The High Line Park | The Standard Hotel

THE HIGH LINE - FIELD OPERATIONS & DS+R | STANDARD HOTEL - POLSHEK | NEW YORK, NY

The High Line and Standard Hotel represent a paradigm shift in the ideology of architectural development in Manhattan.

The perspective of the abandoned rail bed has been transformed from a physical obstruction to a positively supported public space, stimulating growth and development in Manhattan’s West Side. The hotel is a product of this gentrification which expands and develops further the concepts implemented in the park underneath.

The High Line Park + Standard Hotel New York, NY

The High Line Park Field Operations Diller Scofidio + Renfro Standard Hotel Polshek Partnership

Christine Eromenok Sarah Rosenblatt Nick Axel Rensselaer Case Studies Project

Preface Buildings embody cultural knowledge. They are testament to the will and forces that affect their conception, realization, use and experience. They bear cultural and professional signi cance and possess within them and their constituent components, important lessons for anyone wanting to discover what a work of architecture is in its larger context, what brought it about, and how it contributes. As Emeritus Professor Peter Parsons points out, “their forms and spaces are invested with traces of habitation and beliefs through the employment of materials wrought by craft and technology.�

They are manifestos of habituated practice and progressive intentions, and range in their in uence from reinforcing obsolete patterns and meanings at one extreme, to innovating and provoking yet unconsidered ones, at the other.

The Rensselaer Case Studies project examines contemporary works of architects in relation to what in uenced them, and seeks to expose innovations in thinking, technique and technology that contribute to architectural knowledge, scholarship and progress in contemporary practice. The project is designed to reveal the technological and cultural knowledge embedded within each selected project through questioning and analysis, probed through the dis- and re-assembly of drawing and modeling to discover the larger signi cance of the artifact, and how it came to be.

Rensselaer Case Studies Project Mark Mistur, AIA Associate Professor Stephanie Mendelson Assistant

Rensselaer School of Architecture Troy, New York 2009

1

Nick Axel Christine Eromenok Sarah Rosenblatt Professor Mark Mistur Rensselaer Polytechnic Institure Fall 2009

2

Table of Contents Introduction History of the Context Urban Evolution Architectural and Material Context

07 10

Industrial Renovations of the West Side History Timeline of Use Abandonment and Resurgence

13 14 15

Introducing the Standard Hotel Site Balazs’ Standard Empire Polshek Firm Profile

17 17 18

The High Line’s New-Found Voice Friends of the High Line Competition

25 27

Design of the High Line Field Operations Diller Scofidio + Renfro Precedents Restoration and Actualization Program and Performance

29 35 43 45 53

Effect of the High Line The Elevated Perspective Experiencing the Seasons Spontaneous Activities Ripple Effect

73 74 76 77

Design of The Standard Hotel Construction Interaction with the High Line Observer / Observed Pixilation of the Façade Le Corbusier and Pixilation Contemporary Context of Pixilated Facades Modulation of Mullions Pilotis and Le Corbusier Concrete Expressionism and Le Corbusier The Roof, and Le Corbusier

79 80 82 84 85 86 87 89 90 91

Conclusion

95

Figure Table

96

Sources

98

3

04

Introduction The process of adaptive reuse transformed the High Line from an abandoned piece of infrastructure inhibiting the development of its surrounding context to a generator of growth and activity. The project aims to re ect the “natural� state in which it was found in 1999, by synthesizing pedestrian oriented elements with physical remnants of the rail line through landscape architecture. The project allows for one to move freely above street congestion, resituating themselves to the surrounding architecture and the urban fabric. Giving 6.7 acres back to the city as public space, this linear park moves over, through, and along side of existing buildings affording users a unique elevated experience of the city. Such an experience provides a feeling of near-yet-far while negotiating the status of observer and observed. These phenomenological sensations are ampli ed by the Standard Hotel through the distinct relationship that is formed between the hotel users and people on the park. Straddling 30 feet over the High Line deck, the Standard Hotel challenges the typical notions of public and private through tactical methods of engaging the High Line. Dematerialization of the boundary between these two projects is accomplished through the highly transparent curtain wall; however allowing guests to regulate their relationship in the dialogue of observer and observed by movement of full-height curtains. As the High Line softly negotiates amid the city fabric, it slips under the grand pilotis of the Standard, creating an intriguing play between the two projects.

4

Figure 0.01: Frieght train in use

5

6

Urban Evolution Chelsea and the Meatpacking District The rst completed phase of the High Line starts in the Meatpacking District on Gansevoort Street and Little West 12th Street and continues north along 10th Avenue into Chelsea. These two areas have a long history within the development of Manhattan with many economic and cultural changes and movements occurring within them. In 1847, the Hudson River Railroad was created on 10th and 11th avenue on the same site as the High Line today. Introducing an industrial character to the area brought about the creation of the Meatpacking District and the Gansevoort Market as early the 1840’s.

By 1900, the Meatpacking District contained over 250 slaughterhouses and meat packing plants. To further aid in its industrial nature, Chelsea Piers were built in 1910, providing a direct connection from the primary form of transportation with the spaces to process its delivered products, all in proximity to the local distribution method of the train network. Population density continued to rise into the 1920’s, actualizing projects such as London Terrace [Figure 1.04] the largest single apartment block in the world.

Plans for an elevated highway began in 1925 served the connection between the residential areas of Chelsea to the Hudson River.

Figure 1.02: Hudson River Railroad

Figure 1.03: Chelsea Piers, built 1910

7

Figure 1.04: London Terrace, built 1928

The High Line interacted intensely with its context while it was in use up until 1980. The elevated position of the rail provided an opportunity for infrastructure to connect directly with the buildings which utilize its function. Aside from the creation of “spurs” that branch from the main path of the rail to join the facades of buildings, the High Line produced a unique architectural consequence of traveling and punching through buildings already built. [Figure 1.07] It was designed to go through the center of blocks to mitigate the negative pedestrian conditions of an elevated highway. In the 1960’s the southernmost portion of the High Line was demolished from Spring to Gansevoort Streets due to the increase of interstate freight trucking reducing the demand of rail traf c. In 1977 the Meatpacking District was added to the National Register of Historic Places. Almost simultaneously, in 1980 the High Line ended its service as an active railway.

Figure 1.05: The High Line’s original southern terminus at St. John’s Park

Figure 1.06: Spur connecting a factory to the High Line

8

Figure 1.07: Westbeth with a hole left over from the High Line

Even though the service of the High Line stopped in 1980 and industry has decreased up until today, the aura of the Meatpacking District has remained. As industry moved out of the area to more affordable and easier sites for larger operations, the district fell into the dereliction of abandonment. The 1990’s were a pivotal time for the cultural transformation of the area, when the visual arts community relocated from SoHo to Chelsea and cutting edge high fashion designers started establishing themselves in the Meatpacking District. This brought art galleries, high-end retail, and artists’ studios into the area, and plans were made in 1998 for the redevelopment of the waterfront in an attempt to reconnect the inhabitants to the river.

In 2003 the Gansevoort Market was added to the National Register of Historic Places, with 35 of the original 250 slaughterhouses remaining in service. Adding to the Meatpacking District’s popularity, New York magazine named it “New York’s most fashionable neighborhood” and in 2007, the area under the National Register of Historic Places was expanded to the entire district up to the waterfront.

Figure 1.08: High Fashion Retail

Figure 1.09 Contemporary Overhang Design

9

Architectural and Material Context

Figure 1.10: Abandoned Buildings

Figure 1.11: Contextual Materials

10

The Meatpacking District has evolved into a complex amalgamation of mixed-use program, including residential, art galleries and studios, and high-end retail, while still retaining some of its original industry.The ambient landscape is still that of dereliction, with some buildings falling into or remaining in abandonment [Figure 1.10]. This aspect of the context was closely considered for the material detailing of The Standard Hotel. The rough concrete forms and brick faรงade details [Figure 1.11] of the hotel re ect the materiality and grittiness of the surrounding area.

Materials common to the Meatpacking District include painted and exposed brick, corrugated metal, awnings and overhangs [Figures 1.12 and 1.14], all conveying an industrial atmosphere. In designing the High Line, the materials of the area were considered so to maintain this quality, resulting in the minimal intervention on the original structure to express the ornate iron capitals and rivets. Butcher’s meat conveyers left over from the area’s industrial age can still be seen on many of the streets, and served as a source of formal inspiration for the Standard Hotel Grill overhang [Figure 1.13]. These metal awnings, even when new, often do not serve a functional purpose anymore, but recall the industrial, gritty feel of spaces underneath the High Line.

Figure 1.12: Meat Conveyor and Street Art

Figure 1.13: Standard Grill Motif

Figure 1.14: Derelict Overhang

11

Today, West Chelsea is dominated by the modern renovations of old industrial spaces into lofts, art studios, galleries, and of ces. It is home to some of Manhattan’s most explosive growth in the past decade, also being the site of the densest amount of “starchitect” development; within on single block there are buildings by Frank Gehry, Jean Nouvel, and Shigeru Ban [Figure 1.16], and a building

by SHoP Architects [Figure 1.17] around the corner. The site map [Figure 1.15] shows the proximity of these notable buildings to the High Line and Standard.

Figure 1.16: Shutter Houses by Shigeru Ban next to the ICA by Frank Gehry with 40 Mercer Street

by Jean Nouvel reflecting in its glass

Figure 1.15: Map of “starchitect” buildings

Figure 1.17: Porter House by SHoP Architects

12

Industrial Renovations of the West Side History New York’s West Side was a bustling industrial area in early 20th century. Freight needed to be transferred from the port to factories and the warehouses. The High Line was an infrastructural project built between 1930 and 1934 designed to hold four fully loaded freight trains transferring shipments from the Hudson Rail Yards south to Spring Street [Figure 2.01]. This infrastructural improvement allowed for much safer streets in the area, eliminating 105 dangerous streetlevel rail crossings. In the early 1960’s the southernmost portion of the High Line was demolished, approximately a length of 19 blocks.

The rest of the High Line remained in service until 1980, and then fell into abandonment until 1999 when demolition of the rail line became a serious threat. At this point the birth of the High Line renewal project began.

Figure 2.01: High Line in context

13

Time Line of Use 1847

New York City authorizes the construction of the street-level railroad network on Manhattans West-Side to serve the increased need for transportation of goods as a consequence of the rapid industrialism of the area.

1851-1928

The mix of freight trains and general street-level traffic becomes a very dangerous combination so much so that 10th Avenue becomes known as Death Avenue. As a safety precaution, West Side Cowboys rode in front of trains waving red flags. [Figure 2.02]

1929

The City of New York and New York Central Railroad agree that the West Side needs an Infrastructural improvement project. The High Line project eliminated 105 street-level railroad crossings and added 32 acres to Riverside Park [Figure 2.03]. It was 13 miles long and cost over $150 million in 1930 (more than $2 billion today).

1934

The High Line opens to trains. It ran from 34th street to Spring Street. It connects directly to factories and warehouses, cutting through the center of blocks, allowing train access to the inside of buildings. Street traffic was undisturbed as milk, meat, produce, raw and manufactured goods were delivered via the High Line [Figure 2.04].

1950’s

Drop in use of rail traffic occurs as interstate system development and transportation of goods by trucks rise.

1960’s

The southernmost section of the High Line is demolished. Now High Line ends at Gansevoort.

1980

Three carloads of frozen turkeys are the last freight to be moved on the High Line. The elevated structure was abandoned with no plans for future use; simply forgotten.

