UN Headquarters - The Triumph of the Slab by Erik Hedborg

Headquarters

The Triumph of the Slab Erik Hedborg and Per Hultcrantz

EPFL, Lausanne 2016 First aid - art and architecture after 1940 Prof. Stanislaus von Moos

Abstract

The UN Headquarters building in New York is a most interesting case study into modern architecture in the post war era. This paper consists of (I) an architectural description, (II) a presentation of the unorthodox design process that led to its design, (III) discussions on the slab as an architectural object. A big emphasis is on the design process and how the participants worked together under the leadership of Wallace Harrison. The architects were invited from the member countries of the UN and were internationally prominent architects of their time, such as Le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer, Sven Markelius, but also more outlying characters such as Nikolai D. Bassov, structural engineer, and Ssu-Châ&#x20AC;&#x2122;eng Liang, visiting professor of Far Eastern Art at Yale. The architectural decisions that were made are examples of modernist ideals and functionalistic reasoning, mixed with esthetic ideas of pure form and monument. The insight into the design process gives a deeper understanding on how these decisions were procured and discussed by some of the best architectural minds of that time. The slab as an architectural object is discussed from different perspectives. The paper also argues that the Headquarters is a success for modernism as a whole. What failed with the League of Nations now succeded with the United Nations. It not only shows how preference of architectural style had changed from 1927 to 1947, but also how the ideals and ideas of the Western nations themselves had changed during that period.

Contents

12 12

Chapter I - The Architecture

Chapter II - The Design Process 1. The site

2. The Design Workshop

3. The response and realization

Chapter III - The Slab as an Architectural Object in the Post-War Era

34 Bibliography 35 References

Cover: Sketch by Harrison (Newhouse 1989) Back: TheHeadquarters featured on stamps around the world (Dudley 1994)

Chapter I - The Architecture

The Headquarters of the United Nations is a complex located on international territory in New York City, in Turtle Bay, on the east side of Midtown Manhattan. It mainly consists of five buildings set around a great plaza. The complex is mainly identifiable by the Secretariat building, a tall north-southoriented slab that creates a backdrop to East 43rd street, as well as signaling its presence to the East River. The Headquarters was designed by a design committee headed by American Wallace K. Harrison, and constituted of architects from all over the world, among the most famous being Le Corbusier and Oscar Niemeyer. After the design committee had concluded its work, Harrisonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own firm Harrison & Abramovitz was responsible for its construction.

Secretariat

The most recognizable part of the headquarters complex is unarguably the monolithic Secretariat building. Towering more than 160 meters above the site, its quadripartite eastern and western faĂ§ades consist of steel and tinted glass, making up the first curtain wall of New York. The building consists of 39 above-ground floors, carried on each floor by perimeter steel columns, as well as by a concrete core containing logistic functions. On the ground floor the faĂ§ade is covered in green marble, with the entrance set beyond 4

View from the East River (Photographer: Ezra Stoller)

Typical plan of the Secretariat building (Gonchar 2012)

a peristyle. Louvered horizontal divisions of the curtain wall disclose the location of the mechanical levels. To emphasize the thinness of the slab, a mere 22 meters, the north and south ends of the slab are completely opaque, shimmering in white Vermont marble. The building hosts the day-to-day-workers of the United Nations, e.g. the administrative functions, the translators and the economic aides. The plan

consists of the core, containing elevators, stairways, toilets and storage, with the surrounding areas left to office space, taking advantage of the transparency of the curtain wall faĂ§ade. The core is off-center, slightly displaced towards the North West. This created shallower offices in front of the core, and larger offices behind it, which was desired in regards to flexibility. Within the floor slabs run ducts containing electrical and telephone wiring. (UN Visitors Center 2013)

The original floor plan layout was pervaded by a sense of rationality and modularity. The width of each office unit was specified to be about 2.4 meters, with variations in depth creating different office layouts. (Dudley 1994) They were all designed as private offices, however, which made for a quite cramped plan that was difficult to navigate. Today the floor plans have been remodeled in favor of the open office space that has since become commonplace. (Gonchar 2012)

General Assembly

On the north east side of the Secretariat building lies the General Assembly, a sloping concrete building with concave walls. Its horizontality and low height in relation to the rest of Manhattan stresses its primacy, making it the heart of the complex. It is topped off with a shallow dome, the only traditionally symbolical element of the headquartersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; composition. Beneath it sits the General Assembly Hall, the core of the United Nations diplomatic work, where the delegates gather to vote on resolutions. The room of blue, green and gold 6

is designed to wrap its 193 delegations in a half-circle around the central podium, creating a sense of unity, fitting for the UN. Each delegation consists of three permanent chairs, with three chairs behind them for alternates. The delegates sit facing a speaker’s rostrum, fitted with a gold background, flanked by two inclined side walls lined with wood. Behind windows in these walls sit press, information personnel, and interpreters. The latter translate in real-time what is being said on the floor into the six official languages of the UN: English, French, Chinese, Arabic, Russian and Spanish. The hall measures 50 times 35 meters, with a 23 meter high ceiling, making it the largest room of the entire complex, able to host 1898 attendees.

