Thesis Book by Teresa Marboe

CAPITOLism

the identity crisis of the american capital city Teresa Marboe Syracuse University School of Architecture Undergraduate Thesis 2011-2012

CAPITOLism

the identity crisis of the american capital city by Teresa Marboe

Syracuse University School of Architecture and the RenĂŠe Crown University Honors Program Undergraduate Thesis Fall 2011/Spring 2012

Primary Advisor: Susanne Cowan Secondary Advisor: Art McDonald Honors Reader: Susanne Cowan

Contents

Introduction

Part I .......................................................... Capitol versus Capital: CAPITOLism A Precarious Equilibrium

The Capital in Operation

Albany, NY Harrisburg, PA Boston, MA

38 56 72

Part II ......................................................... Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: A City Divided Site A Case of Mistaken Identity

A Joint Mission

115

2 3

4 5

Program

Part III ........................................................ Restoring Identity: A Capital Strategy

The Ideal Capital?

6 123

Precedence

7 The Functioning Hybrid

141

8 Appendix

155

Charts HTC Drawing Set Notes Image Credits Bibliography

156 160 176 178 180

Introduction

“Skyscrapers and state capitols are America’s unique contributions to monumental architecture. The skyscraper is a product of function and structure; the state capitol owes its special character to symbolism.” 1

The state capitol complex exists as a paradoxical entry within the catalogue of American architectural typologies. It is both a historical artifact and a modern landmark. It is saturated with meaning, with centuries of imposed symbolism hidden beneath a veneer of explicitly formal and traceable architectural gestures. It functions as a microcosm within its host city, absorbing some of the values and systems of the larger entity while maintaining its autonomy. Principally, it operates as a locus of identity, as both the physical embodiment of a representative system of government and a status symbol of its host city. This role of identity-generator forces a conflict between the capitol complex’s supposed functions as architectural object and as urban contributor. For a new building, to join the capital complex is to be a part of a self-serving, self-referential entity, in many ways isolated from the surrounding urban context. Conversely, to become entrenched in the city fabric is to exist on the periphery of the capitol complex, forming an adjacency but not necessarily an interaction with the realm of government. Thus, the capital city inherently possesses a dual nature of “capitol,” a building or complex that houses the government’s lawmakers, and “capital,” a city housing the administration of a state or national government, but often lacks a unified urban identity.

1.1 The Capital City Typology State

Suburbs

City

City Center

The Typical City State

Suburbs

City

Capitol Complex

The Typical Capital City State

Suburbs

City Capitol Complex City Center

The Hybrid Capital City

Contention “Architecture has the potential to serve as a mezzo-scale.” 2

The capitol complex is currently expected to serve a multiplicity of roles and mediate between decades of imposed meanings. As the primary role of the capitol complex is to provide a home for representative government, it is unreasonable to expect it to function concurrently as the political center of the state and the urban center of the city. However, in cities like Albany and Harrisburg, which do not have a strong, extra-capitol urban center, this is precisely what the capitol complex is being forced to do. The inadequate performance of these dual roles has resulted in the border condition that is present between capitol and capital in many American cities today, generating the urban “identity crisis.” Therefore, I contend that a new condition, a type of capitolcapital hybrid, must be invented to assume the role of urban center and act as the locus of the civic realm. As the capitol complex already provides a monumental public space, localism rather than monumentality is needed. This new typology could be termed an “occupied border,” but would essentially operate as a network of critical adjacencies between key spaces and nodes within both the city and the capitol complex. Adjacencies could be constructed through urban redevelopment at multiple scales; new architectural insertions in strategic sites, reclamation of key buildings or blocks, and activation of existing civic spaces would enable a network of built structures and small-scale public spaces. This would provide a method of introducing mixed-use spaces within the typically single-zoned capital city typology as well as establishing spatial relationships between government agencies, cultural institutions, commercial centers, and residential neighborhoods. These critical adjacencies and resulting network will support the functions of both the capitol and capital, allowing each to retain distinct identities while enabling the creation of a third, composite identity: the functioning hybrid.

Part I Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: A Case of Mistaken Identity

CAPITOLism

“Cities are not the result of a biological inevitability; they arise out of choices...any decision to designate a city as a capital is also an intentional move, an evolutionary break.” 3

An inquiry into the current state of capital cities must first begin with a discussion of the vocabulary used to describe them. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of the word “capitol” is “literally, a citadel on the head or top of a hill,” referring broadly to the ancient citadel, the dominant governmental region within a city, and specifically to Rome’s Capitoline Hill, which housed the Temple of Jupiter, the seat of the Roman Senate.4 The ancient Roman capitol served as a symbolic center, the caput mundi (“head of the world”), which operated independently from its surroundings and was off-limits to all but a select, poweful few. In this way, the capitol was the antecedent of the capital, the aggregation of the spaces which grew outward from the capitol as supporting sites of ceremony and ritual.5 This linear evolution of capitol to capital did not occur in the United States. With the transition from British colony to democratic nation-state, the imposition of a new political system necessitated the designation of many capital cities to support the new representative system of government. State capitals were chosen for varying reasons, such as their colonial or revolutionary significance, territorial influence, or topographic advantages. However, in the early days of the republic, when built infrastructure could not keep pace with either the developing government or expanding state territories, the designation of state capitol shifted frequently

Capitol 1. Of or pertaining to the head or top. (OED) 2. A capital town or city; the head town of a country, province or state. (OED) object, microcosm, landmark, state

2.1 United States Capitol Building

VERSUS

Capital 1. Literally, A citadel on the head or top of a hill. (OED) 2. The edifice occupied by the congress of the United States in their deliberations. Also, in some states, the statehouse, or house in which the legislature holds its sessions. (OED) context, macrocosm, network, city 2.2 Washington, DC Metropolitan Area

between cities as they eclipsed one another in strategic location or governmental facilities. Thus, while the capital [the city] was a pre-existing condition, the capitol [place of government] was merely an insertion. The word “capitol” has evolved to mean “the edifice occupied by the congress of the United States in their deliberations….[or]the state-house, or house in which the legislature holds its sessions,” dropping any connection to location and referring solely to the built structure. This reversal of the ancient evolution from capitol to capital has contributed to the identity-crisis faced by American capital cities today. As the number of personnel needed for effective government operation increases, the domination of the capital by the capitol becomes ever more apparent. The statehouse was eclipsed long ago

2.3 Graphic Overview of State Capitols/Capitals: [Volumetric representations of capitol buildings located geographically; see Appendix for chart containing basic state capital information]

State Capitol Larger cities within state Washington, DC Current Capitol Building (constructed following statehood) Current Capitol Building (constructed prior to statehood) States in which capital city is not the largest city States which border Washington, DC

CAPITOLism

as the primary home of state government. Now, “the business of government has burst the bounds of the capitol to fill the capital as well,” necessitating an entire system of spaces to support the activities of lawmakers, lobbyists, and government agencies.6 Thus, the modern day capitol complex operates through a policy of “domestic imperialism,”7 consuming the resources of its periphery (the capital) to promote its own interests. In the city of Harrisburg, this can be seen in issues as minor as parking. The public parking spaces within the capitol district are controlled by the state, which charges $5 less in fines for overrun meters than the city, which controls the rest. As a result, the parking within the capital district is preferenced, forcing a city desperately in need of public funds to collect less revenue.

