connection between old and new and the new relation they
create with the existing. In respect to the existing monuments this seems to create a
distortion or at least a transformation. Here all three plans differ. Although the difference
between old and new is very strong, Hilberseimer creates a scale of buildings that is still in
proportion to the surrounding monuments; the biggest difference is in the extent of the plan
(also due to its uniformity); Plan Voisin, although radically going over the old city tissue, is
preserving the existing monuments and even giving them a propelling impuls, thanks to the
difference in scale, which creates a giant park around the towers in which the monuments
are situated; the Rockefeller Center almost crushes the old cathedral in front of it,
completely distorting its relation with the surrounding city; then again the cathedral becomes
even more a symbol of the past, a historical monument.
Architecture of the city
All the plans have a scale that enables a direct dialogue with the city. The analysis shows us
that the scale does not only influence the monumentality of the artefact but also has an
impact on the city as a whole. It becomes an important element in the process of its
transformation.
25
8) Bibliography
GENERAL
Rossi, A, 1981, Architecture of the city. Cambridge Mass.
Engel, H, 2002, Architectural interventions in the historic city. Reader, TU Delft
Koolhaas, R, 1994, Delirious New York, New York, Monacelli
FRIEDRICHSTADT
Hilberseimer, Ludwig, 1978, Grossstadtarchitektur. Stuttgart, Julius Hoffman
Pommer, Richard, 1988, Ludwig Hilberseimer, Achitect, educator, and urban Planning, in the
shadow of Mies. Chigaco, the art institute of Chigaco
Ciré, Annette and Ochs, Haila, 1991, Die Zeitschrift als manifest, aufzätze zu architektonische
Strömingen im 20. Jahrhundert. Basel, Birkhäuser
Bartning, A, and others, 1957, Hauptstadt Berlin, Berlin Wilmersdorf, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn
Ranft, Ferdinand, 2002, Marco Polo Berlijn Potsdam, Houten, Van Reemst uitgeverij
PLAN VOISIN
Le Corbusier, Urbanisme. (Paris) 1925, translation (Third edition 1971): The city of
tomorrow. London: The architectural press
Arrhenius, Thordis, Restoration in the Machine Age. AA files, spring 1999, pp 10-22
Le Corbusier, W. Boesiger and O. Stonorov 1964, Le Corbusier et Pierre Jeanneret, Oeuvre
complète 1910-1929. Zurich: Les editions d’Architecture (Artemis).
Sereyi,P. 1975 , Le Corbusier in perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hilpert, T and Desiree Gudmundsson, 1987, Le Corbusier 188701987 genius, laboratory of
ideas. Hamburg: Christians und Reim
ROCKEFELLER CENTER
Koolhaas, R, 1994, Delirious New York, New York, Monacelli
26