Library

The Dag Hammarskjöld Library was established in 1946. Its function is to provide library services to the delegates and staff, and is also responsible for an archival collection of United Nations documents and publications. The library currently houses about 400 000 volumes of externally acquired materials, in addition to the documentation of the organization itself. Originally, it was located in the conference building, but is since 1961 located in a building of its own in the southwest corner of the complex. It was constructed because of a growing demand for library services. The Ford Foundation donated $6.6 million to fund its construction. As suggested by Henry T. Heald, the president by the foundation, it was dedicated to Hammarskjöld in November 1961, two months after his death. (UN General Assembly Official Records 1961)

The library was designed by Harrison & Abramovitz, and is equipped with three stories underground, three stories above-ground, with a façade of white marble, glass and aluminum. In addition to this, the library hosts an intimate walnut-paneled auditorium with a generous row spacing to let people pass without bothering those already seated. On top of the library is a penthouse reception room, featuring floor-to-ceiling windows topped off with a lightly 7

arched roof. The penthouse is significantly shallower than the locales below, making it a light and luminous space. It features art by Bo Beskow, a close friend of the dedicatee. (Dunlap 2015)

Conference building

The Conference building is similar to the Secretariat in that itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s also a slab, but horizontally oriented in order to connect the bottom floors of the Secretariat with the General Assembly. It cantilevers out from the complex, covering 120 meter of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive below. Besides containing a lot of meeting rooms, it holds the three council chambers of the UN, each one gifted by one Scandinavian country.

The most known of these is the Security Council chamber whose members meet on a regular basis to work for the maintenance of international peace. The chamber was designed by the Norwegian architect Arnstein Arneberg. The mural behind the horseshoe-shaped table was designed by his countryman Per Krogh, with imagery symbolizing the promise of future peace and individual freedom. The room is fitted in pale ash, with wallpaper in teal and gold, and chairs in red and blue Naugahyde upholstery. Designed by Dane Finn Juhl is the Trusteeship Council chamber, whose activities were suspended in 1994 after having finished their work. Their activities were centered on helping the trusteeship territories of the United Nations reach selfgovernance. Today the room serves as a regular conference room, when needed. The chamber emits a warm atmosphere, being almost entirely fitted in strips of ash wood. The ventilation and lighting fixtures in the latticed ceiling are covered in colorful wooden boxes, with the same colors reappearing in the carpet. Danish sculptor Henri Starcke contributed a teak sculpture of bird and a girl with raised arms, symbolizing mankind and hope.

Economics and social council, designed by Sven Markelius (Photograph: ArchDaily)

Penthouse floor on top of the library (Dunlap 2015)

Lastly, the Economic and Social Council chamber, who work with coordinating economic and social functions of the UN agencies, was designed by Sven Markelius of Sweden. The delegate and press area is lined with Swedish Pine wood and a ceiling with circular lighting fixtures. On the public gallery, the ceiling is left unfinished, exposing the pipes and ducts above. This was a deliberate design decision by Markelius to serve as a reminder that the economic and social work of the UN is never finished. Originally, it featured curtains by his countryman Marianne Richter, but these had to be replaced in 1988 due to deterioration. They were replaced by curtains of Markelius’ own design, originally made for the assembly hall of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. In 2013, following a lengthy renovation of the entire Conference building, curtains by Ann Edholm took their place. (UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases 2013) (Brown 2013)

South Annex building

The South Annex building was constructed in 1982 as an extension of the Secretariat building, towards the East river, parallel with the conference building. This marked the first significant extension of the complex since the construction of the library twenty years earlier. The building houses a staff cafeteria, able to house 750 seated. (UN Visitors Center 2013)

Plaza

Towards 1st Avenue is set a big plaza, connecting the General Assembly building, the Secretariat and the Dag Hammarskjöld library. In the center is a circular pool with a fountain that has a wave-patterned floor of dark pebbles and white marble. Going north alongside 1st Avenue the plaza bends a bit, following the shape of the General Assembly. Along the bend the perimeter is lined with flagpoles showcasing the flags of the member countries. A monumental staircase dedicated to Dag Hammarskjöld leads to the North Podium and, further on, the United Nations gardens where sculptures from different member nations are situated. 10