Figure 2.02: West Side Cowboy

Figure 2.03: High Line construction, 1929

14

Figure 2.04: Gansevort Street, 1934

Abandonment and Resurgence Abandoned in the 1980, the High Line lay dormant and forgotten for 18 years. Nature reclaimed the lost space within the city. Joel Sternfeld, a professional photographer, captured the beautiful ‘decay’ of the massive infrastructural element. In 2000 he released a series of photos of the High Line in its found state. At that time, few knew about the untouched wilderness that existed above the streets of Manhattan. Sternfeld’s photographs gave the public a glimpse into the majestic landscape that was thriving amidst the concrete jungle familiar to New Yorkers. This ‘natural’ surface was a connective tissue through the city’s West Side, transcending the boundaries associated with street level circulation.

Figure 2.05: Joel Sternfeld: January 2001

Figure 2.06: Joel Sternfeld: Looking East on 30th St. September 2000

Figure 2.07: Joel Sternfeld (HL.org)

15

16

Introducing the Standard Hotel A Provocative Site Situated on the corner of Washington Street and 13th Street, the site for the Standard Hotel is located two blocks from the start of the High Line and within the heart of the Meatpacking District. The site was originally seen as unfavorable due to the constraint of the High Line running through the middle of the site at 30 feet above ground.

Figure 3.02: Plan of High Line through site

Balazs’ Standard Empire André Balazs, hotel and residential developer is owner of Standard Hotel brand. Previous to The Standard New York, is The Standard Miami, Los Angeles, and Hollywood. Balazs saw the site as a challenge and opportunity for innovative design. Although it presented technical and financial hurdles on the design, their goal was to embrace the difficulties of the site. This was Balazs’ first project of new construction; his other hotels were renovations. For help in this endeavor, Balazs turned to a college friend, Todd Schliemann of Polshek Partnership. It was agreed that the Standard would not try to hide the High Line or make it secondary, it would leap over the rail line and exist around it. “We have to be sensitive to this new landmark… It tramples through our site, but it also defines it.”

Figure 3.01: Exploded Axonometric drawing showing the relationship between the Standard Hotel and the High Line

Quote from “Hop on the High Line” Vanity Fair, February 2009

17

Polshek Partnership Firm Profile In 1980 the partnership began, stemming from the of ce of James Stewart Polshek started in 1963; today there are 10 partners including James Polshek. Current partners include Joseph Fleischer, Timothy Hartung, Duncan Hazard, Kevin McCurkan, Richard Olcott, Susan T. Rodriguez, Tomas Rossant, Todd Schliemann (lead designer of The Standard Hotel) and Don Weinreich. These partners guide the 145 person, multi- oor studio.

The of ce is located at 320 West 13th St, New York City, where it has been since the 1980’s.

Figure 3.03: Work Shop

Polshek Partnership has received over 150 awards, including 12 AIA Honor awards.

The rm boasts an in house model shop where one full time employee is in charge of modeling for all the projects from study to presentation models. Although small, the well laid out space houses a CNC mill, a small laser cutter, and traditional shop space [Figure 3.03]. Site models can be seen throughout the studio.

Within the of ce there is a hierarchy of desk space. The majority of employees sit at desks with the same white desk lamp, an of ce signature [Figure 3.04]. More exalted employees get window desks for private of ces viewable through a full glass wall [Figure 3.05].

Figure 3.05: Hierarchy of Workspaces

18

Office Profile 1930

James Stewart Polshek born in Akron Ohio

1947

Enrolled in Adelbert College for PreMed with focus Psychiatry, then took a course in Modern Architecture and decided to change his course of study to architecture.

1955

Received a Masters of Architecture degree from Yale University

1955-1963

Worked for I.M. Pei

1963

Formed Of ce of James Stewart Polshek, Architect

1972

Earned AIA National Honor Award

1972-1987

James Polshek appointed dean at Columbia University GSAPP

1980

Joseph L. Fleischer becomes partner

1982

James Polshek co-founds APPSR - Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility

1987

Timothy P. Hartung becomes partner

1988

AIA National Honor Award Carnegie Hall

1988

Monograph published “Context and Responsibility”

1992

AIA Architecture Firm Award

1998

Duncan R. Hazard, Richard M. Olcott, Susan T. Rodriquez, and Todd H. Schliemann become partners

2003

President’s Award, AIA NY Chapter

2003

James Polshek retires, but maintains the title of Senior Design Counsel at the Polshek Partnership. Currently there are 10 partners including James Polshek.

19

Cultural Geography When James Polshek first entered college he had thoughts of becoming a psychiatrist. Although he changed his focus to architecture, the social issues more prominent in a social science field shape his design philosophy and manifested in his disciplinary contribution of Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPRSR).

The history of the practice can be divided into two parts. The first period J. Polshek was a private practitioner. This was a period in which the political convictions and social attitudes that drove him to become an architect were integrated into an evolving culture unique to the office of Polshek.

The more recent years, the last three decades, have included voices of younger professionals as the office has grown.

All of Polshek’s projects, from both early and later periods, share characteristics from five typologies, all concerning “architecture as a humanizing force.”

1.Buildings that represent humane technology 2.Buildings that enhance the natural environment 3.Buildings that preserve history 4.Buildings that reinforce communities 5.Buildings that strengthen cultural identity

Figure 3.06: First floor studio space

quote from http://www.polshek.com

20

Pholshek Partnership Philosophy

“We make buildings whose designs authentically express “What we create is the progressive misrooted in how we work: collaboratively, sions to their cultural, academic and connecting with clients for the benefit scientific institutions. of their communities They demonstrate and the public realm. technical and artistic excellence and sigWe believe in archinificantly contribute tecture and design as inherently public: both to the cultural life of their communiopen, shared and ties and to the enenduring.” hancement of their contexts.

We engage collaboratively with our clients, and our design process is rooted in extensive research involving the analysis of site, program, public image and emerging construction and environmental technologies.

A commitment to sustainable design solutions is integral.”

quote from http://www.polshek.com

Figure 3.07: Entrance space to office (ours)

21

Disciplinary Contributions Mobile Design Reaching out to poor and marginalized communities. The Mobile Design national tour vehicle will be the Think Tank acting as a mobile collaborative design studio, an unfolding adaptable venue, and an interactive example of sustainable design. It will stop at 5 cities for 2 months each to facilitate a collaborative design process and provide sustainability education to students and community members. The Think Tank will require community input along the route in order to minimize the tour’s carbon footprint. For example, the MD crew will collect vegetable oil for fuel, dispose of grey water at existing community gardens, and allow event participants to re ll the onboard batteries with built-in kinetic to electric bicycle stands.

Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility Co-founded by James Polshek in 1982, ADPSR works for peace, environmental protection, ecological building, social justice, and the development of healthy communities.

Lewis Mumford Award Instituted to honor people and organizations that exemplify ADPSR’s goals of peace, preservation of the natural and built environment, and socially responsible development.

Lewis Mumford’s writings continue to inspire and remind us that architecture, design, and planning, must respond to human needs, harmonize with its surroundings, and re ect the aspirations and social context of our civilization.

Prison Alternative Initiative In short, Architects / Designers / Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) is pledging to not participate in the design, construction, or renovation of prisons. “It is a system built on fear, racism, and the exploitation of poverty. Our current prison system has no place in a society that aspires to liberty, justice, and equality for all.”

Figure 3.08: ADPSR

22

Figure 3.09: ADPSR

Major Works Projects that con rmed the direction of the practice and became the basis of a geographically and typologically diverse body of work: Teijin Central Research Institute, Japan 1964 New York State Bar Center, Albany 1968 Quinco Regional Mental Health Center, Indiana 1972 Museum of Natural History Rose Center for Earth and Science 1995-2000 2002 – AIA National Honor Award [Buildings that preserve history] The notion of a spherical planetarium emerged early in the process as a metaphorical reference to multi directional space. Becoming concrete in the programmatic and technical considerations, challenged included supporting the sphere independently of the glass box, the transparency of the glass box, and the circulation ramp connecting the two.

New York Times Plant Queens, NY 1993-97 2001 – AIA National Honor Award [Buildings that represent human technology] Seen mostly by cars driving sixty miles per hour, the building is easily legible. The building embodies an integrated approach to the design of a state-of-the art printing facility and a human and ef cient workplace.

Figure 3.10: Rose Center

Figure 3.11: NY Times (?.com)

23

24

The High Line’s New-Found Voice Friends of the High Line In the late 1990’s, there was talk in New York City of tearing down the unused High Line led by Mayor Giuliani and other political gures within the city. In response to these threats Joshua David and Richard Hammond formed Friends of the High Line (FHL), a private non-for-pro t organization to ght for the reuse of the structure.

Sternfeld’s photographs of the overgrown High Line raised the public awareness of its natural beauty.

Help also came from Gifford Miller, a college classmate of Hammond who was the speaker of the NYC Council and was able to award public money to FHL. The community board became very active and motivated to help the project. The High Line’s support group gained wealthy, in uential supporters and the median age within the group lowered signi cantly.

Figure 4.01: The High Line logo

As they grew, the FHL began to operate more as a business than a typical grassroots organization.

They hired lawyers to challenge the structure’s demolition and conducted a feasibility study. They created a 10,000-person strong e-mail distribution list to keep interested people informed.

In 2002, as fundraising developed, FHL became a full-time salaried job for the founders. Sternfeld’s photographs showed New Yorkers

Figure 4.02: Politicians and FHL Founders on the High Line’s openning day

25

that the High Line was more than a corroded old train line; it had a rare beauty and untapped potential.

The group also commissioned a designer to produce a savvy logo [Figure 4.01].

In 2004, a design competition was held to determine the architects of the project. Below are the criteria that outline FHL’s original intentions that set the foundation for the 2003 Ideas Competition. (a) Start public dialogue about potential use of High Line – having no pre-formed perspectives on the way parks should be (b) Promote idea of linear park onto of unused railroad bed. (c) Preserve the “unlikely wilderness” (d) High Line will be a quiet, simple, unkempt, slow promenade of agriculture, light and architecture.

Organic and inorganic material, intimacy and space as performance In June of 2005, a Certi cate of Interim Trail Use had to be obtained; this allows a railroad company to give the tracks to a local government for recreational purposes.

This was a long process, and involved convincing many people who initially favored demolition to sign the document. Under Mayor Bloomberg, the New York City Council was able to reverse the City policy favoring demolishing.

The new agenda ensured the High Lines preservation.

Figure 4.03: An FHL Employee gardening

26

The Competition The Ideas Competition of 2003 was an open, international ideas competition to encourage design that is bold, unique, and forward-thinking.

The requirements were simple.

Submit two boards – no models, no videotapes – that address the competition objectives: Define a comprehensive vision for the High Line as a whole; identify innovative ways to deal with access; present ideas for the spaces below the Line; and create a compelling public environment on the structure’s elevated rail bed. The submittal for this competition did not have to be practical or realistic. The response to the competition was outstanding; 720 entries from 36 countries participated in the competition. The 17 winning and honorably mentioned designs were exhibited in Grand Central’s Vanderbilt Hall in July of 2003, a great place for the project to get attention.

In 2004, Friends of the High Line and the City of New York sent out a Request for Qualifications in search of the High Line’s permanent design team. After a six month process, 7 teams were short listed from the 52 respondents. The list of seven was then narrowed to four finalist teams. These finalists were asked to exhibit their design approach at the New York City’s Center of Architecture in summer 2004.

After a face to face interview with each finalist team, Field Operations and Diller Scofidio + Renfro won

the project. A criticism of the nonwinning proposals was that many teams wanted to “smother the High Line with alien forms and ideas.”

