601 Lexington Ave by Logan Dumont

LEXINGTON

601

AN DUMO NT LOG

“Probably the most important skyscraper built in New York in the 1970’s because of its elegant and memorable shape, but also because of its engagement with the city at the base.” - Paul Goldberger, New York Times, July 11, 2006.

CONTENTS 01 DOCUMENTATION 02 HISTORY 03 ANALYSIS 04 BIBLIOGRAPHY

01 DOCUMENTATION PLANS / SECTIONS // ELEVATIONS

Appearing as if to float above the busy streets of

Manhattan, 601 Lexington Ave, formerly known as the Citicorp Center, soars 915 feet high, puncturing the New York City skyline with its atypical pitched roof. It is an office tower built in 1977 to house the headquarters of Citibank, one of New York’s financial institutions with branches in large metropolitan cities across North America. Unlike any other building of its time in the 1970’s, Hugh Stubbins, the primary architect, and William J. LeMessurier, the structural engineer, designed a distinct tower to meet and exploit the seller’s unusual demand: to demolish a decaying gothic church and rebuild a new one in its place for St. Peter’s. Towering above the church, the stilts extend 127 feet above the ground, giving the appearance as light and airy to such a monolithic structure. The sunken plaza also gives presence as to how weightless this building appears at first glance, allowing for both pedestrian traffic and breezes to circulate through the openness of the architecture. 6

Among its key features are the placement of the main columns in the middle of each side rather than at the corners, the typical location of such structural elements. The architects did this to provide space for St. Peter’s Lutheran, which sold the land to the Citicorp developer with the stipulation that the project include a new church on the same spot where the old one had been. While the church was demolished and redesigned, it remains an integral part of the site, as well as the main reason why the base of 601 Lexington Avenue is radically different from that of most skyscrapers. This spatial strategy also allows for a sunken public plaza outdoors that includes an urban waterfall and direct access to the subway. The complex includes a mix of uses, including a seven-story atrium that anchors three stories of restaurants and shops, one of which lends itself to large terraces that extend out past the uplifted base. (RIGHT) 7

STREET

PLAZA

A 400 ton lump of smart concrete Another unusual feature is the 45-degree angled roof that caps the tower and differentiates it from traditional skyscrapers ending in a rectangular or pointed top. The initial design intent of this feature was to construct setback penthouses on the roof, but this was abandoned due to zoning restrictions not allowing residential to mix with commerical. Later, as an afterthought, solar panels were intended to clad the cutting roofline, which would have made the building one of the first skyscrapers to take advantage of the sun as an alternative source of energy. This strategy was also abandoned as the technology for solar panels was quite primitive compared to today’s standards, making it financially unsuitable at the time.

Cladded in aluminum spandrel and glass, the building is much lighter than most of its time. Beccause of this, the tower needed a tuned mass damper in the mechanical space near the top. This is essential to the comfort of people in the building as it, “... is designed to counteract swaying motions due to the effect of wind on the building and reduces the building’s movement due to wind by as much as 50%” (Greer, “Rx for Swaying Skyscrapers,” New York Times). What is also interesting about this tower in regards to circulation is the double-deck elevators. This allows for two consecutive floors to engage with the elevator simultaneously, greatly reducing wait times and boosting efficiency.

SECTION B-B

Atrium shopping SECTION A-A

AXONOMETRIC

Looking Up - top

SECTION C-C

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR LAYOUT

BELT TRUSS SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL DETAIL

ALUMINUM SPANDREL 8’ 7” AIR GAP

SOFFIT W18 X 550 1” INSULATED GLASS 5/8” GYP. BD 2” RIGID INSULATION FIN. FLOOR WATERPROOF MEMBRANE CONCRETE STEEL DECKING W21 X 44 T-BAR