Renovation The complex has undergone extensive renovations during the current decade, starting in 2008. The main reasons for the renovations have been deterioration of the buildings, as well as the need to adhere to energy codes. The curtain wall of the Secretariat has been completely replaced with a state-of-the-art system that closely replicates the original. The UN considered repairing the original, but found that replacing it would be the only way to adhere to the security standards of today. (Gonchar 2012) The latter being an important point: some renovations of the complex have been strictly due to increased security precautions. The Conference building has reinforced its slab jutting out above FDR Drive to ensure being protected against car bombs. In addition to this, mechanical functions have been constructed below the slab to act as buffer space in the event of a blast. The staff cafeteria and the southern half of the Dag Hammarskjรถld library are no longer used for the same reason, being located too close to the intersection of First Avenue and FDR Drive. (Dunlap 2015)

Chapter II - The Design Process

1. The site The United Nations grew out of the allied countries during the Second World War. Hosted by the United States in San Francisco in April 1945, a conference of 50 countries sketched out what would be the charter of the United Nations. Only the day after the Japanese surrender in August 15, the site committee met in London to discuss which country would host the headquarters. Here met politicians and mayors from all the allied countries. The committee looked for English or French as the main language, an acceptable climate, good living accommodations, recreational space and travel services.

Two directions were proposed. The first one argued that closeness to the rivalling countries in Europe would be necessary and therefore Geneva, Switzerland was the optimal choice. The failure of League of Nations to prevent World War 2 did not bring much credibility to this option. The other direction argued that distance brought objectivity and suggested ancient African cities or Pacific islands. This would however pose many logistical problems and the committee was afraid that it would put the UN too much in the periphery. The choice fell instead onto the United States, both with a healthy distance to Europe but a connectedness to the modern world. By September 1945 the committee voted yes to locating the headquarters in the United States. (Dudley 1994) 12

The first general secretary of the United Nations, former Norwegian labour politician and foreign minister Trygve Lie, was elected in February 1, 1946. He took the first steps that started the process of building a headquarters for the newly founded United Nations. He admitted that “Planning and building this great structure was among the projects closest to my heart”. He was convinced that the process should be open and democratic. But also that it needed to be swift and rational. The former world organization, League of Nations, had their headquarters in Geneva built from an architectural competition, which had

resulted in a lengthy process. It took many years from decision and site choice to occupancy (Dudley 1994). This was something they wished to avoid with the new headquarters, which was seen as an international urgent platform to get established.

The subcommittee appointed with choosing the exact site consisted of seven nations. It was chaired by Stoyan Gavrilovic of Yugoslavia and on it was also Le Corbusier from France, and Nikolai D. Bassov from the USSR. The main options were New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Boston. The mayors of the corresponding cities had all proposed sites but Gavrilovic pledged caution and “agreed no hurried attempt should be made to define requisites for the site, to the dismay of many eager applicants”. In New York the main suggestion was the Flushing Meadows Park site, in queens. This had hosted the world fair of 1939 and was already improved and invested in with infrastructure, and it boasted a lot of open green space. The site was 130 hectares big. Meanwhile, Le Corbusier ran a bit of his own show. He had a personal commitment of creating a “home for peace” and he pushed on with investigations on his own when the committee had to wait for the administrative cogs to turn. In his notes he writes, “[…] for seven months, we have debated daily. The pace has been terribly slow.” Already the 19th of June of 1946, he completed his “Report of the French delegate” which later was turned into a book. The main report of the committee is not released until December the same year. Therein he writes a short and powerful declaration of what the UN headquarters should be about. He divides the personnel of the UN into two main categories, Permanent 13

and Transient. He argues that the permanent employees of the complex should be entitled to all the functions of the city, with education for their children, health service, kindergartens and so on. He also argues that only UN personnel should be able to live here, “No person foreign to the UN should be entitled to residence. Persons ceasing activity with the UN should be asked to leave”. The transient category should be cared for with utmost delicacy and their past time should be activated to avoid the “stay in his room”. (Le Corbusier 1947)

To accomplish this, Le Corbusier set up 13 principles. Among the principles for the permanent populations were things such as “4. Provide a physical education program with heliotherapy and hydrotherapy, sports facilities within immediate reach.” and “7. Foster the formation of a state of mind which will exclude egotism and bring forth the values of individuals and of the collective.” For the temporary residents he used formulations such as “13. Reduce to a minimum all loss of time: conceive a city, collected in height, aired in vast spaces, where eyes and lungs will have benefit of the natural beauty and resources; where the mind will grasp time, master it, reduce it, put it to use. “ It was really the image of an ideal city that was being drawn up. In the end, as we know, there never was this divide and the project radically changed its scope. In his text, Le Corbusier realizes that New York will be the optimal city, when comparing against the qualities he set up. However, he also shows ambivalence, for an example by proclaiming that “New York is a terrifying city. For us, it is menacing. We are not wrong in keeping at a distance!” (Le Corbusier 1947). The position he gradually starts to take can be summed up as this: the UN has asked for a city for peace, but they are not yet mature enough for this. What they need is a battle post for peace, in the heart of the violent city of New York.