4 Finalists:

Figure 4.04: James Corner Field Operations and Diller Scofidio + Renfro (winners)

Figure 4.05: TerraGRAM: Michael Van Valkenburgh with D.I.R.T. Studio and Beyer Blinder Belle (3rd place)

Figure 4.06: Zaha Hadid Architects with Balmoir Associates, SOM, and Studio MDA (2nd place)

Figure 4.07: Steven Holl Architects, landscape architects Hargreaves Associates and engineers HNTB (4th)

27

The lead design team chosen for the project, Field Operations & Diller Sco dio + Renfro took an “Agri-tecture” approach to the project. They planned diverse spatial conditions varying the amount of natural surface with planked surface [Figure 4.08]. Some of these spatial conditions are characterized by their natural to arti cial surface ratio described as: Pit (0:100 Plains (40:60) Bridge (50:50), Mound (55:45), Ramp (60:40), and Flyover (90:10) [Figure 4.09]. Layered into these spaces are unique ecosystems having their own plant combinations with speci c soil conditions, ranging from wet to dry.

Some of the ecosystems include Mossland, Tall Meadow, Wetland, Woodland Thicket, Mixed Perennial Meadow and Young Woodland.

Intentions of winning scheme: (a) “Agri-tecture” proposal of a series of exible plans interspersed with wetlands, sunken overlooks, oating ponds. (b) Approach to High Line as a structure and a landscape, one does not dominate the other. (c) Trust for Public Land – NYC averages 4.6 acres of green space per 1,000 residents. The High Line offers 6.7 acres.

Figure 4.08: “What Will Grow”

Figure 4.09: “What Will Grow”

28

Firm Profile: James Corner + Field Operations Their design approach attempts to bring out the natural potential of a site through proper planning, infrastructure and maintenance; essential characteristics of the practice of Landscape Urbanism, which James Corner has single-handedly helped create. Major tenets of the discipline, proclaimed by Corner in the essay entitled “Terra Fluxus”2 and exemplified by all of the firms’ design proposals entail: evolution over time, the object of design as a surface (not a form), and the duality of city and nature. These are all employed as chief concepts in their major projects such as the High Line and Fresh Kills, where they proposed a revitalization of a defunct infrastructural area, re-appropriating it for pedestrian use over a process of time, ranging from seasons to decades (respectively). Other projects in San Juan and Korea seek to achieve a spatial cohesion creating a new public space through the exuberant expression of nature, and Shelby Farms where the existing condition is planned to evolve to a better state and more desirable location than pre-intervention.

Field Operations sees the reality of cultural synthesis and placemaking to be a result of incorporating design into all scales of the project. This is done with an overall vision of non-prescription within the finished product; instead, they attempt to create a field of varied conditions to allow the inhabitants to “inscribe their own scenarios of occupation and identity”. quote from Field Operations. Portfolio. 2005. Web. Sept. 2009. <www.valdofusi.it/ita/bando/pdf/JamesCorner.pdf>.

What Field Operations has most importantly contributed to the discipline of design is the evolutionary and ecological approach to viewing the design of landscape and its use. Their view of landscape as a catalytic and synthetic role is not new, but the approach and strategy towards this is unique. The scales

Figure 4.10: Principal James Corner

29

in which Field Operations treats ecology; social, environmental, architectural, political, cultural, sustainable, urban, and design itself, allows the inherent complexity of a project to emerge. By viewing and analyzing the intricacies of the design process, intensive collaboration affords the project to synthesize multiple elements within a coherent vision. This view is very architectural, but with fewer boundaries or dimension.

Their design is highly in uenced by the dynamic relationship with all professional inputs and constraints of the project; architects, landscape architects, urban planners, engineers, local planning boards, public organizations, artists, etc. Dialogue is one of the primary design tools, achieved through the expressive techniques of visualization and models. This allows them to stimulate conversation from every party involved, “generating new forms of possibility”1 by evoking opinions. While they have not built any buildings, they are equipped with licensed architects on staff and often propose buildings they have designed as integral parts to their schemes.

This has allowed the rm to successfully take on projects of massive scales and execute them to the nest degree of detail and success. Field Operations’ perspective of ecology in a design sense has allowed them to succeed in a relatively niche but crucial role in the future of landscape design; that of reclamation. Through this integrative design approach, James Corner has been able to approach sites of spoil and re-appropriate them into vibrant landscapes of use and environmental regeneration.

Due to their close collaboration with architects, they have been able to envision place-making in a new light, from a perspective of architecture as an integral part of the landscape as opposed to the other way around.

Figure 4.11: South Street Seaport Development Plan

Figure 4.12: Nordhavnen Waterfront

Figure 4.13: Rio Piedras Stream Restoration

Figure 4.14: TOPO-LIFE

Field Operations is a multidisciplinary rm that works closely with design collaborators. They believe this to be the integral part to a successful project; to embrace complexity and integrate through a coherent spatial experience.

Figure 4.15: Proposal for Governor’s Island

30

Office Profile 1961

James Corner born

1983

Received a Bachelor of Arts in architecture and landscape from Manchester Metropolitan University

1984

Worked for Gillespie and Partners

1984

Worked for Wallace, Roberts, and Todd

1986

Received a Masters of Landscape Architecture / Urban Design from University of Pennsylvania

1986

Worked for Richard Rogers

1988

Began Teaching at University of Pennsylvania

1996

Wrote Taking Measures Across the American Landscape with Alex MacLean

1996

Awarded G. Holmes Perkins Award

1997

AIA International Book of the Year for Taking Measures Across the American Landscape

1997

Awarded Jens Jensen Professorship of Landscape Architecture and Urbanism at the University of Illinois Chicago

1998

Field Operations formed with Stan Allen

1999

Fellow of the Urban Design Institute

2000

Named Chair of Landscape Architecture Department

2000

Daimler-Chrysler Award for Design Innovation

2001

Architectural League of New York Design Award

2003

Ended Collaboration with Stan Allen

2004

High Line Competition - Winner

2004

American Academy of Arts and Letters, Academy Award in Architecture 31

Cultural Background

Field Operations is located in New York City, but has very close academic af liations with the University of Pennsylvania where James Corner has held the chair of their Landscape Architecture Department since 2000. He teaches design studios as well as courses in media and theory. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with a Masters in Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Certi cate in 1986. He began teaching at UPenn in 1988.

James Corner was raised in Manchester and educated at Manchester Metropolitan University, England, graduating in 1983. Manchester was an early textile manufacturing city that rose to its peak of industrialization around 1850. It was then surpassed by other cities, creating a decline in population and economy, but was revitalized in the early 1900â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s as a nancial capital.

This shift in production left a large amount of abandoned factories and industrial spaces, which inevitably served as an adequate framework for Corner to in uence in the American landscape.

The rmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high involvement with academics is unique as James Corner and two associate principles teach studios at UPenn. There are six senior associates; two are registered landscape architects and one is a registered architect who teaches a landscape architectural design studio at the University of Pennsylvania. There are six associates, one of whom is a registered architect and one of who teaches core media courses at UPenn in landscape architecture. There are six designers, one of whom teaches rst year visual studies at UPenn architecture.

When he came to America in the mid-1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s he entered into a small and often neglected eld of public landscaping and design. Corner was critically in uential at establishing an understanding and a reconsideration of how we use our environment (evidenced by his book Taking Measures across the American Landscape). This perspective was instrumental in the emerging institution of landscape urbanism, situating himself and his practice in the forefront of landscape and urban revitalization. With its strong interdisciplinary approach and history with architects and urban planners, Field Operations organizes and orchestrates the complexity of the urban environment as landscape into a social catalyst through dialogue and design.

Figure 4.16: Alex MacLean, Taking Measures Across the American Landscape

32

Major Works Downsview Park, Toronto: 2001 This was Field Operationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rst project to receive recognition, placing second to OMA. This was their rst proposal at a large-scale landscape intervention and shows the emergence of a style in this type of project to design over time.

Figure 4.17: Downsview Park, Toronto

Figure 4.18: Downsview Park, Toronto

French Embassy: 2001-2003 This project was Field Operations rst completed project, showcasing their ability to design and focus on smaller scale spaces with a critical attention to detail while paralleling with large scale submissions such as Fresh Kills at the same time.

Fresh Kills Landfill: 2001-Present This project was instrumental in revealing Field Operationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s large-scale vision and potential for landscape intervention. The competition called for a reuse of an old land ll located on Staten Island.

The response for Corner was to propose a long term development plan lasting thirty year until completion with an active design sense and intention throughout all the stages to produce different and evolving kinds of environments and ecologies.

Figure 4.19: French Embassy, New York City

Figure 4.20: Fresh Kills Landfill

Figure 4.21: Fresh Kills Landfill

33

High Line: 2004-Present The High Line project showcases the integrative creativity of Field Operations, orchestrating one of the largest public design projects to occur in Manhattan in decades.

The project was the re-habilitation of an old elevated subway line on the lower west side, spanning from the meatpacking district up to the Hudson Rail yards. This project not only implemented a large active park space into the dense fabric of Manhattan, but proved that public design was possible and could be extremely successful.

Figure 4.22: High Line

Figure 4.23: High Line

Figure 4.24: High Line

Shelby Farms Park: 2007-Present A pre-existing reserve where they amplify and exemplify the natural conditions while accentuating a spatial differentiation to allow for a heterogeneous set of activities.

Figure 4.25: Shelby Farms Park

Figure 4.26: Shelby Farms Park

34

Firm Profile: Diller Scofidio + Renfro

ED = Elizabeth Diller RS = Ricardo Scofidio, AIA CR = Charles Renfro, AIA

1935

RS

Born in New York City

1952-1955

RS

Attended Cooper Union School of Architecture

1954

ED

Born in Lodz, Poland

1959

ED

Moved with family to New York City

1960

RS

Received a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Columbia University

1964

CR

Born in Baytown, Texas

1979

ED

Received a Bachelor of Architecture from the Cooper Union School of Art Firm formed as Diller + Sco dio in NYC

1979-Present

RS

Professor Emeritus at the Cooper Union School of Architecture

1981-1990

ED

Assistant Professor of architecture at The Cooper Union School

1987 1989

1994

Published “Body Buildings: Architectural Facts and Fictions” CR

Received a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Rice University

CR

Moved to New York City

CR

Received a Masters of Architecture degree from Columbia University Published “Back to the Front: Tourisms of War” Published “Flesh: Architectural Probes”

1990 -2000

ED

1999 2000 -Present

Assistant Professor of architecture at Princeton University Received the MacArthur prize, the rst given to an architectural rm

ED

Professor of architecture at Princeton

CR

Adjunct Assistant Professor at Cooper Union

2002

Published “Blur: The Making of Nothing”

2003

Published “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio”

2004

CR

Became partner, creating Diller Sco dio + Renfro

35

Office Profile When the rm began, Diller and Sco dio based the studio out of their personal apartment. They would sometimes, after late nights, not be awake when employees came for work. They eventually felt the need to draw a boundary between their home and studio and moved the studio to Chelsea.

Diller Sco dio + Renfro is run by three partners, Elizabeth Diller, Ricardo Sco dio, and Charles Renfro.

Diller and Sco dio met at Cooper Union, where he was her professor and then they later wed. The three partners bring different views to the rm and act as a system of checks and balances for one another.

They describe the ways in which they change roles: one will be the dreamer, another the bad cop, and the third will ll the professorial role, challenging each other and working through problems.

The remainder of the rm consists of two senior associates (Chris Andreacole and Matthew Johnson), four associates (David Allin, Ben Gilmartin, Kevin Rice, and Gerard Sullivan), and 30 other employees.