The Capitol Complex Typology

The evolution of the capitol from single building to complex has created several identifiable “types” for the modern-day capitol complex. Charles Goodsell, Professor Emeritus at VA Tech’s Center for Public Administration and Policy, developed several such type labels in his 1997 article, “Bureaucracy’s House in the Polis.” He addresses the issue of formal appropriateness of bureaucratic buildings, categorizing case studies of state capitol buildings or complexes into either appropriate or inappropriate type categories, based on their overall “governmental presence” and representation of democratic values.8 Although heavily influenced by Goodsell’s own biases, these simple categorizations are useful to consider, as they are remarkably clear in describing of how the capitol complex commonly functions architecturally. Goodsell first determines the “inappropriate” bureaucratic building types, beginning with “the bureaucratic box,” an unremarkable modern or international style office block that resembles buildings of the commercial or private sector. Goodsell criticizes these designs for their lack of governmental presence and undifferentiated massing, making them poor representations of democracy and hard to relate to for the populace.9 The next type, “the governmental fortress,” has the opposite problem, in which governmental presence is so abundant as to be intimidating and alienating. Often located in close proximity to the capitol building or possessing excessive signage, the governmental fortress discourages access and excludes the ordinary citizen, diminishing the value of the individual in comparison with that of the government.10

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

The Bureaucratic Box 2.4 Andrew Jackson, Rachel Jackson, and James K. Polk State Buildings [Nashville, TN]

The Governmental Fortress 2.5 State Archives and Museum of the History Building [Raleigh, NC]

The Consumer City 2.6 Atrium of the Floyd State Office Building [Atlanta, GA]

CAPITOLism

His final example, “the consumer city,” overcorrects for the problems of the governmental fortress by being almost too welcoming, attempting to turn the citizen’s experience of government into the experience of a shopping mall or small city. This is usually in the form of a complex or underground concourse, with a strong physical but dubious conceptual connection to the capitol. The diversity of programs (mostly non-governmental) and amount of public circulation can confuse the citizen, and blurs the boundary between government and consumerism.11 Goodsell classifies “appropriate” bureaucratic building types in the same manner, beginning with “the traditional temple,” a strictly neoclassical design that incorporates classical architectural forms, such as the temple front, to reference the founding of republican government. The traditional temple directly combats the inadequacies of the inappropriate types, providing a ubiquitous symbol of government identity (bureaucratic box), an elevated and dignified image (government fortress), and a familiar, easily accessible character (consumer city).12 “The local curiosity” also provides a familiar image, but on a much more localized scale, usually a building that contrasts with other state buildings due to a peculiar formal move. Although identified as a government building through location or signage, the local curiosity provides a connection to the community through local materials or honorary statues, forming a kind of local “vernacular” that makes it easily recognizable and often beloved by local residents.13 Finally, “the postmodern delight” provides governmental presence through sheer openness and playfulness, using a variety of geometric forms, coloring, and irregular surfaces to epitomize innovation and democracy. Welcoming entrances and a range of openings encourage public access, making this building type the most overtly public out of the discussed types.14 As will be discussed in the next chapter, most capitol complexes are a hybrid of these typologies, with the character of individual buildings being more easily categorized than the complexes themselves. However, Goodsell’s analysis brings certain architectural issues to the forefront, emphasizing representation of government and democracy, public accessibility, scale, regional influence, and relationship to citizenry. These issues are critical to the study of capitol complexes and the cities that house them, and must ultimately be considered in any architectural design that has ties to the capitol through location or identity.

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

The Traditional Temple 2.7 Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial Building [Pierre, SD]

The Local Curiosity 2.8 Arizona State Building, Adams Street and 17th Avenue [Phoenix, AZ]

The Post-Modern Delight 2.9 William E. Powers Building, Smith Street [Providence, RI]

CAPITOLism

The Capital City Typology In David L.A. Gordon’s book Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities, Peter Hall generates seven types by which to classify capital cities throughout the world. These seven types address political, economic, and cultural functions of the capital city in the context of its nation, as well as the existence of “capital cities” that have not been acknowledged as such by their governments but still perform capital-like roles.15 Hall’s “Seven Types of Capital City” could provide a basis for the categorization and study of American state capital cities.

MULTI-FUNCTION

Performs all or most of the highest national level functions, including commerce, finance, the media, and higher education. EXAMPLES: The Hauge, Bonn, Washington DC, Ottawa, Canberra, Brasilia

POLITICAL

Established primarily as a seat of government. Performs a primarily political function, usually missing other national functions found in a commerically-established city. EXAMPLES: London, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Moscow, Tokyo

GLOBAL

Performs similar national functions to the multi-function capital city, but with an additional super-national or global role in politics or commerce. EXAMPLES: London, Tokyo

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Operates as the base of an international organization, but is not necessarily officially designated as a national capital.

SUPER EXAMPLES: Brussels, Strasbourg, Geneva, Rome, New York

FORMER

Was formerly a seat of government, but now performs other national or historical functions of a multi-function city. No longer designated as a national capital. EXAMPLES: London, Madrid, Lisbon, Vienna

EX-IMPERIAL

Was formerly the seat of an empire that has since been lost or dismantled. May still operate as a national capital or perform functions of a multi-functional city. EXAMPLES: Berlin (1945-1994), St. Petersburg, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro

PROVINCIAL

Was formally the capital of a federal nation, but even after losing its capital designation it still retains political functions for its surrounding territories. EXAMPLES: Milan, Turin, Stuttgart, Munich, Montreal, Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne

CAPITOLism

MULTI-FUNCTION

This type retains the same criteria as determined by Peter Hall. Performs all or most of the highest national level functions, including commerce, finance, the media, and higher education.

REGIONAL

This new type addresses capital cities bordering between multifunction and mono-function, which perform primarily regional functions. Performs similar functions to the multi-function capital city, but with a much-reduced national impact. Essential to the political, economic, and cultural functions of the state but not necessarily the nation.

POLITICAL

As all US state capitals perform political functions, this type has been relabeled mono-function. Function solely as political state capitals, performing none of the national functions of a multifunction city, or performing those functions in a very subsidiary or local way.

GLOBAL

To be included in this type, the city must also hold an official state capital designation. Performs similar national functions to the multifunction capital city, but with an additional super-national or global role in politics or commerce.

MONO-FUNCTION

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

SUPER

FORMER NATIONAL

This type has been altered to include current state capitals that held the role of a national capital at some point during their history. Performs similar national functions to the multi-function capital city, but with an additional super-national or global role in politics or commerce.

EX-IMPERIAL “Five Types of STATE Capital Cities” Here are altered versions of Peter Hall’s “Seven Types of Capital City” classifications, revised to render them applicable to state capitols, which represent a sub-national territory that is subservient to a federal system rather than an autonomous nation-state.