The seven month long search for a site ended quickly and hastily after a new site revealed itself through the real estate market of Manhattan. Turtle Bay on the East River bank, was an old slaughterhouse district. How got into the hands of the UN is not crystal clear. Zeckendorf, land owner and developer, had bought up the plot for a low sum of money, and hired the architect of Rockefeller center Wallace Harrison to draw out sketches for something similar. It was a secret project, therefore named X-City until it was revealed to

developers. An ambitious scheme with high rise slabs, curvilinear forms, and a massive amount of development. But who was the investor? It was probably an article in the New York Times about the UN search around New York for a site that got Zeckendorf to reach out to them with his offer. The UN under Trygve Lie works quickly by appointing Harrison to do a feasibility study, and reaches out to the Rockefellers for financial support. It is interesting here to make a short note on the size of the site. At 7 hectares, it was by far the smallest yet. What had started as a nationwide search for a site of 250 - 800 hectares had been gradually decreased as the work of defining the program requirements went along. At Flushing Meadows the site was 130 hectares, and it was still considered too big and expensive. From October 1945 to December 1946, the project went from building a city to building a complex. Le Corbusier identifies this ambiguity in his report and identified it semantically between the wish of creating a Capitol or a Headquarters. In the speech he holds at the inauguration dinner, of the workshop he practically tributes himself as the one creating the possibility for the smaller site, by compacting the program and suggesting building high rise, but there is certainly a lot of doubt in the truth of that statement. The choice of Turtle Bay in New York was appreciated on several levels. The city saw it as an important institution to host, the mayor exclaiming that it was “the one great thing that would make New York the center of the world” (Dudley 1994). The UN, through Rockefellers donation, got it cheaply: 17 dollars per square foot for a total of 8’500’000 dollars, a fraction of the then

already extremely high real-estate prices of midtown estate (Dudley 1994). Le Corbusier was happy about the required verticality (the slab) and that it “permits the CIAM doctrine to function”. And he sees it as a victory in the light of the lost competition of the Palace of the League of Nations in Geneva. (Le Corbusier 1947) On December 10, 1946, John D. Rockefeller writes the check for $8´500´000 and the contract is signed for the sale between Zeckendorf and the UN.

2. The Design Workshop

The next year Harrison was appointed the task of leading the design workshop, and he and Trygve Lie sketched out the invitations of the members. Some architects Harrison immediately thought of as extraordinary where excluded for political reasons, such as Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, because of their ties to Germany.

In the middle of Harrison and Lie’s brainstorming, they get a message from Le Corbusier. Apparently, he had already formulated a plan himself. He agrees that the design team is to be Harrison, Bassov, Robertson and Niemeyer, but with himself as a leader. As a complement, he suggests another list of architects, all named from CIAM members. “Must we put up with this” (Dudley 1994 pg. 34) is Harrisons response, put to his assistants. His associate Abramovitz is sceptical towards Le Corbusier’s commitment to excellence in building execution as well as in design. Still, Harrison admits that Le Corbusier should be a part of the project, and not inviting him would not be acceptable.

Le Corbusier arrives January 21 1947 to New York, the first foreign member of the design board and an entire month before the workshop officially starts. He purchases a carnet de poche, a simple spiral notebook, which he frantically fills with material in the months to come. During this

Le Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s site investigations (Le Corbusier 1947)

The slaughterhouse district of Turtle Bay (Dudley 1994)

interval he visits the site several times, meets with the city engineers, the UN personnel and developers. All while developing a preliminary design of his own. The workshop takes place in the Rockefeller Center. At its disposal, are a couple of dedicated rooms for drawing and a bigger room for meetings and models. It was also supported by a team of “back room boys”, who did the