The rm describes themselves as â&#x20AC;&#x153;something between an atelier and a democratic structure.â&#x20AC;? They are not organized with a pyramidal hierarchy. When the rm was young and consisted of ten employees the design hierarchy was easily manageable. Despite the growth, the practice is still highly productive, with the three partners always making nal decisions.

Figure 4.27: Members of the firm

Figure 4.28: The partners: Ricardo Scofidio, Elizabeth Diller, and Charles Renfro, l-r

36

Figure 4.29: The firm’s studio space

“Good design, we think, has to solve all the problems at every level, at every scale, at every juncture, critical juncture of decision-making.”

–Charles Renfro Diller, Elizabeth, Ricardo Scofidio, and Charles Renfro. “A conversation with Architects Liz Diller, Ricardo Scofidio, and Charles Renfro.” Charlie Rose. PBS. WNET, New York, NY: 31 Mar. 2009. Television.

37

Art versus Architecture

models extensively in their design process; Figure 4.30 shows iterations of the ICA.

When Diller and Sco dio founded their rm in 1979, there was a recession in architecture. Sco dio explains that, being architects, they wanted to building tangible things. Since the economy did not allow big projects, they turned to art installations and theater. This was a way for them to create something and get immediate reactions from the public. They never intended to have a large studio, and chose to focus mainly on research; whether the outcome was an installation, a book, or a building was not relevant.

When meeting with potential clients, they always present the full spectrum of their work, from the “Vice/Virtue” sculpture [ gure x] to master plans. This breadth is important to them, as they de ne themselves with “in-betweenness” and thrive on learning from new programs and projects.

Diller Sco dio + Renfro also participate in many competitions. Their most famous, although unbuilt example, is the Eyebeam Museum of Art and Technology in New York City’s Chelsea District [Figure 4.31].

Diller also cites that she studied architecture at Cooper Union without any intention of actually becoming an architect. She originally wanted to be an artist, but her work with Sco dio made her more interested in how people use space, which drew her to architecture. She was also greatly in uenced by John Hejduk, the dean at Cooper Union.

She describes him as “brilliant…a poet… [and] crazy” and says that he seduced her into architecture.

The rm’s early work was a blend of art, installations, and architecture. Their work was described as architectural non-buildings.

Although founded in 1979, their architectural work began much later with Switzerland’s Blur Building and Boston’s Institute for Contemporary Art, completed in 2002 and 2006, respectively. The rm uses study

38

Figure 4.30: ICA study models

Figure 4.31: Eyebeam proposal

Major Works Traffic, 1981 Columbus Circle Installation New York, NY This was Diller and Sco dio’s rst collaboration. 2,500 traf c cones were set up on a regular grid in Columbus Circle. They strove to represent a connection between urbanism and conceptual art, although the work was only on display for 24 hours. The cones fall like a blanket of snow and connect the six islands with and “indigenous” material [Figure 4.32].

Figure 4.32: Traffic cone installation

Tourism: suitCase Studies, 1991 Travelling installation Tourism employs 50 suitcases to “case study” a tourist attraction from every state, all of which are famous beds or battle elds [Figures 4.33 and 4.34]. The identical suitcases are lled with postcards, drawings, and models, and are suspended from the ceiling in a grid formation. The installation speaks to the importance of tourism in local economies, and the project is ironically easy to pack up and move to another location.

Figure 4.33: suitCase studies detail

Figure 4.34: suitCase studies arrangement

39

Vice/Virtue Glasses, 1997 The collection is a commentary on our post-modernist culture and the human need for health and hedonism. Every glass in the series represents one addiction (smoking, alcohol, pills, and drugs [Figure 4.35]). These works are an important display of the rm’s breadth of design and critically positioned way of thinking.

Figure 4.35: Vice/Virtue drug glass

Brasserie, 2000 Restaurant, The Seagram Building New York, NY The interior of the Brasserie restaurant is devoid of windows and completely disconnected from the building’s exterior. To counter this, Diller + Sco dio (before Renfro joined) placed cameras at the entrance that took pictures of entering diners, the images from which are displayed above the bar. The exaggerated shallow stair from the entry plays with making a theatrical performance of entering, a common theme in the rm’s work. This project was one of the rm’s rst architectural projects in the United States.

Figure 4.36: Brasserie television screens

40

Figure 4.37: Brasserie entry stair

Eyebeam Museum of Art and Technology, 2001 Competition Winner, unbuilt Chelsea District, New York, NY The museum houses both production and display elements, incorporating museum, theater, education, and studio facilities. The design is conceived of as a ribbon, folding back and forth upon itself as it reaches upward [Figure 4.38]. One side of the ribbon encompasses presentation, the other production [Figure 4.31]. In some locations, the ribbon is pulled and sheared to create overlap between the two zones. The rm views the project as a system of “controlled contamination.”

Figure 4.38: Eyebeam performance vs production

Institute of Contemporary Art, 2006 Boston, MA The ICA was personally important for Diller given her background in art (both in education and practice); it was a chance for her to experience the other side of art, the museum. The project had many responsibilities, being the rst museum to be built in Boston in over 100 years. Aside from being an art museum, it also interacts with the public boardwalk, which is something they value, “making architecture work in the city at the public realm” –Charles Renfro .

The dramatically cantilevered gallery box drew public attention and praise [Figure 4.39]. The rm recognizes that this project put them on the map in the United States.

Figure 4.39: Boston’s ICA

41

Blur Building, 2002 Exposition Pavilion for Swiss Expo Lake Neuch창tel, Switzerland The Blur Building has been described as a perfect synthesis of art and architecture for the rm.

It challenges our need to rely on vision and to see a building in order to interact with it. The project shed new light on how a country chooses to represent itself to the world and what people are meant to expect.

The rm won a competition for the expo with their proposal to build a habitable cloud on top of the water.

Figure 4.40: The Blur Building

Figure 4.41: Approach to the Blur Building

42

Precedents for the High Line Linear Park: Paris Promenade The Promenade Plantée in Paris is a 2.8 mile long elevated park.

It was originally constructed as a railway viaduct, and usage ceased in 1969. The renovated project of 1993 occurs on the elevated and ground levels, serving pedestrians above and cyclists below. The structure passes through modern buildings as well as having open-air sections.

Unlike the High Line, the Promenade showcases its variety of plants in a much more manicured, pristine manner. Differentiation between the planting, seating, and walkways are made clear. Other than its linear nature, no remnants of the original train lines remain; tracks are not exposed as on the High Line.

Figure 4.42: The Paris Promenade

The High Line pays homage to the Meatpacking District’s grungy industrial feel. Original railroad lines are kept in place [Figure 4.43]. The paving units seem to deteriorate as they overlap with the grasses and plants [Figure 4.44], which is typical of the overall design. Diller says that “the inspiration was the way that grass grows in the crack of a sidewalk. It just wants to take over.”

Figure 4.43: Original railroad tracks on the High Line

43

Battery Park

Figure 4.44: Modular paving units disappearing into the landscape

Figure 4.45: Battery Park’s superimposed layout

Figure 4.46: Battery Park’s manicured landscape

44

The High Line and Battery Park, both in Manhattan, are situated on man-made structures; the High Line is built on the abandoned train line and Battery Park on a land ll.

These contexts were dealt with differently, however. Designers of Battery Park implemented a master plan with zero regard for integration of the preexisting conditions. They kept a more traditionally manicured feel to the landscape and pathways [Figures 4.45 and 4.46]. Looking at the images, one cannot tell that the park is situated on a very industrial man-made structure.

Field Operations allowed for a more organic feel to the design of the High Line. Plantings are not neatly clipped, and all of the growth is indigenous to the area, as they came from seeds off of trains or blown through the air. The density and placement of the plants uctuate along the length of the project and do not meet the pavement with a hard edge. The design pays respect to the High Line’s previous function and integrates smoothly.

Both programs, however, are parks within New York City, and both were implemented after their surroundings were previously established. As new projects, they seek to change the use of the area and draw people to their individual spaces to experience culture within a natural setting.

Restoration and Actualization Preparation Once the rehabilitation of the High Line became a reality, the process of converting an overgrown wilderness into a habitable place became a primary focus of great importance.

The design selection of Field Operations and Diller, Sco dio + Renfro enabled the solution for keeping as many existing elements as possible while making it more welcoming and desirable to inhabit. To do this, due to structural concerns, the High Line needed to be stripped to its iron bones so that it could be reinforced and updated to current safety standards.

This began with the tracks as a top down process; they were unanimously disassembled and speci cally coded by location so that they could be reinstalled later. Due to its elevation, all construction vehicles and materials had to be lifted by crane and placed on available above ground surfaces.

Figure 5.01: Laying out the original members

Figure 5.02: Using a crane to lift construction vehicle onto the High Line

45

Clearing the Ground After the metal started being stripped and stored away, the actual ground work could begin. The existing surface of the High Line was dirt and gravel left over from the days of when the rail was in use. Clearing this away, bulldozers literally pushed the debris away to a place where it could be lifted off.

Underneath this layer of gravel and dirt was a layer of thick concrete, fastened directly to the longitudinal I-beams underneath spanning to the underside. In order to demolish it, a backhoe was fastened to the ground to provide the stability for the ripping of concrete rebar panels out of the ground after being trimmed around the edges.

Figure 5.03: Cleaning the Surface

After all of the old concrete was removed, the iron structure was revealed. A layer of wood was placed in between to act as a base for a new concrete pour.

Figure 5.04: Exposing the Structure

Figure 5.05

46

Figure 5.06

Structural Rehabilitation After the initial cleaning of the structure was completed, structural re-enforcement occurred as needed and the existing lead paint was stripped. The structure was sandblasted and given a new coat of paint to maintain the expression of the art-deco form visible from underneath. This was necessary for the renovation to remain integrated within the existing urban fabric.

Figure 5.06: Re-Painting

Figure 5.07

Figure 5.08

Figure 5.09

47

Historic Hand Railing Restoration The Art Deco steel hand rails act as a unifying element along the original High Lines design. Many were in disrepair and thus restored or replaced. The process of stripping away toxic paint, as done in the initial structural rehabilitation, was done for the hand rails seen along the elevation from street view [Figure 5.11]. In certain locations this original railing was destroyed and had to be prefabricated to the original design and material speci cation using the original drawings.

Figure 5.10: Railings before restoration\

Figure 5.11: Restored railings

48

Figure 5.12: Original Construction Drawings

Building Up Once the historic structure had been fully reappeared the construction of the surface on which the High Line would be planted could begin. A ten inch layer of poured in place concrete was put down, covered by waterproo ng polyester and asphalt layers [Figure 5.13].

Growing Medium

Filter Fabric Drainage Mat Root Blocker

Asphalt Protection Board Hot Rubberized Asphalt Polyester Fabric Hot Rubberized Asphalt Primer 10â&#x20AC;? Concrete Base

Once the foundation layer was prepared, the laying of the pedestrian surface, original rail tracks and soils could begin. The paving modules and tracks sit on top of standard CMU blocks fastened into the concrete platform [Figure 5.16].

Horizontal joists were placed on top of the CMU blocks to support the cast concrete panels or the selective reinstallation of the rail tracks, with a greater distance between rail ties than before. The negative space created by lifting the paving modules and tracks was in lled by soil.

Figure 5.13: Exploded axonometric of the ground layers

Figure 5.14: Reinstallation pattern of the tracks

Figure 5.16: Elements sitting on CMU Blocks

Figure 5.15: Elements sitting on CMU Blocks

49

Recreating the Wilderness The skeleton of the High Line was complete. The natural park surface and park accessories were to be installed. New handrails were installed adjacent to the existing ones in a minimal fashion, bringing the space up to code designed with embedded lighting. The concrete bed of the High Line and all crevasses and cracks between paving elements were lled with soil. During this process all paving surfaces and benches were protected by a tarp like covering [Figure 5.19] .