DROP CEILING

02 HISTORY DESIGN / RECEPTION // INFLUENCE

In 1961, Citibank moved into a newly constructed

tower at 399 Park Avenue, directly across from 601 Lexington Ave, where the company would move its heardquarters 16 years later. Quickly outgrowing its space, they were looking to expand and create a new identity, one that could be easily recognized like that of the Seagrams Building. At this time in the late 1960’s, St. Peter’s Lutheran Church was experiencing financial difficulties and began shopping the idea of selling their plot of land. Two brokers by the names of Donald Schnabel

and Charles McArther, both of whom worked for the real estate company of Julien J. Studley & Co, approached Citibank with the hopes to attract them as the developer. 3 Where this becomes different than most land acquisitions is that the Schnabel and McArther set up several companies to purchase the properties in order to not attract unwanted attention that would inflate the cost of each site. Taking roughly five years and $40 million to acquire all the needed parcels, the project was underway, but not without meeting the demands of the key land owner, St. Peter’s Church.

The importance of the church had played a significant role in the design development phase, lending itself to ultimately become the pivotal and key element to help give both form and shape to the tower. Thinking outside of the box, literally, Stubbinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inital design scheme was to place the elevator and service elements in a detached core directly behind the main tower. This would have allowed for the office floors to be open, much like that of todays modern towers. By moving the core outside of the main building, it would have also provided a potential fire refuge from the building, crating a better circulation between the low and high-rise building.6 Further enhancing the slenderness and circulation of the design, a glass bridge was to cross Lexington Avenue, but like the previous renditions, were value-engineered out with the main reason being that it was not traditional. Conventional office floors with a central core seem to rent more easily in New York.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;This is always an important consideration, and at the time we were designing, New York office space was going begging and we were working on the most expensive block ever assembled in New York.â&#x20AC;? - Hugh Stubbins, 1978, Architectural Record.

“With the church as a catalyst and the bank as a supporter, we can design a new kind of place which all kinds of people will want to enter and become part of it. While the church must have its own identity, I like to think how it could be enhanced and magnified if we combine it with a new kind of office building. I think furthermore that we should be able to see into the church from the outside, to see what is going on, be attracted and become part of it. There is a spirit stirring at Saint Peter’s Church that could become a bright light in Manhattan.”

This odd stipulation that St. Peter’s Church had requested in order to sell its property, demolish and re-design a new church in the existing parcel of land, is what has helped define the relevance of this tower today. Without this, the ground condition would be like that of every other building in New York at this time. The church’s design was not an afterthought either. Hugh Stubbins and W. Easley, a senior associate at Stubbins, worked in tandem to achieve a harmonious effect between the tower and church, but yet allowing each design to have its own identity from one another. Conceived to appear like two hands embracing in prayer, the design slightly echos that of its bigger counterpart, the tower itself, with sharp edges, a rotation of 45 degrees, and gray granite facade. The interior, orchestrated by Vignelli Associates, allows for maximum flexibility with removable pews and platforms, but the biggest surprise to passers-by is the view they are granted from street level; a 11 large window invites the viewers to see down into the church, seamlessly connecting the outside in.

- Hugh Stubbins to Henry J. Muller, former VP of the First National City Bank, 1970.

Much like that of St. Peter’s Church, the plaza was not an oversight, but rather used as a springboard to gain support from the church and city by giving back public space to the people of Midtown. Stubbins and Citicorp’s managers saw too often how plazas and midblock gallerias remained empty, killing the street life around, so they were determined to not let that happen with their design. Stubbin’s proposed a large sunken plaza, an open-air concourse, a covered pedestrian space and a through-block arcade within the interior space open to a large atrium housing a seven-story low-rise building; all of which were realized. By providing a vast amount of public space and amenities, the project received zoning incentives from the City Planning Commision of New York, allowing for a higher floor area ratio of 187. The design worked so well that it became a poster-child for the Office of Midtown Planning on how developers need to embrace these incentives for its intended use, the public. Moreover, softening how the skyscraper meets the street allowed for greater foot traffic to flow in, out and around the development of the city block, revitalizing the importance of street life near the base of a tower. This was also made possible in part by the structural implementation of Le Messurier’s chevron bracing, allowing for the flow of pedestrians to happen more freely than if the tower were braced in a traditional sense, with columns transferring their loads to the corners.