drawings and plasticine models. Often they would get their instructions in the evening and then work through the night to have the presentation material ready by the morning the day after. Cigarette smoke fills the rooms and the charette is almost constant for some participants. Harrison had the idea of numbering the suggestions, or schemes, to avoid putting emphasis on singular authors. Still, informally, they were often referred to with the names of their principal authors. Hugh Ferriss, famous architectural delineator, was brought in to continuously make renderings of the schemes. Some of these was given or leaked to the newspapers and this became the main means of communication with the public. In the end, Ferriss sent the bill for some “hundreds” of architectural drawings that he had done during the workshop. During the first meeting the February 17, only three of the official board members are present: Russian engineer Nikolai D. Bassov from the USSR, Dr Ssu-ch’eng Liang of China and Le Corbusier of France. They are still waiting for Howard Robertson from the UK and Oscar Niemeyer from Brazil. After a short introductory speech by Harrison, Le Corbusier presents his ideas. “Tout Manhattan!” (Dudley 1994 pg. 48) is his opening phrase, to remind the team that the project is as much an urban issue as an architectural. The meetings continue and Robertson arrives. The main design board members are of course the primary architects of the workshop, but there is an continuous influx of colleagues of Harrison and other local New 18

From the left: Sven Markelius, Le Corbusier, Bodiansky, Liang, Harrison, Niemeyer, Soilleux, Bassov, Abramovitz (behind), Weissmann, Cormier, Antoniades, Nowicki. (Dudley 1994)

The back room boys supporting the design board members (Dudley 1994)

York architects, such as Louis Skidmore and Ralph Walker. These would occasionally propose schemes of their own and work with the back room boys.

Bassov keeps on keeping the designs down to earth with his practical, almost laconic comments. Dudley admits that the things he say in Russian seems to be more nuanced, and that it might be his translator Wolff that is not always the most refined. Bassov is the only one in direct need of a translator, but Le Corbusier also has one, and a mixture of English and some French is what is mostly heard in the rooms.

Dr Liang was probably the odd bird out of the group. His first scheme was an introvert mass of bodies with a Chinese garden in the middle. This did not resonate with any of the other workshop participants and after this he mainly worked with orientation, which came to become one of the main design questions. Should the Secretariat be facing north-south or east-west? Monday March 10, Oscar Niemeyer arrives after some problems with his visa had finally been worked out. That same night, Le Corbusier invites him for dinner and starts to work on convincing him to support his cause. He straight out asks Niemeyer to not “make a commotion” (Dudley 1994, pg. 110). The day after, Le Corbusier leaves for Paris, which is followed by a breath of creative air filling the workshop. The first days that Niemeyer attends he follows his master’s request. He listens and sometimes participates, but does not bring any suggestions on his own. March 14 Harrison has a talk with him, asking him to start his own design. “[...](He was) explaining that I was not invited to collaborate with Le Corbusier and that as all other architects I should submit a suggestion” (Dudley 1994, pg. 131). Sven Markelius, the city planner of Stockholm and one of the invited board members, makes an urban planning interlude. His effort is almost entirely focused on the zooming out and studying how the relationship between 20

Manhattan and the UN Headquarters should be. His idea is that the center of Manhattan is too detached from the water and that Turtle Bay can be a key project in linking the inhabitant of the island with the East River bank. He does this by widening streets leading up to the headquarters, using it as an open backdrop and a start for a green belt going along East River. He also proposed a bridge connection north of the site, which was never realized. Markelius works intensely for two weeks and then presents the April 18,

before he has to return to his duties back in Sweden. His contribution was to integrate the project, primarily through greenery, to the rest of Manhattan. However, most of his ideas were pushed to the periphery, since the amount of extra personnel that had to be involved in redefining the zoning and urban space was too large and time consuming for this extremely hasty project.

An important question was on how to treat the perimeter, and where and how the public, the press the delegates and the administrative personnel would arrive. The design board set up a meeting with Fred Begley, Chief of Security for the UN. Both parties wanted to avoid a full sized fence or wall. Instead they would handle the access control at the buildings and create a low wall and green buffer zone towards first avenue. Then the different flows of people would be divided to different entrances to decrease logistics mishaps. What they did not bring up for discussion was general security of the buildings. In a time where the main security threat of cities were interstate warfare, the idea that a perimeter had to be protected from car bombs and malicious visitors did not occur to the design board. This has of course been adjusted in the form of major renovations, following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York in 2001, and an increased security threat against the UN in general. One of the tough questions was what to do with the New York Housing office who was just recently built on the southern part of the site. It was roughly located where the Dag Hammarskjรถld Library is located today. The design board members were all in agreement of the optimal solution: buy it, and tear it down. This is eventually what happened, but the building was brand new

and the economics did not really leave much space for such outbursts. So the team had to make their plans according to the scenario where the building might remain.