The nal task of coordinating the landscape toward the nal vision was the planting. This was done in a multi-step process. First the areas of each planting were marked off in orange paint [Figure 5.19] while the plants themselves were lifted in by cranes. Then, individual planters were placed in their respective locations and once all were in place, they were permanently set in the ground. Plants were laid out at a density that was conscious of the natural pollination and self-seeding that would occur. During the months waiting for the plants to grow to full height and density the architectural areas such as the stairs and plaza on 10th Avenue could be installed and nished.

Figure 5.18: Lifting plants onto the High Line

Figure 5.19: Laying areas for different plants

Figure 5.20: Planting

50

Modular Elements The paving of the High Line ground plane is made up of modular elements, three of which are predominant in the experience of traversing the linear park. Two are rectangular, and the other forms an angled taper [Figure 5.21]. The rectangular units vary in length and are arrayed along the sub-structure to generate pathways and dictate where users may walk (since walking on or touching the plants is prohibited). The nger-like elements are the â&#x20AC;&#x153;sidewalk cracksâ&#x20AC;?, referenced by Diller previously, through which the landscape permeates.

Tapering in plan and section, they seem to disappear into the landscape, especially in densely planted areas [Figure 4.44].

The simple paving units are supplemented by benches, which peel up from the ground and terminate with wooden slats [Figure 5.23]. Some benches have backs and railings, while others are mere slabs. The wood of the benched are aging with the changing seasons, and have a natural quality about them. The bench slips up above the walking surface which gives an almost accidental quality to the placement of the element, however speci cally planned.

integrated into the modular paving system. Water ows off the edge of the fountain and is collected in a metal grate at foot level, that has the same dimensions of a plank, thus replacing that module.

On the sundeck, lounge chairs are designed atop the original rail lines. Wheels on the bottom of the chairs allows for movement along the lines, and the heavy timber construction makes users feel as if they are on a heavy, slow-moving train from earlier in the century.

The chairs are of simple design, with beams stacked to form linear shapes [Figure 5.22].

Figure 5.21: Modular paving units

Figure 5.22: Lounge chairs on the Sun Deck

The High Line provides a number of drinking fountains, although the issue of acquiring water on the High Line has not yet been recti ed. The design of the drinking fountains is Figure 5.22: Modular bench variations

51

Lighting Architecture lighting designer Herve Descottes, Principal of Lâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Observatoire International Inc., contributed his ideas to the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s night experience through a LED lighting concept. Descottes philosophy of lighting is to reveal the scope, shape and form of a project. The lighting elements occur at or below the waist level to softly backlight the ora and illuminate the architectural elements.

This lighting strategy allows for increased safety at night as well as the ability to appreciate the city and the nighttime sky as backdrop. Below the High Line, pools of colored light are re ected off the structure onto the sidewalk.

Figure 5.24: Light fixture

Figure 5.25: Will Femia

52

Figure 5.26: Lights accent linearity

Program and Performance There are many different spatial experiences encountered along the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s linear progression.

Field Operations conceived of it as a digitized system of paving that can easily transition between wide expanses of walkways and areas that are more taken over by the natural landscape. The park is open to the public 7:00AM to 10:00PM daily, and is used by locals and tourists alike. It is, however, closed to bikers, skateboarders, scooters, and dogs. Wheelchair access is available via elevators at many of the entry points [Figure 5.28].

The park is open year-round, and because of its unique landscaping strategies is continually changing and blooming. The individual programmatic areas of the High Line are discussed on the following pages.

Figure 5.28: Map showing points of egress

01 01: Gansevoort Street Lookout

emphasize the somatic condition produced by the elevation and growth of the High Line itself. The planting surface shifts vertically to correlate with the formal shift of the High Line [Figure 5.27 and 5.29].

The Gansevoort Street lookout is located at the southernmost point of the High Line, and confronts the edge condition with a glass railing.

To access the lookout point one must meander through a highly designed and regimented landscape of arti cial cor-ten planters [Figure 5.27] with grey gravel serving as a soil. This is very different experience from the rest of the park as this portion is not engaged with the remnant of old tracks, but actually has multiple tiers of plantings to

Figure 5.27: The Look-out area

Figure 5.29: Southern end of the High Line at Gansevoort Street

53

03 02 02: Entry Plaza

03: Gansevoort Street Entry

As one enters from the Gansevoort Plaza below, you come onto a large open space that causally blends back to the peripheral landscape.

As the backdrop to this landscape is the southern faรงade of Standard Hotel [Figure 5.31]. There is ample space for the rst exposure to the city through an elevated perspective by a large viewable area along the western rail. Also, there are amenities such as a water fountain, benches, and a possible tour guide.

The Gansevoort Street staircase is typologically similar to the 14th street entry with a very thin section of perforated metal on the risers made out of a seemingly single piece of material [Figure 5.30]. The handrails are wrapped with the guard of a metal mesh. The stair is hung with tension members attaching to the structure above, and the act of emergence onto this secondary plane is emphasized by large cor-ten steel panels on the threshold [Figure 5.31]. These stairs are a reminder of all of the metal seen in the surrounding context, and speak to the industrially character of the Meatpacking District.

Figure 5.30: Stairs at Gansevoort

54

Figure 5.31: High Line entrance at Gansevoort

04

04: 13th Street Stretch In between the Gansevoort Street entrance and the Standard Hotel is a long stretch of park designed to accustom the user with their context within the city. The area is lled with a relatively low density of plants. The paths are tapered and surrounded by large swathes of green where the interaction of paving, railroad track, and planting can be seen easily. Due to the straight nature of the stretch, the paths continually bifurcate and come back together to offer different perspectives of the surroundings, allowing

the walker to meander along a straight line [Figure 5.32 and 5.33].

This experience is quite different than that of walking a city block at street level. In one location along the west edge there is a cluster of peeled away seats, providing not only a rest space but a possibly space for picnics and communal gatherings.

Figure 5.32: Looking south along 13th Street

Figure 5.33: Planting along 13th Street

55

05

05: Underneath the Standard The area of the High Line that passes directly underneath the Standard Hotel is a unique space as it is the culmination of the interaction between the two elements.

The paving surface is expanded and all plantings removed, creating a semi-enclosed spatial experience [Figure 5.34]. Here an expanse of pavers denote a “ oor”, the rough concrete forms of the Standard create of “walls” and the underneath of the Standard’s main structural truss acts as a “roof”. The roof keeps a

familiar language but differentiates within a similar material and color palette to keep the spatial qualities dynamic and interesting [Figure 5.34]. From this perspective on the High Line the re escape of the Standard is visible to the east and a private event space visible to the west [Figure 5.34]. As this space has become popular for gatherings, additional seating and tables have been added post-construction to provide amenity to the users [Figure 5.35].

Figure 5.34: The Terrace of the Standard Hotel

56

Figure 5.35: The East Pier of the Standard Hotel

07 06

06: Standard Hotel Plaza

07: Standard Hotel Terrace

The plaza in front of the Standard Hotel occurs not on the High Line, but on the corner of Little West 12th Street and 9th Avenue. This area is open to the public and serves as a strictly urban resting place with all hard surfaces of metal, stone, iron, and concrete [Figure 5.36].

This material palette is contrasted by the seating and entrance being denoted in a bright yellow [Figure 5.36], as well as a temporary art installation of a multi-colored fabric â&#x20AC;&#x153;sockâ&#x20AC;? appliquĂŠ to the poles surrounding the plaza.

The Standard Hotel has a private event space located on the third oor with an outdoor patio space looking directly onto the High Line.

The ground plan of the patio is situated at eye level when on the High Line [Figure 5.37].

Figure 5.36: Entrance to the Standard Hotel lobby

Figure 5.37: The Standard Hotel Terrace

57

09 08: Standard Hotel Grill

08

09: Standard Hotel Biergarten

The Standardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s restaurant is directly in front of the hotel on 9th Avenue. It is adjacent to the High Line and the monumental re escape on the Standardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s large concrete pier [Figure 5.38]. The aesthetic of the restaurant re ects on the characteristics of the Meat Packing district, in one instance is the overhang mimicking the look of a meat conveyer [Figure 5.39].

The Biergarten is a less formal eatery nested under the High Line.

It is an outdoor space covered by the structure of the rail bed above.

Here the historic structure of the High Line can be appreciated as the steel girders and columns with intricate rivet detailing are exposed and contribute to the aura of the space [Figure 5.40].

Figure 5.38: Fire stair coming down the pier

Figure 5.39: Outdoor seating ath the Grille

Figure 5.40: The Biergarten underneath the High Line

58

11

10 10: Standard Hotel Lounge

11: 14th Street Elevator

Inside the Standard directly off of the lobby there is a lounge space or “living room” that is intended for the users of the hotel. It faces directly onto the entrance plaza. Its materiality, color and form are intended to give a very familiar and comfortable feel to the space [Figure 5.41].

Located directly behind the 14th street entrance of the High Line is a glass elevator providing handicapped access [Figure 5.42]. Its materiality emphasis on transparency contrasts directly with the highline itself, which is massive, solid, monumental, elevated, and seemingly impenetrable.

Figure 5.41: The “Living Room” Lounge

Figure 5.42: The Elevator at 14th Street

59

13

12 12: Sun deck The sun deck provides users with moveable seating elements placed on the tracks themselves [Figure 5.43]. People use the seats to read, sunbathe, and casually converse. These benches are almost always in use during warm weather and a highly popular area of the High Line. Recent inappropriate use of slamming the seating elements together has forced clamps to have to be put onto the chairsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; wheels to prevent damage to the chairs themselves.

Figure 5.43: Lounge chairs on the sun deck

13: Spur Branch-Off This area, not inhabitable, terminates on the facade of a nearby building. It has been landscaped, but does not integrate the use of any walkways. It provides a location for users to see the High Line in its natural, overgrown state, as it was pre-restoration, including rail lines [Figure 5.44].

Figure 5.44: The Spur

60

14

14: Passage through the Chelsea Market The High Line passes through a previously existing building, the Chelsea Market. Originally used for convenience of unloading goods directly into the market, this platform is now used as a space for food vendors to sell their products in stands [Figure 5.46]. The ceiling incorporates arti cial lighting for night use [Figure 5.45]. The western wall displays a large-scale window installation based on the water colors of the Hudson River [Figure 5.47]. Users enjoy looking at and reading about the artwork.

Figure 5.45: The passage through the Chelsea Market

Figure 5.46: Vendors on the pass-through

Figure 5.47: Chelsea Market art installation

61

16

15 15: Amenities The Caledonia, a luxury housing complex, provides public restrooms at the level of the High Line [Figure 5.48]. They are the only facilities on Phase 1 of the High Line and are used and cleaned frequently.

They have not had issues with consistent water supply, as it is a private building.

Figure 5.48: Entrance to the restrooms

16: Wooden Deck This area is all clad in wood, including the ooring and construction of the benches. Trees provide shading, which makes it a popular place to sit. This zone does not include the boundary-blurring landscape that the rest of the High Line includes, as there is no landscaping at foot level and the paving units are replaced by wooden planks [Figure 5.49].

Figure 5.49: The wooden deck area

62

17

17: Amphitheater The 18th Street and 10th Avenue intersection is the location of an amphitheater hovering over the street. The wooden planking of the walking surface of the wooden deck continues onto terraced benches [Figure 5.51]. The benches step down to a plexi glass wall that affords a view suspended over the busy traf c patterns of the city. A continuous switchback ramp occurs in the space between the benches, supplemented by stairs on the east [Figure 5.50]. The bottom benches dip well below the height of the underside of the High Line, and allow users a view of the side of the rail bed structure.