PROVINCIAL

CAPITOLism

Global Capitals

Multi-Function Capitals

1788 1788 1788 1803 1816 1845 1876 1912

1788 1789 1796 1850 1896 1959

Atlanta, Georgia Boston, Massachusetts Richmond, Virginia Columbus, Ohio Indianapolis, Indiana Austin, Texas Denver, Colorado Pheoniz, Arizona

Hartford, Connecticut Raleigh, North Carolina Nashville, Tennessee Sacremento, California Salt Lake City, Utah Honolulu, Hawaii

Regional Capitals

Mono-Function Capitals

1788 1790 1812 1817 1819 1836 1837 1845 1846 1858 1863 1867 1889 1889 1890 1890 1907 1912 1959

1787 1787 1787 1788 1788 1788 1791 1792 1818 1820 1821 1848 1859 1861 1864 1889 1889

Columbia, South Carolina Providence, Rhode Island Baton Rouge, Lousiana Jackson, Mississippi Montgomery, Alabama Little Rock, Arkansas Lansing, Michigan Tallahassee, Florida Des Moines, Iowa St. Paul, Minnesota Charleston, West Virginia Lincoln, Nebraska Bismarck, North Dakota Helena, Montana Boise, Idaho Cheyenne, Wyoming Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Santa Fe, New Mexico Juneau, Alaska

Dover, Delaware Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Trenton, New Jersey* Annapolis, Maryland* Concord (New Hampshire) Albany, New York Montpelier, Vermont Frankfort, Kentucky Springfield, Illinois Augusta, Maine Jefferson City, Missouri Madison, Wisconsin Salem, Oregon Topeka, Kansas Carson City, Nevada Pierre, South Dakota Olympia, Washington

*Former National Capitals

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

On the left, all 50 state capitals have been categorized according to the parameters of the “Five Types of State Capital Cities” in conjunction with the “World According to GaWC (2011)” chart of world cities (full chart can be found in the Appendix). Developed by the Geography Department of Loughborough University (UK), the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network assesses cities in terms of their production within the world city network. Based on their performance at the global scale, the capitals have been sorted into the 5 categories, with mono-function capitals having little or no connection to the global network (see Appendix for full categorization explanation). As can be seen from the category lists, the majority of the state capitals fall into either the regional or mono-function categories. The majority of American state capitals fall into either the regional or mono-function categories. The mono-function classification is especially critical for understanding these types of capitals, as they provide the most extreme example of capitolcapital tension. With involvement in global affairs kept to a minimum, the role of state capital as political center has remained the overriding function of mono-function capitals, allowing the state to dominate the urban identity. Consequently, the study of regional or mono-function capitals might yield the clearest examples of the relationship between capitol and capital, as this relationship is paramount to the functioning of the city. The trends that emerge from these categorizations are represented graphically on the following pages, in the form of a timeline charting the dates of statehood against current population for each of the 50 state capitals. This timeline is subsequently broken down to isolate each type of capital city, to indicate any possible relationships between the type of capital city, the date of state founding, and the size of its current population. As a general trend, the capital cities belonging to the oldest states tend to have a smaller current population and less global involvement, while the largest cities belong to relatively newer states and have increased ties to the global network.

CAPITOLism

2.10 State Capital City Timeline [charts date of statehood against circles representing current city population]

1800 1850 1780

1790

1810

1820

1830

1840

1860

1870

1775

Atlanta GA (420,003) Hartford CT (124,775) Boston MA (617,594) Annapolis MD (38,394) Columbia SC (129,272) Concord NH (42,695) Richmond VA (204,214) Albany NY (97,856) 1788

Little Rock AR (193,524)

Carson City NV (55,274)

Lansing MI (114,297)

Charleston WV (51,400)

1836

Dover DE (36,047) Harrisburg PA (49,528) Trenton NJ (84,913) 1787

1837

Topeka KS (127,473) Columbus OH (787,033) 1803

Jefferson City MO (43,079)

1821

Salem OR (154,637)

Augusta ME (19,136)

1820

St. Paul MN (285,068)

Nashville TN (601,222) 1796

Montgomery AL (205,764)

1819

Sacremento CA (466,488) 1850

Frankfort KY (25,527)

Springfield IL (116,250)

1818

Madison WI (233,309)

Des Moines IA (203,433) 1846

1792

Montepelier VT (7,855) 1791

Jackson MS (173,514)

1817

Providence RI (178,042) 1790

Indianapolis IN (820,445)

1816

Raleigh NC (403,892)

Baton Rouge LA (229,493)

1812

1789

1848

Tallahassee FL (181,376) Austin TX (790,390) 1845

1900 1950 1880

1890

1910

1920

1930

1940

1960

1970

1975

1864 1863 1861 1859 1858

Boise ID (205,671) Cheyenne WY 1890 (59,466) Bismarck ND (61,272) Pierre SD (13,646) Helena MT (28,190) Olympia WA (46,478)

1889

Sante Fe NM (67,947) Pheonix AZ (1,445,632)

1912 1907 1896

Denver CO (600,158)

1876

Oklahoma City, OK (579,999)

Lincoln NE (258,379)

1867

Salt Lake City UT (186,440)

Juneau AK (31,275) Honolulu HI (337,256)

1959 27

Global Capitals 1788 1788 1788 1803

Atlanta, Georgia Boston, Massachusetts Richmond, Virginia Columbus, Ohio

1816 1845 1876 1912

1800

Indianapolis, Indiana Austin, Texas Denver, Colorado Pheoniz, Arizona

1900 1850

1780

1790

1810

1820

1830

1840

1950 1860

1870

1880

1890

1910

1920

1940

1960

1970

1975

1775

GA MA VA

2.11 Global Capitals [isolated from timeline]

1930

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Multi-Function Capitals 1788 1789 1796

Hartford, Connecticut Raleigh, North Carolina Nashville, Tennessee

1850 1896 1959

Sacremento, California Salt Lake City, Utah Honolulu, Hawaii

1800

1900 1850

1780

1790

1810

1820

1830

1840

1950 1860

1870

1880

1890

1910

1920

1930

1940

1960

1970

1975

1775

CT NC TN

2.12 Multi-Function Capitals [isolated from timeline]

CAPITOLism

Regional Capitals 1788 1790 1812 1817 1819 1836 1837 1845 1846 1858

1863 1867 1889 1889 1890 1890 1907 1912 1959

1800

Charleston, West Virginia Lincoln, Nebraska Bismarck, North Dakota Helena, Montana Boise, Idaho Cheyenne, Wyoming Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Santa Fe, New Mexico Juneau, Alaska

1900 1850

1780

1790

1810

1820

1830

1840

1950 1860

1870

1880

1890

1910

1920

1930

1940

1960

1975

1775

SC RI

LA MS AL

AR MI

FL IA

MN WV NE

ND ID MT WY

OK NM

2.13 Regional Capitals [isolated from timeline]

1970

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Mono-Function Capitals 1787 1787 1787 1788 1788 1788 1791 1792 1818 1820

1821 1848 1859 1861 1864 1889 1889

Jefferson City, Missouri Madison, Wisconsin Salem, Oregon Topeka, Kansas Carson City, Nevada Pierre, South Dakota Olympia, Washington

*Former National Capitals

1800

1900 1850

1780

1790

1810

1820

1830

1840

1950 1860

1870

1880

1890

1910

1920

1930

1940

1960

1970

1975

1775

DE MD VT KY PA NH NJ NY

IL ME MO

OR KS NV

SD WA

2.14 Mono-Function Capitals [isolated from timeline]

CAPITOLism

1800 1850 1780

1790

1810

1775

2.15 State Capital City Timeline [overlayed with type categorizations]

1820

1830

1840

1860

1870

1900 1950 1880

1890

1910

1920

1930

1940

1960

1970

1975

global multi-function regional mono-function former national

The Capital in Operation

“Architecture gives a state its form: it is a setting for ceremony and ritual. But architecture is also formative: it contributes to the shaping of the state.” 16