Another recurring discussion during the workshop was which meeting room should be given the most important architectural position. Le Corbusier’s intuition is that it should be the Security Council, because of its important

function for peacekeeping, but Bassov, without actually providing any clear motivation, believes it should be the General Assembly. Harrison takes the usual passive stance and organizes a meeting with the UN to clarify these programmatic and organisational questions. When the board of design meets with David Vaughan, the principal director for conference and general service of the UN, he clarifies the debate a bit. “In practical terms, the Security Council is undoubtedly the most important [...] It meets constantly, with two or three hundred in attendance and full press coverage. However, while the (General) Assembly meets only twice a year, it is symbolically the most important organ. That’s when all the nations meet!“ (Dudley pg. 146) In the end, what the board of design agrees to is Bassov’s position: the General Assembly becomes the main architectural feature and the Security Council is placed with the other meeting rooms. This is the solution that works best with the functional organisation: the Security Council has a shorter connection to the Secretariat, the pair being the one where more interaction will take place.

After many workshop days of inactivity, Niemeyer starts sketching on a scheme. Now he starts building up steam, and works intensely with his design, later named scheme 32. His presentation of is short and to the point. He wants to avoid the creation of two separate squares and therefore pushes the Assembly building to the far side of the Secretariat. He separates the buildings to give them space to breathe, and puts the Secretariat on pilotis. On the open plaza he puts a lone sculpture, to emphasize the vastness. It was clearly the most simple scheme this far and the other board members were

Sven Markelius presenting his urban plan for Manhattan (Dudley 1994)

Niemeyer with some of the back room boys (Dudley 1994)

unusually silent, presumably in awe. After a while some technical questions on the arrival of delegates and so on could be posed but the scheme was mostly left resting.

In the meetings to come, Le Corbusier continued strongly on his scheme 23. He asked on several occasions the personal preferences of the other board members and when they again and again pointed to Niemeyer’s scheme 32, he raged and made sure to talk down Niemeyer. Talking to Bunshaft, one of the local New York architects, who expressed an affinity towards scheme 32, he said “How can you say that! He’s just a young man; that scheme isn’t from a mature architect” (Dudley 1994 pg. 240). He is also reported to have commented on the scheme as artistic, but not architectural.

Harrison, who saw the deadline approaching and two very good schemes developed before him, proposed a merge between scheme 23 and scheme 32. For logistical reasons, the General Assembly was pushed towards Le Corbusier’s position, but the openness between the volumes was implemented from Niemeyer’s scheme. This was then worked on for several meetings to produce the final design suggestion that went into the report.

3. The response and realization

The report was constructed with Ferriss’ renderings, program description from the infographics team of the UN and drawings from the workshop (the final merge between scheme 23 and 32). No single author was accredited for the work but it was signed by the design board as a whole. It was printed in the then five official languages of the UN: Chinese, English, Russian, French and Spanish, and it also contained diagrams depicting the main design features as presented for laymen. A large model was also constructed and could be observed by the UN personnel and the public. The news media reception of the final report was generally good, compared to the more sceptical tone put forward of the various press releases that

Scheme 23 (Le Corbusier) as drawn by Ferriss (Dudley 1994)

Scheme 32 (Niemeyer) as drawn by Ferriss (Dudley 1994)

Le Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s carnet de poche. Here being polemic about Niemeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scheme. (Dudley 1994)

had been going on during the workshop. The New York Times described it as a “clean modern look” (Zipp 2010). Also the academic world praised the project. Philip Johnson of the MoMA called it “The best modern piece of planning” (Dudley 1994, pg. 338) and Harold Sleeper of the American Institute of Architects said that “The tall skyscraper building and the lowlying General Assembly chambers form a pleasing and sensible contrast” (Dudley 1994, pg. 339). Very much in line with current architectural ideals of the time, positive comments were addressed to they way the project handled the traffic planning in that the superblocks did away with “horse and buggy” traditions, meaning small scale delivery infrastructure. One critical voice was Lewis Mumford whose opinion on the site and project was highly critical. One can imagine that his garden city ideals were not at all addressed in the results of the design board. He thought the size of the site too small “[...] a fleabite of land” (Newhouse 1989 pg. 142) and the design too incoherent. He felt like the design board had fallen short in acheiving monumentality. He compared the project to St Peter’s in Rome or the Statue of Liberty, in that an anonymous object like the Secretariat would never have the same impact.