To pedestrians at street level, users sitting in the amphitheater are put on display like a sh in a sh bowl.

Although sometimes obscured by re ections and lighting, the sense of people being elevated above the intersection experiencing a different perspective is close and apparent [Figure 5.51].

Figure 5.50: The tiered benches of the square

Figure 5.51: The Amphitheater

When sitting in the space, users gain a unique perspective of the city. Despite being physically close to the world below, the sense of separation is strong; oating above the street feels unreal. There is a strong dichotomy between being both near and far from the surrounding context. Here the rare opportunity remove oneself from the city and become an observer is afforded.

Figure 5.52: Section of the Amphiteater

63

18 19

18: 18th Street Seating

perpendicularly from the High Line and over the railing, this stairway offers a unique view of the park and its situation in the environment. As it is along the eastern edge, the perspective is of its urban immersion, as opposed to its relationship to the water on the West.

There is an accentuated area for seating around 18th street. The space is emphasized by an expansion of the walkable surface as the park curves from 9th to 10th avenue. This is emphasized by an arti cial planter placed in the middle with trees, separating the seating area from the circulation path as well [Figure 5.53].

This space is formally differentiated by the inclusion of elongated seating along an orthogonal edge to the west. Their material is a darker wood, sitting in front of a metal lattice that will be covered with vine type plants over time. The seating faces the path, putting people sitting somewhat on display.

Figure 5.53: The 18th Street seating

19: 18th Street Stairway The 18th street staircase is the rst non-monumental staircase (as opposed to the Gansevoort Street and 14th street entrance) in the northern procession of the High Line.

It provides intermittent access to the High Line, while also creating a location of emphasis for street vendors to accumulate at the bottom [Figure 5.54]. In its protrusion

Figure 5.54: The 18th Street stairs

64

20

20: Future 18th Street Plaza There is an architectural intervention planned to become a grand plaza on 18th street. This would take the place of the large parking lot below, and would seemingly replace the stairway mentioned previously. It would provide handicapped access into a large protruded mass, emphasizing the perspective of the stairway even more. From the available images, it appears that this space will be programmed with amenities, possibly a cafe and assumingly bathrooms.

Figure 5.55: The new volume of the proposed plaza

On the ground will be an open plaza with a large staircase behind it, creating an amphitheatre-like space and framed differential spaces to inhabit by different user types. This space is forseeably similar in functional terms to the Standard Hotel plaza as an urban void, with the potentials of temporal programs such as a farmers market, performances, etc.

Figure 5.56: The grand stairs of the new plaza

65

22 21

21: 20th Street Exit The north-most stair of Phase 1 is currently a re stair type staircase because it is temporary until Phase 2 is complete with a permanent access point. The stair circulates up and over the handrail of the High Line, as it is a temporary point of access, and affords the user a sweeping view of the city context to the north [Figure 4.48]. The base is situated alongside a major parking lot and empties onto 20th Street.

Figure 4.48: View from the 29th Street stairs

22: Future Chelsea Thicket The thicket will utilize different types of shrubs, plantings, and trees. The overall texture of the environment will change, becoming more course and dense. The foliage will change throughout the year, providing ever-changing densities and color pallets. Although this occurs throughout the High Line, the experience will be heightened in this area, due to the increased variety and quantity.

Figure 4.49: The future Chelsea Thicket

66

23

23: Future Seating and Lawn At 22nd and 23rd Streets, there will be a more manicured lawn setting.

This area will â&#x20AC;&#x153;peel upâ&#x20AC;? away from the tracks, affording users with greater views of the city. This will be enhanced by stepped seating.

The zone is intended to be more of a destination and place of leisure than other areas on the High Line; it is the only place where users are allowed to leave the paved walkways and traverse the greenery.

Figure 4.48: Future seating and lawn

Figure 4.49: Future seating and lawn

67

25 24

24: Future 23rd Street Entry This entrance will include stairs and an elevator. The stairs will rise between the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s beams, puncturing the surface, and the elevator, clad in glass, will supplement the entrance alongside the structure.

Figure 5.57: Future 23rd Street entry

25: Future Woodland Flyover In this area, a microclimate has been naturally created by adjacent buildings. In response, the walkway of the High Line will lift off of the structure as a thin metal grate, giving users views of the moss and groundcover below as they walk through a canopy of sumac trees.

Figure 5.58: Future woodland floyover

68

26 26: Future 26th Street Viewing Spur 26: Future 26th Street Viewing Spur The Viewing Spur will serve two functions. For users, it will serve as a seating area, where they will have a framed view of the city. It will be a destination place of the High Line, were users can stop to take in the magni cence of the city, while still being removed from the chaos below.

Conversely, to pedestrians on the ground level, the frame recalls the aesthetic of billboards, which were once attached to the High Line.

The frame will put the users on display for those below to see. This showcase will replace the advertisements of the past.

Figure 5.59: Future viewing spur

Figure 5.60: Future viewing spur

69

27

27: Future Wildflower Fields The elds will take advantage of a long, straight portion of the High Line to allow users to fully appreciate the axiality of the project.

Plants will include both species indigenous to the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s period of overgrowth, and new species.

New plants will be chosen to allow for changing blossoms throughout the entire year.

Figure 5.61: Future wildflower fields

Figure 5.62: Future wildflower fields

70

29

28 28: Future 30th Street Entry The curve of the High Line between 29th and 30th Streets allows for a unique design in the entry; stairs will meet the edge of the structure, then turn to rise through it. This entrance will also be supplemented by a glass elevator. This will differ from the other stair typologies, which either go over the handrail’s edge or puncture the middle surface of the High Line.

Figure 5.63: Future 30th Street entry

29: Future 30th Street CutOut The concrete decking of the High Line will be removed at 30th Street and replaced by a hovering glass oor. This will expose the gridwork of the beams and girders below, reminding users of the High Line’s industrious past. It becomes an exaggeration of the industrial quality and is a reminder of the High Line’s past.

Figure 5.64: Future 30th Street cut-out

71

72

Effects of the Projects Elevated Perspective The High Line provides a unique perspective of the city; that of a connected observer, detached the turbulence of the street. The user has a distinct sense of being both near and far, both involved and removed, familiar and new. Being close to the water, this perspective gives a unique connection to the Hudson River, one not usually felt anywhere beyond the West Side Highway.

The interaction one experiences with buildings themselves is also altered, communicating not with the storefront, but the elevation or roof pro le, something that is rarely focused on [Figure 6.01 and 6.02]. The act of passing by a building while being 30 feet in the air is completely unique in the city; normally at such a height one cannot travel more than the length of the building. The ability to pause in the middle of the street and look down its length is also a rarity; on the ground level this means danger, but on the High Line it entices excitement.

Figure 6.01: View along the Chelsea Market

Figure 6.02: View down 14th Street

73

Experiencing the Seasons The wild landscape that was on the High Line prior to itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s renewal strongly in uenced what plantings are grown on the High Line today.

In the currently completed section of the project there are over 210 species of perennials, grasses, shrubs and trees. The planted landscape is primarily native to what grew rampant, providing a low-maintenance atmosphere with a great deal of variation in height and color throughout the year. A diversity of blooming seasons occurs on the High Line year round, always giving users a new experience. Plant designer Piet Oudolf consulted with the architects to synthesize the landscaping that makes the project so unique.

There is not a preferred season to see the High Line as all seasons have a unique plant aesthetic to appreciate. February through October there are plants in bloom.

Bulbs bloom in spring and early summer, perennials from March through October, trees and shrubs ourish late winter to late summer, while the vines bloom in May through October.

Figure 6.03: June bloom

74

Figure 6.04: November bloom

75

Spontaneous Activity The unique situation of the High Line has given rise to multiple forms of â&#x20AC;&#x153;guerillaâ&#x20AC;? activity. Vendors of crafts, food, and art have taken advantage of the elevator to transport their wares for the public.

They traditionally locate themselves at points of interest, such as underneath the Standard Hotel or on the threshold of a passage through a building.

The elevated perspective has brought about impromptu performances on re escapes adjacent to the High Line; a jazz band and a cabaret has been seen playing at night. The High Line in this way serves as a unique public performance venue.

Figure 6.05: Food vendors on the High Line

Figure 6.06: An exhibitonist

Figure 6.07: A jazz band

Figure 6.08: A cabaret performer

76

Contextual Influence: The Ripple Effect The revitalization of the High Line as a truly unique experience and object of interaction has spurred a wealth of growth around it, in both the buildings that already exist and in the creation of new ones. Though the area of phase one has been developing and growing for almost three decades, the High Line has been the most direct intervention in the area by not only utilizing dead space but providing a type of space greatly lacking in Manhattan; open space. Situating a large amount of public green space in the middle of Manhattan is rare and brings people from all over. The novel spatial condition of being elevated above the city emphasizes the feeling of openness, while offering many architectural opportunities for adjacent buildings to interact with the High Line in various ways.

Figure 6.09: Buildings created or affected by the Ripple Effect

77

78

The Standard Hotel Construction of The Standard Formwork for the Standard Hotel is very intricate and of a high quality.

A textured, naked look was desired, which could only be achieved with board-formed concrete. The concrete represents the grit and grime of the Meatpacking District, while the glass façade above represents the sophistication the area has come to take on.

The thin eastern pier houses no program aside from the metal re stairs [Figure 7.01], which cling to the side of the massive support.

The sides are faceted and mimic the bend of the bar building above.

Although designed to be poured in four segments, the contractor was able to successfully construct the pier in a single pour. The four piloti columns on the terrace were designed and constructed in a similar manner [Figure 7.02].

Figure 7.01: Standard Fire Stairs

Figure 7.02: Terrace Pilotis Columns

The base of the hotel’s bar structure requires deep trusses. These house no program; although at 15 feet high they are tall enough to be able to [Figure 7.03]. This block is supported by two massings, one of which is purely structural. The second massing contains the building’s core. The kink in the hotel’s plan adds rigidity to the overall form, necessary for a narrow building with such minimal support below.

Figure 7.03: Construction Photo of the Standard’s main Truss

79

The Standard Hotelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Interaction with the High Line The Standard Hotel interacts with the High Line in the material expression and programmatic organization. The hotel itself adopts a phenomenon that occurs within the High Line itself. The elevated perspective of the High Line reinforces the openness and public nature of the park, while providing a â&#x20AC;&#x153;near yet farâ&#x20AC;? sensation. The Standard Hotel, in its massing and situation on the site suggests a familiar yet different attitude of a tower in Manhattan; where usually the building takes up the maximum building volume, the hotel block sits comfortably within the site boundaries producing a thick buffer between it and the surrounding buildings. This heightens the interaction of sight between the High Line and the Standard while improving the views from inside the hotel itself to the greater context of Manhattan, the Hudson River and New Jersey.

Figure 7.04: Entrance to the Standard Lobby

The ground oor of the Standard Hotel is dedicated to public program and to welcome people into the upper oors of the hotel.

The lobby is situated at the rear of a public plaza with bright yellow chairs and tables [Figure 7.04].