In order to examine the nature of urban identity and possible methodologies for operating on capital cities, the following three case studies were performed as a means to study the capitol/capital relationship, focusing on two mono-function capitals (Albany, New York and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), and one global capital (Boston Massachusetts). These case studies concentrated on the capitol complex’s public accessibility, scale, regional influence, relationship to citizenry, and representation of government. As a type, the mono-funciton capital is the most interesting, as these are traditionally cities in which the capitol complex plays a large role in both providing civic space and establishing the identity of the city. However, the inclusion of a global city provides a foil against which to judge the operation of the mono-function city. Albany and Boston illustrate opposite poles of the “capitol versus capital” identity spectrum. In Albany, Nelson Rockefeller’s 1959-1976 Empire State Plaza dwarfs the surrounding city in scale, subjugating the identity of the city to the identity of the capitol (state). In Boston, the evolution of the governmental center has created distinct nodes of governmental operation, with the new city hall becoming a centralizing element by nature of its enormous brick public plaza and monumental form. In this unusual case, the influence of one significant built structure has allowed the identity of the city to overshadow the identity of the capitol (state). The third case study, Harrisburg, PA, falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum: the capitol complex has a strong but not completely dominating presence within the city, causing a less severe scalar shift between capitol and city than is found in Albany.

Identity of State > Identity of City (Capitol > Capital)

ALBANY, NY

HARRISBURG, PA

Mono-Function Pop. 97,856 1797

Mono-Function Pop. 49,528 1810

Identity of City > Identity of State (Capital > Capitol)

BOSTON, MA Global Pop. 617,594 1632

EMPIRE STATE CAPITOL COMPLEX

ALBANY, NY

Population: 97,856 Attained Statehood: 1788 (11th) Designated Capital: 1797 Type of Capitol: Mono-function

City Evolution [Capital vs. Capitol]

1650

1700

1750

1800

Capital18 1620 The Dutch West India Company establishes the province of New Netherland, and builds Fort Orange (on the site of present-day Albany)

Oct 1765 The Stamp Act Congress meets in New York City

1683 New York is divided into 12 counties

April 20 1777 First state constitution adopted at Kingston Feb 6 1778 Articles of Confederation signed in Poughkeepsie 1781 New York legislature meets for the first time in Albanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Town Hall July 6 1788 New York ratifies the US Constitution 1797 The capital is officially moved from New York City to Albany

3% 2%

49%

19%

10%

71%

19%

Government Manufacturing Utility Defense

Health Care Retail Education Finance

3.1 Top Employment Sectors17

State of New York United States County of Albany City of Albany

3.2 Top Government Employers

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1800

1900

1850

Capitol19 1797 Capital officially moved from New York City to Albany 1809 Philip Hookerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Capitol built for $110,000

1865 Legislature establishes Capitol Commission to construct a larger capitol on the same site; Thomas Fuller wins resulting competition 1875 Fuller dismissed for illegal operations; replaced by an Architectural Advisory Board (Leopold Eidlitz, Frederick Law Olmsted, H.H. Richardson)

1899 New capitol completed, after 32 years and $25 million

1883 Isaac Perry appointed as the Architect of the Capitol

3.3 Fuller & Laver plan, 1871

3.4 Fuller & Gilman design, 1871

Case Study: Albany, NY

New York State Capitol

3.5 Cross-section through Great Western Stair

Due to the large span of time over which it was constructed, New York’s Capitol Buildings is made up of spaces designed by a series of different architects. While the overall form was designed by Thomas Fuller and was for the most part followed by later architects, the House Chamber was designed by Leopold Eidlitz in 1879 and the Senate Chamber by H.H. Richardson in 1881. Eidlitz was also responsible for the Assembly and Senate staircases, and Richardson for the “Million Dollar” staircase, which was modeled after Garnier’s Opera House in Paris.20

3.6 New York State Capitol Building [as seen from the roof of the Corning Tower]

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.7 NY State Senate Chambers

3.8 Richardson’s “Million Dollar” Staircase [1875]

Case Study: Albany, NY

Empire State Plaza [Capitol Complex]

3.9 Raised plaza with government buildings and reflecting pool

3.10 Underground concourse

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.11 Panorama from State Library steps

The Empire State Plaza, commissioned in 1959 by Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, was designed by Wallace Harrison and completed in 1976 at a cost of $1.7 billion. The complex was modeled after Brasilia, Versailles, and Chandigarh, and required the evacuation and demolition of 3,000 homes in the capitol district. It added 11 buildings to the existing capitol zone, as well as an underground concourse with offices, restaurants, and shops.

3.12 Old and new superimposed

3.13 Primary access stairs to concourse

The Plaza attempts to integrate itself with the existing structures, making the New York state house as a focal point within the complex by extending a primary axis between it and the state library. The state house end of the plaza begins on grade, but gradually increases in elevation, ending with a monumental stair to the state library plaza, a full story above street level.

Case Study: Albany, NY

Buildings of the Capitol Complex

4 Empire Plaza

5 3

6 7

2. Agency Buildings 1-4

Underground Concourse

3.14 Complex Buildings and Organization 3. Legislative Office Building

1. Swan Street Building

4. Alfred E. Smith Building

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

5. NY State House

6. Justice Building

8. Corning Tower

7. The Egg

9. State Library and Museum

Case Study: Albany, NY

Land Use

State Government Zone City Government Zone Residential Zone Cultural Zone Industrial Zone Park Zone

3.15 Land use diagram, Central Albany

The area around the Empire state plaza is fairly singlezoned, with the Swan Street side being primarily residential, and the highway side a mix of state and city governmental, industrial, and residential districts.

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Access Conditions

3.16 Nolli diagram, NYS Capitol Complex

This Nolli-inspired mapping of the New York Capitol Complex (in which white denotes public; black, private; and gray, public but controlled) and surrounding area emphasizes both the scale of the plaza compared to its context and the limited amount of publically-accessible buildings found within that plaza.

Case Study: Albany, NY

Border Conditions

3.17 Lynch diagram, Central Albany Node

Topographical barrier Major physical barrier

Landmark Minor physical barrier Detachment from ground

State Government Zone (Capitol) City Government Zone (Capital)

Vehicular traffic only Residential Zone

Shift in topography Cultural Zone Pedestrian access

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Park Zone

1. State Street

PLAZA................STATE HOUSE

2. South Swan Street

3. Madison Ave

CITY............SWAN STREET BLDG

PLAZA..............STATE LIBRARY

3.18 Sections describing edges of NYS Capitol Complex

3.19 Scaler difference between built construction on either side of street

2. South Swan Street

The border conditions between the Empire State Plaza and the surrounding city of Albany are extreme, with physical and visual barriers existing between complex and city. The Lynch-style map21 and diagrammatic sections to the right catalog the types of barrier conditions present on the edges of the complex. In the most extreme case, the southeast side of the complex is divided from the city by a topographical barrier, with a 20ft drop between the complex and the highway. This is echoed in a constructed way in the state library (see section 4), which is removed from street level by monumental steps leading up from the plaza. At South Swan Street, which divides the Empire State Plaza from the adjacent residential neighborhood, the intentional construction of a barrier is again evident. There is both an extreme shift in scale between the Swan Street Building and the residential neighborhood beyond, complicated by a sectional shift within the road itself, resulting in a 2-part border zone between the two areas.

Case Study: Albany, NY

Topographic Conditions

Street-level library entrance

1. 2. 3. 4.