E.B. White, who was a contributor for The New Yorker, wrote in 1948 “It used to be that the Statue of Liberty was the signpost that proclaimed New York and translated it for all the world. Today Liberty shares the role with Death. Along the East River, from the razed slaughterhouses of Turtle Bay, as though in a race with the spectral flight of planes, men are carving out the permanent headquarters of the United Nations – the greatest housing project of them all. In its stride, New York takes on one more interior city, to shelter, this time, all governments, and to clear the slum called war.” (Zipp 2010) Not surprisingly, most changes here forth is due to budget restrictions. Trygve Lie was shocked to hear about the first estimates of $84’000’000 and immediately felt that “[...] (the costs) had to be reduced by a good

The combination of scheme 23 and scheme 32 (Dudley 1994)

Presentation renders for the final report by Ferriss. (Dudley 1994)

twenty million.” (Dudley 1994 Pg. 335). Harrison himself did most of the rationalization of the General Assembly building, merging two assembly rooms into one, simplifying the overall shape and adding a rational grid of columns to economize the structure. Another big change is the elimination of the Delegations building to the effect of a $13’000’000 savings on the project. Pruning the residential part of the program seems like erasing the last part of the initial vision of a city complex with housing for all delegates, families and recreation. With this change the project had indeed turned into a purely administrative program. Later, in 1966, an apartment building would be built roughly in the same location, designed by Abramovitz as a double tower slab. (Newhouse 1989) The plan from the workshop was in a sense finalized, because this building houses a lot of consulates and residences for the UN.

A substantial part of the founding would be secured with state loans from the USA. This, however, did not come without reciprocal effort from the designers. Reportedly, Harrison is to have said to his colleagues that “According to Senator Austin, if you’re going to get this loan request through Congress, the building should have a dome” (Newhouse 1989 pg. 130). This is the only classical symbolism in the project, probably to the dismay of most of the design board, who otherwise had a very pure and modern project to be proud of.

The antagonism between Harrison and Le Corbusier is a reoccurring theme through this entire story. Le Corbusier saw himself as the natural but denied leader of the workshop. He continuously tried to take control of decision making and sometimes claiming authorship of schemes even though the agreement was that they were to be considered team efforts. He also leaked sketches of his own to the press, which got published as the main design proposal. In the aftermath of the workshop, before returning home, Niemeyer praised Harrisons calmness by telling him that “Harrison, you did a wonderful job - you really have! You were fair with Corbusier whose actions were unfair toward you.” (Dudley 1994 pg. 329)

The general assembly building as proposed by the design board. (Newhouse 1989)

The same after budget cuts and rationalization by Harrison. (Newhouse 1989)

Chapter III - The Slab as an Architectural Object in the Post-War Era

”It has been said that one should never forget that the United Nations operates in a glass house. I would add that in our world of today, it could not operate under any other conditions; in fact, in my view, it should operate in a glass house in order to serve its purposes.” - Dag Hammarskjöld (Dickstein, 2006)

The slab is undoubtedly the most recognizable feature of the Headquarters complex. This monolith of glass, steel and marble has been featured in countless movie shots, postcards, stamps and tourists photos. It is interesting to see that the slab as morphology was consistent throughout the design workshop, and modernist principles in general. Why is that? Dudley claims two main reasons (Dudley 1994). First we can start with the world fair of 1939-40. Here modernism gets cemented into the mainstream architectural ideal in favor over the neoclassical. This is partly a reaction to Facist Italy and Nazi Germany, where the regimes had appropriated the Beaux-Arts classicism as state endorsed style. Second is the choice of the workshop location at the Rockefeller center, a pinwheel style slab complex, and with its architect Harrison as workshop leader. 30

We can also see contextual reasons for the slab. The site is relatively small and requires some sort of high rise to fit the program with ample horizontal space around. The Secretariat is the main working building of the UN, the administrative heart of the complex. The meeting halls and assemblies are empty most of the year, but the Secretariat is busy all year around. It is natural then for the design board to focus on efficiency and rationality in the Secretariat and more representative and graceful forms in the other

buildings. The high rise makes for a lot of stacked office space without the possibility of getting lost, with a lot of daylight and great views for everyone. The general architectural composition of the vertical and the horizontal is powerful. Also this works on a city scale. As Sven Markelius pointed out in the workshop, the verticality of New York makes the horizontality of the Assembly and Conference buildings extra prominent and he pointed this out by drawing perspectives from a much wider 46th street than what actually existed, with the Secretariat and the General Assembly as an asymmetrical composition.

The Secretariat followed the tendency of the time, using modern materials and building techniques. It shows indeed the “fascination for the aesthetic of the steel skeleton.” (von Moos, p. 31) This meant boasting a transparent façade, in order to show off its structure beyond the glazing, which also served to let natural light in. It does not, however, go the whole way to let the entire slab be enveloped in the curtain wall. This sets it apart from the likes of Lever House by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. The entirety of the gables are opaque, covered in marble, contrasting the openness of the glazed façade. The reason for this, which seems to have been in the picture from the very beginning of the workshop, may be due to several factors. A structural one seems reasonable. Since the bending resistance is the lowest and the wind forces the highest in the transversal direction, it would make sense to add more structure there. But we can observe other slab shaped buildings, with the same proportions, that do not have this feature. So there might have been other reasons as well. Le Corbusier had, as was his habit, already a vision for