The paving of the plaza expresses an axial linearity to the yellow revolving door that brings you into the hotel itself. The door is located on the threshold of the High Line and is intended to recall the transition between an airport terminal and the airplane; its bright

Figure 7.05: The Standard Hotel Lobby

80

yellow color is modeled after the Lufthansa symbol. On the interior, this linearity in both the oor and ceiling joints leads you towards a concierge desk. Being underneath the High Line reduces the possible ceiling height; to make the space seem grander and more welcoming the ceiling is mirrored, expanding the dimensionality of the space [Figure 7.05]. Adjacent to this lobby is a private lounge with an outdoor patio where people can have business meetings or order small food. Connected to the lounge but much more present on the exterior is the Standard Grill with outdoor seating along the street. Entering, one reaches a bar and, further in underneath the High Line is a more full-service restaurant. On the side of the Grill located entirely outside and underneath the High Line is the beer garden, providing a more open and communal place for drinking and dining.

The third oor of the Standard Hotel is the most direct connection to the High Line, and was the planned location of a physical connection between the two (the Friends of the High Line did not want anything touching the park, though talks are still in process). The third oor is the location of private event spaces comprised of one large room with double height ceilings and an exterior patio where the other, smaller scale pilotis are located.

Both of these spaces face directly onto the High Line at the closest proximity code will allow with easement regulations. On the other side of the building is the east pier, with a re escape landing punching through the massive concrete form to look onto the High Line, minimally ornamented through a subtle indentation of an L-shaped geometry. The space on the High Line itself underneath the Standard in-between these two conditions was designed as a covered space of urban congregation and has no plantings in it [Figure 7.06]. There are sets of peeled benches on the periphery, but due to the high demand for seating in the area foldable chairs and tables are now in located along the railing.

Figure 7.06: View from the Standardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Conference space, showing the underside of the Hotel above the High Line

81

Observer / Observed Both the High Line and Standard Hotel create ways for users to observe others and to be observed.

The relationship between the two projects is very transparent.

Pedestrians on the High Line often have clear views into hotel rooms above [Figure 7.07]. Conversely, occupants of these rooms can easily look down onto the pathways below. Because of their close proximity (there is less distance and a shallower angle than there would be from a normal street view); this relationship becomes more personal.

Framing views and creating opportunities for showcases are a signature design element in Diller Sco dio + Renfro’s work by peeling down the underside of a surface to expose its contents. At Julliard’s Alice Tully Hall in New York City, one of the dance studios is suspended on the underside of the cantilever [Figures 7.08 and 7.09]. This not only gives dancers an elevated perspective of the city life below, but it turns their practices into an informal performance for pedestrians at the street level.

This visibility also includes a feeling of being watched and vulnerability for users of the High Line. If a hotel patron is people-watching from above, there is nothing someone on the High Line can do to avoid being seen; they can’t force the observer to leave, however they are in a public context and should accept the position of object being viewed.

When Standard occupants are being observed, it is usually their own choice; curtains have to be left open for visibility. This design has lent itself to voyeurism; many occupants have chosen to expose themselves, often during private acts.

Figure 7.08: Interior of a Julliard studio

Figure 7.07: Relationship between users

82

Figure 7.09: The outside of Julliard

This design move appears again on Phase 1 of the High Line. At 10th Avenue, the structure pulls down to form a square, which takes on the form of an amphitheater [Figures 7.12 and 7.13]. The front is capped by large plexi glass windows; allowing users to get a unique perspective of looking directly down onto the traf c. At the same time, the steel structure of the High Line frames these glass panels and puts visitors on display to passers-by below. This creates a duality of both observing and being observed. This theme is expressed at multiple scales and locations; the tension exists between the High Line and the Standard Hotel, and between the High Line and city streets.

The underside of Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Institute of Contemporary Art peels away to expose a computer lab, whose oor is a continuation of the slab above [Figures 7.10 and 7.11]. Once inside the space, the frame of view is highly controlled, only allowing users to see the water; the sky and surrounding city are not visible.

Figure 7.12: View from within the Amphitheater

Figure 7.10: Interior of the ICA computer lab

Figure 7.11: The underside of the ICA

Figure 7.13: View of the Amphitheaterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s exterior

83

Pixilation of the Standard Hotel Faรงade

A set of two curtains are placed against the inside of the glass; one opaque, one translucent, allowing the user to change the degree of sunlight and privacy as well as indirectly the appearance on the faรงade. The curtains make the facade dynamic due to the width and height of the entire window pane. Their white coloring gives the facade a depth through the shadows created in the folds as well as revealing the length of the interior when open. From inside the room, the decision to open or close the curtains seems very isolated, but from an exterior perspective, the movement throughout the day or night creates an every changing quilted surface [Figure 7.16].

A pixilated effect is achieved on the facades of the Standard Hotel, giving the otherwise static surface life and character. The total surface area of the faรงade is rst broken down into rectangles re ecting the elevation of a guest room. A rhythm of mullions continues to break down each window plane of each facade and further on each row [Figure 7.15]. This approach of a nonuniform facade can be seen in the Porter House by SHoP architects located approximately two blocks from the Standard Hotel.

Figure 7.14: Pixelation

Figure 7.15: Day view of the Standard Hotel

Figure 7.16: 3 views of the Standard Hotel at night within 1 Hour

84

Le Corbusier and Pixilation The idea of a facade pixilation emerged out of the development of a programmatic module arranged repeatedly. This element of architecture has been existent for thousands of years but it was not until projects such as Le Corbusier’s Salvation Army Hostel (1933) [Figure 7.17] and his Unite d’Habitacion (1946-1959) [Figure7.20] where the technique of pixilation was utilized.

Traditionally, facade elements were accentuated in ornamental ways other than size and surface area.

But in the attempt to maximize the internal relationship to the facade, techniques of differentiation were implemented such as color and surface patterning.

At the same time, the problem of monotony that comes with an increase in scale was being dealt with different methods in Manhattan. The Lever House built by Gordon Bunshaft of SOM in 1952 has a at elevation where instead of Le Corbusier’s technique of spatial depth to provide “optimal” lighting conditions as well as in some situations exterior space, the Lever House utilizes opaque white curtains to offer the inhabitant control of the lighting conditions while maintaining the international style of a at facade.

Figure 7.17: Le Corbusier, Salvation Army Hostel

Figure 7.19: Le Corbusier, Millowners Building

Figure 7.18: Le Corbusier, Carpenter’s Center

Figure 7.20: Le Corbusier, Unite d’Habitacion in Marseille

85

Contemporary Context of Pixilated Facades Sauerbrach Hutton Architects GSW Headquarters, Berlin The faรงade of the GSW Headquarters is a double skin faรงade pixilated with vertical louvers [Figures 7.21-7.23]. To achieve variation and a dynamic looking facade a spectrum of reds are applied randomly to the louvers which are computer controlled to open and close based on environmental data.

Figure 7.21: GSW Headquarters

Figure 7.22: GSW Headquarters

Figure 7.23: GSW Headquarters

Figure 7.24: Brunnenhof Housing Complex

Figure 7.25: Brunnenhof Housing Complex

Gigon/Guyer Brunnenhof Housing Complex, Zurich The pixilation of this facade is entirely driven by the residents for the purposes of light modulation.

There is a secondary faรงade on the outside of the circulation balconies where colored panels of transparent, translucent and opaque panels slide to achieve an array of depth and light qualities [Figures 7.24 and 7.25].

86

Modulation of Mullions on the Standard Hotel The faรงade of the hotel has a quilt like quality which is achieved by a rhythmic patterning of modules. A module is comprised of the surface area each room takes up on the facade, and is differentiated by a different proportioning of the mullions [Figure 7.27]. To maintain a sense of movement on a static object, each module is asymmetrically proportioned in both the x and y dimensions, making it dif cult at times to nd the module itself.

Each elevation on the north and south sides of the buildings have their own sets of modules, adding to this complexity. Like a quilt the only separation between rectangles is the seam, the mullion, allowing each panel to speak for itself against the others [Figures 7.28 and 7.29]. The east and west

Figure 7.26: Le Corbusier, Chandigarh

Figure 7.27: Similar logic on the Standard Hotel

Figure 7.28: Curtain Wall section

Figure 7.29: Pixilated impression from below

87

facades are detailed in a similar but different manner; mullions and their differentiation are carried out in the same fashion but the oors punch through the curtain wall, structurally changing it, providing regular interruptions to the vertical reading and giving the ends a sense of â&#x20AC;&#x153;gravitasâ&#x20AC;?.

Within in the module there are multiple parts. Each module has one operable window which is the only window in the panel that does not go the full height. Adjacent to the operable window are full height glass panes of varying but regular widths. These parts are repeated every other row vertically per facade, with another module in between. This logic is a reinterpretation of the compositional technique used by Le Corbusier Chandigarh [Figure 7.26].

Figure 7.30: Subtle shifts within a defined framework

Le Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in uence in the Standard Hotel is profound in its formal composition, material expression and facade logic. The project designer, Todd Schleimann, studied at Cornell under Colin Rowe, a profound Corbusian scholar.

Figure 7.31: Patchwork of facade mullions

|A|A|A|A|A|A|A|A|A| |B|B|B|B|B|B|B|B|B| |A|A|A|A|A|A|A|A|A| |B|B|B|B|B|B|B|B|B|

|C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C| |D|D|D|D|D|D|D|D|D| |C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C| |D|D|D|D|D|D|D|D|D|

Figure 7.32: Facade logic for the distribution of window modules

88

The Standard, Pilotis, and Le Corbusier In the design of the Standard Hotel, Polshek Partnership utilized the constraints of the High Line bisecting the site by elevating the primary volume 60 feet in the air. Anchored in the rear, this provides a lively public space on the High Line by strategically inserting program to t underneath or adjacent to the infrastructure.

The formal gesture of the pilotis is re-appropriated into dense context of the Meat Packing District. Because of the scale of existing buildings and structures, most in uential being the High Line, the proportion of the pilotis of the Standard are exaggerated. This enlarged scalar manipulation allows a diversity of visual, spatial, and programmatic experiences such as space created underneath the Standard massing on the High Line and the way in which the hotel lobby and restaurant engage with the piloti and re stair [Figure 7.33].

The idea of the pilotis was fundamental in the stylistic development of Le Corbusier over the course of his career. Starting with his ve points1 and most clearly exempli ed in the Villa Savoye [Figure 7.24], pilotis allowed for the successful implementation of his other four points by resituating the individual in relation to the ground plane and nature and then resituating the building to its structural forces.

1: Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Five Points: (1) pilotis (2) free façade (3) ribbon windows (4) open oor plan (5) roof garden

Figure 7.33: Entry Plaza to the Standard Hotel highlighting the Pilotis

Figure 7.34: Le Corbusier, Villa Savoye

Figure 7.35: Bier Garten under the High Line

89

The Standard, Concrete Expressionism, and Le Corbusier The Standard’s rough concrete pilotis show exceptional craftsmanship and detail. The un nished nature of concrete speaks well to the grittiness of the area. Although extremely large in scale, the “delicate colossus,” as The New York Times called it, brings back the human scale through the detailing of the pilotis [Figure 7.38].

Since Le Corbusier, architects have harnessed the various material properties of concrete to produce space in various ways. The formal plasticity was utilized by architects such as Joao Battista Villanova [Figure 7.37], Enric Miralles and Zaha Hadid to create dynamic yet subtle environments. Tadao Ando was a speci c in uence for Andre Balazs’ conception of the Standard Hotel in his ability to apply a sensual texturing of what is traditionally a harsh and cold material. The tactile, haptic qualities of concrete were similarly experimented with by Carlos Scarpa and Paul Rudolph.

Through the evolution of the pilotis, Le Corbusier began to artistically express and experiment with the plastic material quality and process of concrete.

His early work was in uenced by his time working with Auguste Perret. In his early villas, concrete was de-materialized with a stucco nish.