William J. LeMessurier designed the structure to resemble a chevron pattern, transferring, “... half the gravity and all the wind loads,” downward on the outside of the tower, (Schmertz, p. 116). Each chevron brace spans 8 floors, making up 6 per side for a total of 48 floors. At the bottom of the tower, still elevated 10 stories in height, is a belt truss system, where each of the sides loads are connected and dispersed into the four columns and central core. The core is primarily made up of concrete and steel beams that transfers the other half of the gravity load, while simultaneously housing 22 elevators servicing all 59 floors. Initially wanted by LeMessurier, the structural system was to be exposed, embracing the true prowess of its design, but due to high costs, and the disagreement that Stubbin’s had thought it may be too overpowering, led to the building being clad in aluminum spandrel and glass, adding to its sleekness and differentiating itself from its surrounding context of the time. More importantly is the position and placement of the glass and spandrel, only offset by an inch of one another, allows for an easy, automated cleaning process by the window washing unit placed above the 59th floor. Here, doors open to the width of the building, allowing for the machine to be fully integrated and hidden when not in use.

Stacked Tiers • Every 8 floors is a structural whole, independent • Transferring load through chevron diagonals to mast column

stories; that is what could have toppled over if it were not for a trio of fortuitous events. Just only a year after completion, Bill LeMessurier had received a phone call from Diane Hartley, an undergraduate engineering student at Princeton University who started to explain to him that the calculations on the Citicorp Center were in fact wrong, indicating that while the original stresses caused by direct winds would be sufficient, quartering winds produced a much higher force that could in turn push the tower over. While the story is told, LeMessurier was to have thought of this scenario, but decided the “welded” connections would suffice in such an event. Luckily for the sake of everyone in Manhattan, LeMessurier was in another job meeting, but this time in Pittsburgh, where two new skysscrapers were to be erected who were also designed by Hugh Stubbins. In this meeting, a general contractor from U.S. Steel, a potential bidder for the two upcoming projects, had said that bolted joints would be just fine and much cheaper for this type of work, the work very similarly done on the Citicorp Center. This is where LeMessurier needed reassurance. 28

Struggling whether or not to say anything, LeMessurier went into retreat in Canada where he reviewed, checked and thought it all through before coming to the realization that, “... it was a terribly serious matter.” After notifying Citicorp of the issue, a plan was put into place. They had notified the NYPD of the problem in order to set up an evacuation route spanning 10 blocks, had 2500 Red Cross volunteers on standby, and hired three different weather services to provide 24/7 coverage on approaching storms, all while the construction crew welded throughout the night, finishing in the morning just before employees would arrive for work, (Structural Integrity, 99IP). This was done in total secrecy as to avoid panic from the masses. As progress was continuing, one of the weather services had picked up on a tropical storm that eventually turned into Hurricane Ella, which manifested into a Category 5 hurricane once off the coast of New York, but lucky did not make landfall or disaster could have struck. This remained a mystery to the general public until 1995, eighteen years after the issue had been rectified, when a writer Joe Morgenstern overheard it being told at a party, and interviewed LeMessurier where the story later broke to the New Yorker. This story is now used as a case study when discussing ethics in architecture. LeMessurier did not have to tell anybody, but he felt the need for the safety of the general public, ultimately doing the right thing. After finishing the meeting, he put in a phone call to his office where he spoke to Stanley Goldstein, hoping to hear how great of a success the welded joints were to the project. Instead, LeMessurier was told how the welded joints were changed to bolted joints by the way of Bethlehem Steel, as they deemed the welding to be overkill as the welds were stronger than necessary. Unfortunately, it was LeMessurier’s own office who had signed off on this request. As he ran the calculations again, he determined that he and his team did not take quatering winds into affect, but only perpendicular winds, similarly to what Ms. Hartley had originally proposed. But furthering his evaluation on the stress of the bolts, he realized because of the significantly light weight of the tower, the building could see a 40% increase in tension, which was originally planned for, but because of the quartering wind, that increase could quadruple the force, surmounting to 160% increase of force, something the bolts could not withstand, (Ressler, The Importance). With the hurricane season quickly approaching, LeMessurier knew something had to be done quickly and discretely.