how the façade was supposed to look; in an early draft of his report from the site examination committee he had referred to the buildings as having stone façades (Newhouse, 1989). It is possible that this, analogous to the use of the slab archetype for the Secretariat, is something that slipped into the collective consensus in the beginning of the workshop, and never really was challenged. In addition to this it is hard to take for coincidence that the design, which in the end was determined to a big extent by the thoughts of Niemeyer and Le Corbusier, ended up echoing that of the Ministry for Education and Health in Rio de Janeiro, on which they had collaborated ten years prior. (von Moos) The fact that the work of architects always is a continuum of previous projects and ideas is probably not a controversial statement. It is seen throughout the workshop that comments from the participants are always based on their own past experiences, like for example Ralph Walker, who continuously promoted more compact plans to have the parts function as effectively as possible. This was an approach he himself had used in many research buildings before (Dudley 1994, Pg 70) and one can definitely talk about participants having their own personal idée fixe.

During the second half of the workshop, when delegates from many different countries arrived, the international mix does make itself apparent. Bessov, the laconic Soviet engineer, although respected by all continuously proved to hold strong opinions on the architectural principles of Le Corbusier. As example, he rejected putting the Secretariat on pilotis which he called chicken-feet. Dudley remembers is as “[...]it was deeply rooted, in Russian legend and in his engineer’s instinct to build solidly into the ground” (Dudley 1994, pg. 232). In the discussion on how to place the public in relationship to the delegates, a distinct political view can also be felt. Bassov wanted the public up close, surrounding the delegates, seeing their faces. Le Corbusier however did not want them to annoy the delegates (Dudley 1994, pg 95).

An interesting observation is how the European architects take the local New York architects knowledge of high rise with very little discordance. They basically do not enter into debate on issues of elevator systems, services or wind loads. The elevatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position within the structure or in the facade is arguably the most important architectural decision for the Secretariat, but Harrison really has to push the discussion to get consensus in that matter. Can this be because questions like these are expected to have objective

answers? What type of architecture is more like a machine than the high rise? It is techniqually advanced and based on rational principles. The modernist way of looking at it would be that there is an optimal solution whether or not to put the elevators in the facade, and the European architects were mainly expecting the New York architects to provide that objective answer. In the end it was very much Oscar Niemeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purely esthetical and spatial argument for putting the elevators in the core that defined the final shape. He argued that a perfect monolith was the more pure form and the stepped elevators on the facade would be too cluttered. It is interesting too see how the debate between and around functional and esthetical questions fluctuated throughout the workshop. Often, Le Corbusier uses functional arguments to get the discussion where he wants it, but he will not shun from using more archaic esthetical arguments for defending his forms and partis. This was also true for most of the other participants. Le Corbusier saw the project as great victory for CIAM and modern architecture. It was as if it all had come full circle. What he describes as scandalous events following the competition for the construction of the Palace of the League of Nations in 1927 is followed by the forming of CIAM at the Chateau de la Sarraz in 1928. Then they were seen as dissidents, and now one of the most important buildings in the world was being built with all the principles of modern architecture.

Bibliography

Books Dudley, G. A. (1994) A workshop for Peace: Designing the United Nations Headquarters, Massachusetts: The MIT Press Le Corbusier (1947) U N Headquarters, New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation Newhouse, V. (1989) Wallace K. Harrison, Architect New York: Rizzoi International Publications, Inc.

Zipp, S. (2010) Manhattan Projects: The Rise and Fall of Urban Renewal in Cold War New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press

References

Articles Dunlap, D. (2015) U.N.’s Makeover Sacrifices Hammarskjold Library For Security, The New York Times September 2, 2015.

Gonchar, J. (2012) Revival of an Icon, Architectural Record, September 2012: 106-112

von Moos, S. (2015) The Monumentality Of The Matchbox. Radically Modern: Urban Planning and Architecture in 1960s Berlin. Ed. Köhler Thomas and Müller Ursula, 1st ed, pg 28-43, Tübingen: Wasmuth Web sources

Brown, S. (2013) One window, three curtains, http://www.cooperhewitt.org/ (retrieved April 28 2016)

UN General Assembly Official Records (1961) Agenda item 68: United Nations Library: report of the Secretary-General, www.un.org (retrieved April 23 2016) UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases (2013) Welcoming New ECOSOC Chamber, Secretary-General Expresses Hope Decisions Made There Will Have Impact Far Beyond Its Walls, www.un.org (retrieved April 28 2016)

UN Visitors Centre (2013) Fact sheet: History of United Nations Headquarters, www.un.org (retrieved April 23 2016)