As his projects grew in scale, its material qualities began to emerge (such as in the Swiss Dormitory of 1930). At the apex of Le Corbusiers residential career, in the Unite d’Habitacion in Marseille (19461952), mass, plasticity, and texture were all artistically expressed on both the ground plane and the roof [Figure 7.36].

Figure 7.36: Le Corbusier, Unite d’Habitacion

Figure 7.37: Vilanova Artigas, FAU/USP

Figure 7.38: Concrete formwork on the east pier

90

The Standard, The Roof, and Le Corbusier The second point in Le Corbusier’s ve points, that of the “ fth facade” and the design of the roof has in uenced the formal manifestation of the Standard Hotel. The idea for the “roof garden” emerged from the smaller scale of his villas in the 1920’s. It was conceived as a replacement for the open space taken up by the building on the ground.

This was particularly applicable in the smaller-scale residential design as the ground was to be dedicated to the car and the transition from public to private, and the volume was not elevated off the ground enough to allow light below.

The ground oors of the Standard Hotel are not given up to cars due to its site and location in New York City. Because of this, a large amount of public program such as hotel lobby, restaurant, lounge, and beer garden were placed on the ground. The roof itself was designed as a minimal roof garden, minimally sculpted with at planes extending beyond the buildings’ core. The topmost oor is dedicated to “exclusive” programs such as a high-pro le night club conceptually based on Studio 54.

Figure 7.39: Le Corbusier, Villa Savoye Roof

In the Unite d’Habitacion in Marseille, due to its increased density the ground was completely abandoned. The roof was designed as the primary communal public space and as an area for architectural expression of form, evidenced by the water tank [Figure 7.40].

Figure 7.40: Le Corbusier, Unite d’Habitacion

The idea of placing public space on the roof and artistically expressing the forms are continued in the Standard Hotel in a very different context and manifestation.

Figure 7.41: Roof of the Standard Hotel

91

Washington Street

13th Street

12th Street

Figure 7.42: Standard Hotel, Ground Plan

92

Figure 7.43: Standard Hotel and High Line, Section: west-east

93

94

Conclusion The High Line and Standard Hotel critically engage and challenge the traditional notions of building in Manhattan. The adaptive reuse of the park and the hotelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s massing strategy is representative of the ideology of optimization and quality over carelessness and quantity.

The Standard Hotel is strategically formed with a shrunken mass within the lot boundary to produce a unique, unobstructed view of the skyline which is contrary to the norm of extruding the lot line to maximize square footage. The High Line as non manicured park references the need for a new type of public space that pushes back against the strict order of the grid and its concrete in ll.

95

Figure Table

Figure 4.10 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.11 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.12 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.13 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.14 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.15 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.16 - Image from “Taking Measures Across the American Landscape” Figure 4.17 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.18 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.19 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.20 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.21 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.22 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.23 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.24 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.25 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.26 - http://www. eldoperations. net/ Figure 4.27 - http://www.dsrny.com Figure 4.28 - Image from article “Diller + Sco dio: Under Surveillance” in Architecture 89 + http://www.egodesign.ca.net/ Figure 4.29 - Image from “The Ciliary Function” Figure 4.30 - Image from “The Ciliary Function” Figure 4.31 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.32 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.33 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.34 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.35 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.36 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.37 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller +

Figure 1.01 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 1.03 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 1.04 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.05 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 1.06 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.07 - http://picasaweb.google. comlhphoto4cGDzLhQgD3vhugz9LvM5A.JPG Figure 1.08 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.09 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.10 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.11 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.12 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.13 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.14 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.15 - Diagram, Nick Axel Figure 1.16 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 1.17 - http://www. ickr.com_photos_laurenmanning_3879470903_.jpg Figure 2.01 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 2.02 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 2.03 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 2.04 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 2.05 - Joel Sternfeld, Photographer. http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 2.06 - Joel Sternfeld, Photographer. http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 2.07 - Joel Sternfeld, Photographer. http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 3.01 - Diagram, Sarah Rosenblatt Figure 3.02 - Diagram, Christine Eromenok Figure 3.03 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 3.04 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 3.05 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 3.06 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 3.07 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 3.08 - http://www.polshek.com Figure 3.09 - http://www.polshek.com Figure 3.10 - http://www.archleague.com Figure 3.11 - http://www.nyc-architecture. com/ARCH/UNDER30-28.jpg Figure 4.01- Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 4.02 - http://www.mbpo.org/ blog_details.asp?ID=180 Figure 4.03- Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 4.04 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 4.05 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 4.06 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 4.07 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 4.08 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 4.09 - Image from “Designing the High Line” 96

Sco dio” Figure 4.38 - Image from “The Ciliary Function” Figure 4.39 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio” Figure 4.40 - Image from Architectural Design, Jan Feb 2009 Figure 4.41 - Image from “The Ciliary Function” Figure 4.42 - http://commons.wikimedia. org_wiki_Category-Promenade_plantée. jpg Figure 4.43- Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 4.44- Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 4.45- http://www.batteryparkcity. org Figure 4.46- http://www.batteryparkcity. org Figure 5.01 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.02 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.03 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.04 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.05 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.06 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.07 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.08 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.09 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.10 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 5.11 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 5.12 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 5.13 - Diagram, Nick Axel Figure 5.14 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 5.15 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.16 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.17 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.18 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.19 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.20 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.21 - Diagram, Sarah Rosenblatt Figure 5.22 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.23 - Diagram, Sarah Rosenblatt Figure 5.24 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.25 - http://www.curbed.com Figure 5.26 - Image from “Designing the High Line” Figure 5.27 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 5.28 - Diagram, Nick Axel Figure 5.29 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.30 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.31 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.32 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 5.33 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-

rapher Figure 5.34 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 5.35 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.36 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.37 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.38 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 5.39 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.40 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.41 - Nick Axel, Photographer Figure 5.42 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.43 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.44 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.45 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.46 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.47 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.48 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.49 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.50 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographert Figure 5.51 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.52 - Section, Sarah Rosenblatt Figure 5.53 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.54 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 5.55 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.56 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.57 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.58 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.59 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.60 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.61 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.62 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.63 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 5.64 - http://www.thehighline.org/ Figure 6.01 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 6.02 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 6.03 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 6.04 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photographer Figure 6.05 - http://www. ickr.com/photos/garysoup/3840106838/ Figure 6.06 - http://www.baldpunk.com Figure 6.07 - http://www. ickr.com/pho-

Figure 7.36 - http://www. ickr.com/photos/clydehouse/2056418896 Figure 7.37 - http://www.vitruvius.com.br/ ac/ac002/1.asp Figure 7.38 - http://www. ickr.com/photos/grufnik/573598000 Figure 7.39 - http://rol.vn/weben/chuyende/thegioi/2009/07/07/043614/1298 Figure 7.40 - http://www.extraextra.org Figure 7.41 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer

tos/32042195@N00/3805377805 Figure 6.08 - http://www. ickr.com/photos/larimdame/3710482654/ Figure 6.04 - Diagram, Nick Axel Figure 7.01 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.02 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.03 - Photograph Courtesy of Polshek Partnership Figure 7.04 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.05 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.06 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.07 - http://www. ickr.com/ parkds00/re ection and sky.jpg Figure 7.08 - http://www.beyondcriticism. com Figure 7.09 - http://www.artearquiteturaeua.wordpress.com Figure 7.10 - http://www.amhpub. amherst.edu Figure 7.11 - http://www.dillersco dio.com Figure 7.12 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.13 - http://www.thehighline.org Figure 7.14 - http://www.aanda.org Figure 7.15 - http://www. ickr.com by Niall Kennedy Figure 7.16 - http://www.standardhotels. com/new-york-city/webcam/ Figure 7.17 - Thomas Mical, Modernity 2009 Lecture Slides Figure 7.18 - Thomas Mical, Modernity 2009 Lecture Slides Figure 7.19 - Thomas Mical, Modernity 2009 Lecture Slides Figure 7.20 - http://www. ickr.com/photos_44639544@N00/2400864766 Figure 7.21 - http://www.amazon.com Figure 7.22 - http://www.wikimedia.org Figure 7.23 - http://www.e-architect.co.uk Figure 7.24 - http://www.gigon-guyer.ch Figure 7.25 - http://www.gigon-guyer.ch Figure 7.26 - http://www.toddoldhamstudio.com Figure 7.27 - Diagram, Nick Axel Figure 7.28 - Section, Nick Axel Figure 7.29 - http://www.farm3.static. ickr.com Figure 7.30 - http://www.llph.co.uk Figure 7.31 - Render, Nick Axel Figure 7.32 - Diagram, Nick Axel Figure 7.33 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer Figure 7.34 - http://www-users.rwthaachen.de/yannic.rudolph/ Figure 7.35 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photographer

97

Sources Anderson, Laurie, Aaron Betsky, and K. Michael Hays. Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco dio. New York: Whitney Museum, 2003.

Bernstein, Fred. “From Industrial Relic to brace new world: The High Line gets a second chance.” Architectural Record 19 (2003): 73. Print.

Charlie Rose Liz Diller, Ricardo Sco dio, and Charles Renfro (March 31, 2009). DVD. Directed by Charlie Rose. 2009; Lanham: Charlie Rose.

Design Trust for Public Space, Friends of the High Line, and Michael R. Bloomberg. Reclaiming the High Line. 2001. Print.

“Diller sco dio + renfro.” Diller sco dio + renfro. Web. Sept. 2009. <http:// www.dillersco dio.com/>.

Field Operations. Portfolio. Field Operations. 2005. Web. Sept. 2009. <www.valdofusi.it/ita/bando/pdf/JamesCorner.pdf>.

Field Operations. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. <http://www. eldoperations.net>.

“Friends in High Places.” Metropolis 25 (2005): 118-24. Print.

Friends of the High Line, James Corner, and Ricardo Sco dio. Designing the High Line. 1st ed. New York: Friends of the High Line, 2008. Print.

Incerti, Guido, Daria Ricchi, and Deane Simpson. Diller + Sco dio (+ Renfro): The Ciliary Function. Genève: Skira, 2007.

“James Corner Named Chair of Landscape at University of Pennsylvania.”

University of Pennsylvania. University of Pennsylvania, 6 Sept. 2000. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. <http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=476>.

Kolb, Jaffer. “The Highline Parkland project paves the way for a new kind of urbanism in the US.” Architectural Review 226 (2009): 29-30. Print.

Leibenhaut, Tara. Personal interview. 18 Nov. 2009.

Minutillo, Josephine. “Standard New York.” Architectural Record. McGraw Hill, Oct. 2009. Web. 02 Nov. 2009. <http://archrecord.construction.com/ projects/portfolio/archives/0910standard-1.asp>.

Nobel, Philip. “Let It Be.” Metropolis 24 (2004): 82. Print.

98

Pearson, Clifford A. “High Line.” Architectural Record. McGraw Hill, Oct. 2009. Web. 2 Nov. 2009. <http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/archives/0910highline-1.asp>.

Pogrebin, Robin. “Designers Detail an Urban Oasis 30 Feet Up.” New York Times. 19 Apr. 2005. Web. Sept. 2009. <http://www.nytimes. com/2005/04/19/arts/design/19high.html>.

Polshek, James Stewart. Polshek Partnership Architects. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2005. Print.

Polshek Partnership Architects. Web. Sept. 2009. <http://www.polshek. com>.

“Taking the High Road.” Dwell 5 (2005): 86. Print.

Tyrnauer, Matt. “New York’s Standard Hotel.” New York’s Standard Hotel.

Vanity Fair, Feb. 2009. Web. Nov. 2009. <http://www.vanityfair.com/style/ features/2009/02/standard-hotel200902>.

99