- Sketch, Diane Hartley, Princeton University

“I didn’t go into a panic over it, but I was haunted by a hunch that it was something I’d better look into.” - Bill LeMessurier to Joe Morgenstern, New Yorker, 1995.

- Hurricane Ella, Aug. 30 - Sept. 5, 1978, 29

03 ANALYSIS 03 ANALYSIS APPRECIATION / CRITIQUE // THOUGHTS

APPRECIATION / CRITIQUE // THOUGHTS

- Walter Gropius

Harvard

- Georgia’s Houses, 1942

Graduate School of Design was established in 1936, uniting all three design professions of architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture. One year later, Walter Gropius, the founder of the Bauhaus School, joined the GSD faculty as chair of the DepartGraduate School of Design was estabHarvard ment of Architecture where he revamped the curriculum lished in 1936, uniting all three design professions of archiby introducing contemporary concepts of architecture that tecture, urban planning and landscape architecture. One would revolutionize the professional design education in year later, Walter4 Gropius, the founder of the Bauhaus the Uited States. Hugh Stubbins had only graduated a School, joined the GSD faculty as chair of the Departfew years prior to Gropius’ arrival, but soon returned to ment of Architecture where he revamped the curriculum teach alongside Gropius and many other modernist arby introducing contemporary concepts of architecture that chitectus from 1940 - 1952. His ties to academia would would design critic education in not endrevolutionize there, as4 hethe wasprofessional a frequent visiting at Harthe States. Hughother Stubbins hadI believe only graduated vardUited as well as many schools. this to be aa few years prior to Gropius’ arrival, but soon returned to direct correlation of why Stubbins designed many schools teach alongside Gropius and many other modernist arthroughout his career. chitectus from 1940 - 1952. His ties to academia would not end there, as he was a frequent visiting critic at Harvard as well as many other schools. I believe this to be a direct correlation of why Stubbins designed many schools throughout his career. 30

- Federal Reserve Bank, ‘77

“Many leaders in professional design practice have also “Many leaders in professional design practice have also been effective and devoted teachers; the consistent growth beenprofessional effective andrecognition devoted teachers; consistentfirm growth and of HughtheStubbins’ are and professional of Hugh Stubbins’ firmproare testaments not onlyrecognition to his individual talents, but to the testamentsassociates not only to hi sindividual talents, for but leadership to the professional whom he has prepared fessional whom he has prepared for leadership during theassociates next fifty years.” during the next fifty years.”

- Gerald M. McCue, Dean of the Faculty of Design, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 1979. - Gerald M. McCue, Dean of the Faculty of Design, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 1979.

By working directly in the environment in which he would be designing for, Stubbins was able to capture what other architects could not, creating spaces for students that could enhance the learning experience. For instance, The Country School in Weston, Massachusetts By working directly in the environment in which (RIGHT) is credited for its sensitivity to human needs and he would be designing for, Stubbins was able to capture flexibility to accomodate developing educational trends, what other architects could not, creating spaces for studisplayed lightfilled classrooms, a mix of outdoor and indents that could enhance the learning experience. For door spaces, and finesse in the handling of the aesthetinstance, The Country School in Weston, Massachusetts ic and econimic potentials of its irregular and beautiful(1952) is credited for its sensitivity to human needs and ly-wooded site. Multi-purpose spaces scaled to children, flexibility to accomodate developing educational trends, northern exposure, insistence on ample natural lighting, displayed mix recurring of outdoor and inand ties to lightfilled the naturalclassrooms, landscape awere concepts door spaces,the and finesseteaching in the handling of thethat aesthetthat created cheerful environments were ic and econimic potentials of its irregular and beautiful5 characteristic of Stubbins’ schools. ly-wooded site. Multi-purpose spaces scaled to children, northern exposure, insistence on ample natural lighting, and ties to the natural landscape were recurring concepts that created the cheerful teaching environments that were characteristic of Stubbins’ schools.5 31