Opening in Swan St. Bldg

Plaza Level Street Level Concourse Level Highway Level

3.20 Longitudinal section and experiential vignettes through NYS Capitol Complex

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

South Mall Arterial highway (beneath the concourse level)

Plaza edge meets Capitol

Case Study: Albany, NY

Opportunities for Architectural Intervention

3.21 Aerial views, NYS Capitol Complex and surrounding city

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1. Re-Integrate Concourse To the southest of the Empire State Plaza lies the interchance of the South Mall Arterial highway. This area has a very low density of construction, with massive planted spaces separating the lanes of the highway, presumably serving to provide fresh air to the concourse and parking garage below. These large, undeveloped areas could provide an excellent opportunity for new construction that could sectionally link to both the plaza and the concourse, establishing much-needed visible public access to the supposedly public agencyfocused concourse.

2. Insert series of gateways Rather than providing a single-building intervention, the accessibility issues associated with the Empire State Plaza could be addressed by inserting a series of built â&#x20AC;&#x153;gatewaysâ&#x20AC;? housing minimal square-footage public functions strategic points around the capitol complex. These insertions could begin to address issues of scale, shifts in topography, monumentality, and political meaning.

3. Re-Invent State Library Many of the major architectural issues of the Empire State Plaza occur on a smaller scale in the current State Library building, which could all be addressed through its redesign. Although the library to the plaza by a large, monumental staircase, it can only be accessed from the street level below. Additionally, there is no way to access the outdoor space surrounding the library on the plaza level. This causes the library to be very inwardly-focused, which is inappropriate for the building chosen to be on axis with the Capitol building.

Case Study: Albany, NY

STATE CAPITOL COMPLEX

HARRISBURG, PA

Population: 49,528 Attained Statehood: 1787 (2nd) Designated Capital: 1810 Type of Capitol: Mono-function

City Evolution [Capital vs. Capitol]

1650

1700

1750

1800

Capital

1735 The Assembly meets in its first official Headquarters, Independence Hall

Oct 27, 1682 William Penn lands in Pennsylvania, after being given 50,000 acres of land by Charles II as a payment of a debt to his father

1777-1778 Due to British occupation, Assembly temporarily meets in Lancaster 1787 U.S. Constitution drafted in Independence Hall;

March 10, 1683 The General Assembly meets in the city of Philadelphia for the first time

February 1810 Harrisburg is designated permanent state capital

1790 Pennsylvania Consitution ratified April 1799 Capital temporarily moved to Lancaster while a new, more central capital is considered

2% 1% 2%

11%

45%

38%

55%

24% 8%

Government Health Education Electronics

Manufacturing Retail Recreation Consulting

3.22 Top Employment Sectors22

State (Commonwealth of PA) National (U.S. Government) County (Dauphin County) City (Harrisburg)

3.23 Top Government Employers

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1750

1800

1850

1900 Capitol24

1741 Andrew Hamilton’s Independence Hall (Philadelphia) is finished 1787 US Constitution is drafted in Independence Hall 1799 Legislature meets in the Lancaster County Courthouse

1822 Stephen Hills’ “Redbrick” Capitol is constructed for $135,000 1816 Capitol commission created, sponsors competition 1812 Legislature meets in the Dauphin County Courthouse for 9 years

Feb 2, 1897 “Redbrick” Capitol is demolished by fire

1898 Henry James Cobb of Chicago constructs a new Capitol

Oct 4 1906 Current capitol building, designed by Philadelphian Joseph M. Huston for $12 million, is dedicated by President Theodore Roosevelt

1810 Capital moved to Harrisburg

3.24 Redbrick Capitol (Hills), 1822

3.25 Unfinished Capitol (Cobb), 1898

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

Pennsylvania State Capitol

3.26 PA State Capitol back facade

3.27 PA State Capitol floor plan

Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Italian Renaissance Capitol features an immense dome, modeled after that of St. Peterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Basilica in Rome. In plan, the building is organized to represent the balance of power within the legislature, with the Senate and House of Representatives located on opposing wings, and the Executive Office located in the center, off of the rotunda. 60

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.28 Central Rotunda

3.30 PA-themed stained glass

3.29 Supreme Court of PA

3.31 PA House Chamber

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

Buildings of the Capitol Complex25

10 2

16 11

8 5

3 4 1

14 3.32 PA Capitol Complex buildings and layout

10. Health and Welfare Bldg (1955)

13. Capitol East Wing (1986)

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1. Matthew J. Ryan Legislative Office Building (1893) John T. Windrim 5 floors 2. Northwest Office Bldg (1904) Verus T. Ritter 7 floors 3. PA State House (1906) Joseph M. Huston PA Legislature 5 floors 4. K. Leroy Irvis (South) Office Building (1921) Brunner and Manning 7 floors 5. North Office Building (1928) Brunner and Manning 7 floors 6. Soldierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grove (1930) Gehron and Ross tree-lined quadrangle 7. Forum Building (1931) Gehron and Ross State and Law Libraries 6 floors

9. Labor and Industry Bldg (1955) Lacy, Atherton and Davis 18 floors 10. Health and Welfare Bldg (1955) Lacy, Atherton and Davis 11 floors 11. State Archives (1964) Lawrie and Green 20 floors 12. State Museum of PA (1964) Lawrie and Green 5 floors 13. Capitol East Wing (1986) Celli-Flynn Associates 2 floors (above ground) 14. Rachel Carson State Office Building (1992) Hayes, Large, Suckling, Fruth Dept of Environ. Protection 16 floors 15. Keystone Building (2001) Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Department of Transportation 10 floors

8. Finance Building (1939) Gehron and Ross 5 floors

16. PA Judicial Center (2009) Vitetta 5 floors of courtrooms 9 floors of offices

14. Rachel Carson State Bldg (1992)

16. PA Judicial Center (2009)

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

Access Conditions

3.33 Aerial view, PA State Capitol Complex

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.34 Nolli diagram, PA State Capitol Complex

Access conditions around the capitol complex in Harrisburg are much less severe than those of Albany. The state buildings, while requiring a security screening to enter, have well-marked and often monumental street-level entrances. However, the capitol complex itself is still raised up slighting from the surrounding city, again creating a sort of governmental â&#x20AC;&#x153;acropolis.â&#x20AC;?

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

Land Use

Capitol Complex Capitol District Central Business District Shipoke District Historic Midtown Old Uptown Allison Hill/Eastern Harrisburg Infrastructure (Train Tracks) 3.35 Land use diagram, Central Harrisburg

The city of Harrisburg is generally single-zoned, with one overarching program type located in each district within the city. Most noteably, the capitol district (outlined in red) divides the northern residential districts from the southern commercial districts. The capitol complex is much more publically-accessible than in Albany, but there is still a major topographical shift on the eastern side, where the complex meets the railroad tracks. There is also a major axis which aligns with the capitol building, and continues to align with the bridge over the railroad.