Stubbins’ realization of openness has transcended throughout his work, but maybe most famously noticeable is that of the Citicorp Center. By cantilevering the tower 72’ feet in two directions from each of the four piers drastically changed the urban environment, allowing for an unprecedented amount of natural sunlight to infultrate the plaza. The streetscape had forever been changed, creating a new typology of skyscrapers and reimagining the ground condition of how a tower must meet the street. This also plays into Stubbins’ awareness of human scale, creating an approach on how to radically improve the relationship between both tower and human. He further demonstrates the importance of scale by acknowleding when architecture should supersede structure, perhaps a nod to post-modernism? The four piers that support the tower hovering above the ground plane at 114’ tall and 20’ wide are not true to its size. They could be in fact half the dimension of what is shown, taking up only a 10’ x 10’ footprint. Both LeMessurier and Stubbins agreed that each pier should appear bigger than what is trully needed in order to retain “believability” and not cause uneasiness that the tower would collapse on itself. The relevance of scale is vital to architecture, and by maintaining this balance, Citicorp Center proves to be a thought-provoking piece of art that mystifies the general public.

If at anytime an architects work can stop a person in his or her tracks to have an “aw” type of moment, then something has to be said about that architecture, whether it is good or bad. More often than not, people walk by, work in, or hang out in spaces that do not resonate with their emotions. By capturing one’s senses, it allows for a dialogue to take place, creating cognizance. This is exactly what happens when seeing the Citicorp Center, as it is far different from any other skyscraper. It engages with the viewer from two different street corners, yet also pierces the skyline seen from miles away. What seems to be overlooked with many skyscrapers is the engagement to the streetscape, and how the dynamics can vastly change dependant upon a few factors. Stubbins’ was immediately invested to the concept of drawing in the general public, creating social spaces as so much of his work tended to do. It is important to to remember that architecture is created not for one’s self, but for all to enjoy. This fundamental characterstic was embellished with the piers and sunken courtyard, assuring the construction of a 915’ tower would still appeal to the masses and not just for the white collar employees inside, as it is still viewed today as an iconic, breathtaking piece of architecture that pushes the boundaries of design.

ACTUAL PIERS - 20’ X 20’

POSSIBLE PIERS - 10’ X 10’

CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

MECHANICAL

“When a building is right, it is almost universally sensed and accepted.” - Hugh Stubbins, “Architecture in the Spirit of Times,” Tokyo: Process Architecture Publicing Co., Ltd., 1979.

COMMERCIAL

1st Proposal: PROGRAMMATIC RESTRUCTURE

3rd Proposal: INNOVATIVE FACADE

While the Atrium Shops, the 7-story mid-rise structure near the base of the tower, does house mixed-use, it ends right there. I would like to continue to further expand on this program and place components into the tower itself, including but not limited to: residential, retail, commercial, hospitality, public gardens and some sort of iconic attraction that lends itself to help brand the city of New York.

The facade, innovative for its time with the proximity of its glass and aluminum spandrel being so closely placed together, I believe it can play into more of an integral part of the buildings form, function and sustainability. To build off of the programmatic restructure, I believe the best way to achieve this is to adhere to Greg Lynn’s saying, “When there is a change in form, there should be a change in materiality.”

2nd Proposal: CONNECTION TO URBAN FABRIC

4th Proposal: PURPOSEFUL ROOF

What makes this building so unique is how the tower meets the street. By allowing the bottom to be so free, it sends a welcoming message to the general public to come and explore what the building has to offer. Where this starts to fail is the unaccessability to the tower itself, being that all of it is leased commercial space. By minimizing the physical building footprint, more pedestrian traffic can flow in out and more easily.

The Citicorp Center can easily be recognized from the ground but maybe more so from the skyline. Distinct in its own way, bringing one of the first international styles to American, the roof separates itself from any others around. What is also often forgotten about is that the reason for the sloping roof had a purpose. It was suppose to house cocndominiums, where each would have a terraced balcony. I think it’s important to play up this feature not only for a distinct look, but that plays a significant roll in the buildings function whether it be program or structure.

RETAIL MECHANICAL

LOBBY

PLAZA

PROGRAMMATIC DIAGRAM

04 BIBLIOGRAPHY FOOTNOTES / ILLUSTRATIONS // REFERENCES

“A Public Space Enriching the City of New York”, Saint Peter’s Church, Website “Episode 110: How Manhattan Escaped Tragedy”, Structural Integrity, 99 Percent Invisible, April 14th, 2014, Webisode Alpern, A., Durst, S. B., 1913, & Alpern, A. (2011). Holdouts: The buildings that got in the way (3rd ed.). New York :Jaffrey, N.H: Old York Foundation ;Distributed by David R. Godine, Publisher. Bautista, Christian Brazil. “Boston Properties to close 601 Lexington Avenue mall until 2018”, Real Estate Weekly, September 21, 2016 Citicorp Center: Lexington Avenue between East 53rd and East 54th streets ≫ hugh stubbins, 1978. (2005). (Revis and Expand ed., pp. 141-142). New York, NY: Princeton Archit.Press. Citicorp Center plans $15M renovation of retail plaza. (1995). Real Estate Weekly, 41(39), 22. Crosbie, Michael J.”Hugh Stubbins, Modern Tower”, August 9, 2006. Architecture Week De Rudder, Dr. Steffen. “The Architect Hugh Stubbins: Fifties American Modernism in Berlin”, 2007, Jovis. Horsley, Carter B. “The Midtown Book: The Citicorp Center” The City Review Kayden, Jerold S. “Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000. Kremer, Eugene. “(Re)Examining the Citicorp Case: Ethical Paragon or Chimera”, Cross Currents, Fall 2002, Vol. 52, No 3. Ludman, Dianne M. Hugh Stubbins and His Associates, the first fifty years. The Stubbins Associates, Inc., 1986. Morgenstern, J. (1995). The fifty-nine story crisis. New York: Conde Nast Publications, Inc. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Citicorp Center, May 10th, 2016. PBS’s “Building Big: All About Skyscrapers” Series Ressler, Steven. “The Importance of Citicorp Tower”, Understanding the World’s Greatest Structures: Science and Innovation from Antiquity to Modernity. The Great Courses, November 12, 2012. Webisode Schmertz, Mildred F., “Citicorp Center: If You Don’t Like Its Crown Look At Its Base” Architectural Record, June 1978, McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1978. 36

Appearing as if to float above the busy streets of Manhattan, 601 Lexington Ave creates an astonishing sight when first first seen. Perched 110 feet up, cantilevering 72 feet out, and soaring to an almost heavenly height of 915 feet high, the tower pierces the Manhattan skyline like no other skyscraper with its sharp, 45 degree angled roof. Unparalleled in the city of New York is how the tower addresses the urban fabric, by gently resting on four piers situated in the center of each elevation, unlike all traditional buildings where columns are placed in the corners. This is achieved only by the unique, chevron bracing pattern designed by head engineer Bill LeMessurier, which is hidden beneath the slick, almost airy-like-materialization of glass and aluminum spandrels. Both the form and appearance were derived by architect Hugh Stubbins, where he placed the interest of the public at the forefront of his designs. - Logan Dumont