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Border Conditions

3.36 Lynch diagram, Central Harrisburg Major Node

Detachment from ground

Minor Node

Pedestrian access

Major Landmark

Park or Green Space

Minor Commercial District

Minor Landmark

Infrastructure Zone Historical District Major barrier

Major shift in topography Minor Shift in Topography

Major Commercial District

Residential District

Minor barrier

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

Redevelopment Initiatives26

Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex & Expo Center

Old Uptown (ongoing redevelopment)

Skynet Property Managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Apartments (proposed)

Maclay Street Bridge

HACC Midtown

1500 Project (under construction)

Federal Courthouse (planned)

Susquehanna Art Museum (proposed redevelopment)

Marketplace Townhomes (ongoing construction)

10. Furlow Building (proposed redevelopment) 11. Broad Street Market 3.37 Redevelopment map

New Federal Courthouse

A new 266,954 square foot Federal courthouse is being designed for a site at the corner of Commonwealth Ave and Reilly Street. The chosen architectural team, Ennead, designed the Newsmuseum in Washington, DC. The project is being used as a method of introducing sustainable building practices into the uptown district.

3.38 New courthouse site

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

There are currently many redevelopment initiatives underway or in the planning stages in the city of Harrisburg, close to the capitol district. Many of these projects are adjacent to Commonwealth Ave, the street which bisects the capitol complex and is the main artery connecting the capital district to the uptown residential neighborhood. This avenue is considered a prime redevelopment “corridor,” with both public and private potential projects.

1500 Project27

The 1500 Project, currently under construction across the street from the new Federal courthouse site, is a $13.6 million condominium with space for restaurants and retail on the ground floor. The developer has termed the area surrounding the Reilly St and Commonwealth Ave intersection Harrisburg’s “Northern Gateway,” anticipating further development in the area.

3.39 1500 Project presentation drawings

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

Opportunities for Architectural Intervention

1. 282 North Third Street

3. New Federal Courthouse

3.40 Aerial view of Central Harrisburg, potential sites

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1. 282 North Third Street The North Third Street site is directly across the street from Capitol Park, the landscaped corner of the capitol complex. Capitol Park seems to receive the least use out of all the areas of the complex, and the adjacent section of North Third Street seems to be neglected as well. The addition of a public building on this corner site could directly address the capitol complex as well as the capitol and commercial districts. The project scope could potentially include a redevelopment of Capitol Park.

2. Commonwealth Ave (6th St) Commonwealth Ave is one of the primary arteries connecting the capitol district to Harrisburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s midtown and uptown. It bisects the capitol complex itself, separating the Capitol and adjacent buildings from from Soldierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grove and the Forum and Finance Buildings. Further north, it connects several recent redevelopment projects Development of an overall corridor strategy and one or two key buildings could address the separation of midtown/uptown from the governmental and commercial centers.

3. New Federal Courthouse The site/program of the new Federal courthouse presents an interesting avenue for exploring architectural and ideological issues at the federal, state, and city levels. As the site is located on the Commonwealth Ave corridor, there would again be the opportunity to consider redevelopment strategies for the entire avenue. However, the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s distance from the capital complex could prove too great to effectively test strategies for mediating between capitol and capital.

Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

GOVERNMENT CENTER

BOSTON, MA

Population: 617,594 Attained Statehood: 1787 Capital City: 1810 Type of Capitol: Global

City Evolution [Capital vs. Capitol]

1600

1650

1700

1750

Capital

1628 Charles I grants colonial charter to Massachusetts (â&#x20AC;&#x153;great migrationâ&#x20AC;? of Puritans from England)

1798 Boston Massacre takes place under balcony of old statehouse

1630 Puritans arrive in Massachusetts Bay, led by John Winthrop 1632 Boston designated capital of the Massachusetts Bay Colony

3.41 Old Statehouse, 1713

3.42 MA Statehouse (Charles Bulfinch), 1798

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1750

1800

1850

1900 Capitol29

1713 Statehouse constructed (primary seat of government until 1797)

1798 Charles Bulfinchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Capitol finished for $27,000

1831 Addition to Capitol by Isaiah Rogers

1856 Addition to Capitol by Gridley Bryant

1895 Rear extension by Charles Brigham 1917 Wing additions by R. Clipson Sturgis, William Chapman, Robert Andrew

3.43 Current MA Statehouse, 1798-1917

Case Study: Boston, MA

Buildings of the Capitol Complex

3.44 MA Capitol Complex, buildings and layout

9 6

8 5 10 3

4 2

1. Old State House (1713)

7. Boston City Hall (1968)

2. Massachusetts State House (1798)

8. Saltonstall State Office Bldg (1971)

3. Suffolk County (Old) Court House (1810)

9. State Service Center (1971)

4. Old City Hall (1865)

10. J.W. McCormack State Office Bldg (1975)

5. New Court House (1937) 11. Edward W. Brooke Court House (2000) 6. John F. Kennedy Federal Building (1966)

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

5. New Court House

6. JFK Federal Building

7. Boston City Hall

8. Saltonstall State Bldg

Case Study: Boston, MA

Access Conditions

3.45 Nolli diagram, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Governmental Center

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.46 Edge of City Hall

3.47 City Hall stair detail

3.48 City Hall stair

Boston is the most accessible of the three capital cities, with both the statehouse and the city hall located in primarily commercial, public areas. However, the city hall itself is removed from the ground plane, with only one entrance to the building on the ground level. The public is prohibited from accessing the stairs that lead to the other entrances, making the city hall appear very private and inaccessible.

Case Study: Boston, MA

Land Use

rf ha W n io ut tit ns Co

St n

St erc

tral W

harf

Ind

ia S

ll S

ia East Ind

Row

India

Wha

arf

Cu sto m

Washington St

Devonshire St

nto

rc ma

liv

Milk St

ry tte Ba

Federal Building and Post Office

Ha wle yS t

HLong Wha

Cen

l St

Ho us eS t

q rt S Cou

t eS inc

ate

ad S W

St t

St lem Sa

St Somerset

Bowdoin St

Columbus Housing

Centra

Bro

Custom House Tower

Lewis Wh

H Long Wh Aquarium New

State

Spring La McCormack

1 Family Residential 2 Family Residential 3 Family Residential Apartments/Condos Mixed Use (Res./Comm.) Commercial Institutional Industrial Open Space Surface Parking Main Streets District

Atlantic Av

Ausonia Homes

Long Wharf Marriott

nge

Excha

Pilot House

y St

Legend

Chatham

Kilb

Eastern

ow ts R han Merc

Irish Famine Memorial

Federal St

3.49 Land use diagram, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Governmental Center

Arch St

Park Street ter

t kS

t St

r Pa

Walnu

ool

Suffolk University B rom Law School fie

Win

Sch

Granary Tremont Burying Ground B Temple o Park Street Church

King's Chapel Burying Ground Old City Hall King's Chapel

sw orth

Sargents W

Quincy Market

Fanueil Hall

ress St Cong

et S

Wha

Unio

Clinton St

City Hall

StateOld State House

Boston Athenaeum

Suffolk University

S on

Pl Ashburton

Court

Chistopher Columbus Park

Government Center

Old Suffolk County Courthouse

Mercantile Wharf

Curley Memorial Plaza

City Hall Plaza

State House

Boston Common

Union Park/ Holocaust Memorial

Lincoln

North End Nursing Home

Pinckney St

State House Park

n oo

Haymarket

John F. Kennedy Federal Building

Pemberton Square Derne St

Fle

North

Bla

Saltonstall and McCormack State Office Buildings

Clark

North End Community Health Center

Vent Building/ Parking Garage

District A-1 Police Station

St Stephan's Church

City of Boston Printing Office

St ngress New Co

African Meeting House

w Ne

Bowdoin

Saltonstall Plaza

Ric

H aw kin s W St tle

t yS ur db Su

tte

ial

Temple St

Ridgeway La

Joy St

Hancock St

S Russell St

Fire Station

lto

Cambridge St

Paul Revere House

Cr os sS t

t nS rdo Cha New

Cardinal Cushing Park

Til

Nazarro Community Center

Battery St

ourt

rtla

t rS te as nc La

Stanford St

Charles River Old West Plaza West End Church Branch Library

inc

Suffolk County Courthouse

Stop & Shop

Old North Church Eliot School North Bennet Street School Paul Revere Mall

North End Branch Library

c St

State Health and Welfare Building

N Margin St

Endicott St

Tr ima

ll S

Cooper St

Merr

Thacher St

Lowell Square

Snowhill St Lo

O'Neill Federal Building

l St

Amy Ct

North Station

St ay ew us Ca

N Washington St

ttin

rd fo ed M

Marth a Rd Co

DeFilippo Playground

Fleet Center

arte

Post Office Square

kli

High

International Place

Atlantic Ave

Copp's Hill Cemetery

g Brid

on ds Hu

en C

c to

rcia

ne Na sh ua

Prince St. Park

U.S. Coast Guard Station

Gard

n Co

Suffolk County Jail

Com

Copp's Hill Terrace

H Lovejoy Wharf

Spaulding Rehabilitation Center

Puopolo Playground

Steriti Rink

Langone Park

hm an

wn sto arle Ch

te ta rs te In

New Charles River Dam

Rowes Wharf

Surface Parking Main Streets District MBTA Stations MBTA Surface Subway Lines MBTA Underground Subway Lines Commuter Rail Below Ground Commuter Rail Water Transit Facilities Water Transit Routes Bus Routes

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Border Conditions

3.50 Lynch diagram, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Governmental Center Major Node

Detachment from ground

Minor Node

Pedestrian access

Major Landmark

Park or Green Space

Minor Commercial District

Minor Landmark

Infrastructure Zone Historical District Major barrier

Major shift in topography Minor Shift in Topography

Major Commercial District

Residential District Minor barrier

Case Study: Boston, MA

Design Competition30

3.51 Current Government Center Garage (photo and plan)

A Boston developer, Raymond Property Company, has proposed â&#x20AC;&#x153;One Congress Street,â&#x20AC;? a four million square foot complex with a mixed-use program of office, residential, and retail. This development would replace the current Government Center Garage, a 150 ft tall building neighboring city hall which provides parking for governmental offices. Due to its enormous size, the garage divides the Haymarket area, isolating the commercial zone to its north. An invited design competition was held for the project, with the selected list of architects being Foster + Partners, OMA, SOM, Gensler, and Cook + Fox. Cook + Fox won the competition, with a proposal that grouped two towers with more small-scale construction.

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.52 Winning Entry, Cook + Fox

3.53 Entry, Foster + Partners

3.54 Entry, OMA

3.55 Entry, SOM

3.56 Entry, Gensler

Case Study: Boston, MA

Opportunities for Architectural Intervention

3.57 Aerial view, Governmental Center, and potential sites

1. Corner of garage

2. City Hall Plaza

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

1. Government Center Garage

The site of the recent redevelopment competition would provide an interesting condition, as any project constructed there must mediate between the two adjacent governmental zones, as well as the Haymarket commercial district. However, as it is so far from the state capitol, it would only be dealing with the idea of the capitol (in the form of adjacent state buildings) rather than the physical object.

2. City Hall Plaza The massive brick plaza that accompanies the 1968 brutalist Boston City Hall was intended to represent the openness of city government and its accessibility to the public. However, in 2004 the all-brick stepped plaza was named by the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Project for Public Spacesâ&#x20AC;? as the worst single public plaza worldwide. The plaza could be reconceived to address the complicated relationship that exists in Boston between state and city government.

Case Study: Boston, MA

A City Divided

â&#x20AC;&#x153;To view government buildings as an act of urban design as well as instances of architecture is to be able to judge how the larger design carefully delimits the zones for public gathering and defines areas of increasingly exclusive privacy.â&#x20AC;? 31

Out of the three capital city case studies, Harrisburg has the most potential for critiquing and improving the relationship between capital and capitol. Governmental buildings display monumentality while typically remaining accessible from street level, acknowledging the existence of the surrounding urban context and occasionally interacting with it. With independent redevelopment initiatives already taking root throughout the city, there exists an opportunity for strengthening other zones within the city in order to establish the capitol as an integral but balanced portion of the capitol. Harrisburg was first settled as a crossing point for the Susquehanna River, and became an official settlement when John Harris, an Englishman, established a trading post and ferry service within the region. Officially founded in 1791, Harrisburg gained notoriety as a market center and a stopping point for travelers. Following the construction of the Pennsylvania Canal and the Pennsylvania railroad, Harrisburg evolved into a center of industry, developing into a major transportation center in the late 19th century that was accompanied by an influx of population. The completion of the new (current) state capitol building in 1906 resulted in additional city growth, as it bolstered commercial, hotel, and retail development within the central business district. Although heavy manufacturing has waned over the last century, the government and food service industries (the Hershey chocolate factory is located 10 miles east) remain key components of its economy.32

A City Divided

Today, Harrisburg remains a key urban area within central Pennsylvania, with a population of a little over 49,000. Its geographic location in Dauphin county, roughly midway between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, establishes it as both a literal and metaphorical balancing force between Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s two largest cities, appropriate for the locus of state government. Outside of its state government functions, Harrisburg is sometimes administratively grouped with the other towns and cities within the Tri-County area made up of Perry, Dauphin, and Cumberland counties, alternatively called the Harrisburg-Carlisle Metropolitan Area. As documented to the right, the city itself occupies a narrow, relatively flat piece of land on the east bank of the Susquehanna River,

4.1 Location of Harrisburg within U.S.

4.2 Harrisburg Metropolitan Area, Topography (opposite)

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

4.3 Transportation within the Tri-County Area

£ n £ nn £ £ n

o o

£ n £ n

Interstate Route US Route Ramp State 0Route 2.5 5 Local Road

Miles

The central city of Harrisburg is framed to the north by I-81 and to the east by a swath of railroad infrastructure and 322. Its location along the river necessitates quite a few bridged roadways, with the three bridges from the downtown serving as continuations of Forster Street (edge of capitol complex), Walnut Street (edge of capitol complex, only provides access to City Island) and Market Street (runs past the Transportation Center). The roads that bound the capital complex are highly-trafficked, although four of the N-S roads (1st St., 3rd St., 6th St., 7th St.) serve the major transportation arteries of the city. This is especially evident in the diagram on the next page, in which the 20+ city bus are structured along the same set of major thoroughfares within the city. 4.4 Harrisburg Metropolitan Area, Major Roadways (opposite)

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

4.5 Bus Routes within the Tri-County Area ( /

Æ3 ÿ

( /

11 "

322

23 ÿ Æ

ÿ Æ 39

( /

12 ÿ Æ

( / ( / 11

ÿ Æ CX ÿ Æ 81

CX Æ ÿ ÿ3 Æ

CAT Park and Rides

15 "

ÿ Æ

" $ ! # 81

Æ6 ÿ

81 Æ ÿ CX ÿ Æ

Transit Centers

ÿ9 Æ

18 ÿ Æ

ÿ9 Æ

12 ÿ Æ

( /

16 Æ ÿ

ÿ6 Æ

" $ ! # 83

21 ÿ Æ

23 ÿ Æ

15 Æ ÿ

16 ÿ Æ

ÿ3 Æ

14 ÿ Æ

13 "

ÿ CX Æ ÿ " $ ! # Æ 81

14 ÿ Æ

81 ÿ Æ

ÿK Æ

ÿ Æ 581

ÿK Æ

ÿF Æ ÿK Æ

ÿD Æ

/ ÿC ( Æ 11

T1 ! ( ÿ2 Æ "2 ÿ9 Æ 120 Æ ÿ

ÿL Æ T5 ! (

ÿC Æ

ÿB Æ

ÿ7 Æ M ÿ Æ

322 13 Æ ÿ ÿ Æ

ÿ8 Æ

13 ÿ Æ

ÿ7 Æ ÿ Æ

322 ÿ Æ

( / 322

Æ8 ÿ

" $ ! #

322 ÿ Æ

20 ÿ Æ

19 ÿ Æ

230

19 ÿ Æ

ÿA ÿL Æ Æ

20 ÿ Æ

" ! $ # 283

ÿ Æ

M Æ ÿ 81 ÿ Æ

ÿ Æ D

15 Æ ÿ ÿ8 Æ

T2 ! (

581

ÿ Æ 283

ÿ Æ 641

ÆB ÿ MX ÿ Æ

16 " ÿD Æ

17 "

"5 " $ ! # 83

ÿ Æ A

ÿ7 Æ

( / 15

MX ÿ ÿ Æ Æ

ÿ Æ

230

ÿB Æ " $ ! #

14 "

ÆB ÿ

T3 ! (

ÿ7 Æ

18 "

The location of the bus routes within the city also serve to illuminate key city centers. The capitol complex remains a dominant area, as does the central business district to the southeast of the capitol. The Transportation Center assumes an especially critical role, as every bus route, city or commuter, passes through one of its outdoor bus stations. Here it is important to note the connections to City Island, which is located to the southwest of the central business district, in the Susquehanna. City Island is the primary recreational center in the city, providing sports arenas and facilities as well as family-centered recreational activities.

4.6 Harrisburg Metropolitan Area, Bus Routes (opposite)

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

A City Divided

The city of Harrisburg possesses a distinct neighborhood structure, of which the capitol district is the largest piece. Although the edges between neighborhoods are not particularly noticeable, each neighborhood possesses a distinct character in terms of its existing building structures and public amenities.

1. Engleton33 A neighborhood which developed primarily within an 8 year period at the end of the 19th century, (1893-1901) as builders were trying to keep pace with the population boom. Engleton forms the nucleus of the Old Uptown National Register Historic District, with remarkably stylistically-consistent and well-preserved brick Queen Anne and Italianate homes.

2. Capitol Heights34 A recently developed community of town homes and single-family duplexes within Midtown.

3. Lottsville 4. Market Square/Verbeke Street35 Enveloping the Hardscrabble and Marketplace communities, this neighborhood provides access to the Riverfront Park as well as the Broad Street Market, both public amenities well-used by Harrisburg city residents.

5. Jackson Lick A primarily commercial and industrial district to the east of Commonwealth Ave.

6. Old Midtown A market district with a mix of residential and commercial construction.

7. Fox Ridge36 Initially created as a neighborhood for railway workers, Fox Ridge has recently been redeveloped with infill town homes.

8. Capitol District 9. SoMa (South of Market) District37 The central business district, currently under redevelopment by the private Harristown Development Corporation in an attempt to establish a hub for international business and the arts.

5 4

6 7

Midtown Downtown

4.7 Harrisburg neighborhood structure

9 0

100 200

400

Midtown [Overview]

4.8 Harrisburg Midtown, aerial photo

The midtown district is characterized by its multitude of residential neighborhoods, many of which feature historic homes. Commonwealth Ave bends through midtown, separating the western residential zone from the eastern commercial and industrial zone. Commonwealth Ave forms the basis for a corridor that is hoped to structure the redevelopment of midtown, with a federal courthouse project and a condominium project in the design and construction phases respectively at the intersection of Commonwealth and Reily Street. Defined cultural districts of midtown include the several blocks occupied by the midtown branch of the Harrisburg Community College as well as Broad Street Market, two blocks of long, bar market buildings that showcase locally produced food and products. Next to HACC Midtown is a collection of blocks known locally as â&#x20AC;&#x153;book row,â&#x20AC;? which contained a cluster of booksellers. The predominance of row houses in the midtown district allows for a mix of commercial and residential programs within blocks, with only a few state or city agency buildings. 4.9 Harrisburg Midtown programmatic breakdown (opposite)

Transportation Residential Cultural Commercial

State City Parking Green Space

2 3

5 HACC Midtown

Book Row

1500 Project

Federal Courthouse

Midtown [Experience] 4.10 Experiential views from within Midtown

4 1. 2. 3. 4.

New construction at Reily St.. Marketplace Town homes Commercial Building Lower density construction after crossing Forster St. 5. Messiah Lutheran Church and Parking Garage for PA Dept. of Revenue

5 98

3 2

Downtown [Overview]

4.11 Harrisburg Downtown, aerial photo

The downtown district is dominated by the capitol complex, which divides the midtown residential neighborhoods from the central business district. State agency buildings infiltrate into the first few blocks of the central business district, which also contained scattered university buildings (categorized under “city”), and a few churches and performing arts centers. The Harrisburg Transportation Center serves as a city-center on a much smaller scale, as all train or bus transportation is directed through that hub. The area around the Transportation Center is mostly dedicated to service, with providing patron and taxi parking and bus lanes. The capitol district and SoMa district are bridged by “Restaurant Row,” the portion of 2nd street that spans from Market Street to Forster Street and is a center for eateries and nightlife.

4.12 Harrisburg Downtown programmatic breakdown (opposite)

100

Transportation Residential Cultural Commercial

State City Parking Green Space

9 0

100

200

400

Downtown [Experience] 4.13 Experiential views from within Downtown

3 1. Edge of train station and highway overpass 2. Strawberry Square shopping center and bridge 3. Walnut Street, continuation of Commonwealth Ave to train station 4. Walnut Street, from capitol

4 102

100

200

400

103

Site [Specific]

Harrisburg is beginning to develop a corridor of city â&#x20AC;&#x153;hot spotsâ&#x20AC;? along Commonwealth Ave, the street that bisects the capital complex. A site to the south of the capitol complex which includes the transportation center (the South of Market District) would provide an opportunity to explore the design implications of the capitol-capital relationship, especially as it relates to transit (the would-be gateway into the city). The site could be selfcontained, or also address an overall strategy for the corridor.

4.14 Site, South of Market District

104

100 200

400

Uptown Redevelopment

Industry Midtown Redevelopment

State Government

Transit Hub 4.15 Significant urban areas along Commonwealth Ave

100 200

400

4.16 Capitol complex versus City Hall complex (highlighting City Hall to the west and the Transportation Center to the east)

4.17 Governmental Axes (Commonwealth Avenue and Market Street)

The South of Market district is an ideal place to examine the relationship between city fabric and government buildings, as it is adjacent to the capitol complex, contains both the city hall complex and the county government complex, and is part of the Central Business District. The first diagram in the above series shows the capitol complex in relation to the two most prominent civic buildings in the South of Market district: City Hall and the Transportation Center. While the two zones are rather similar in size, the South of Market District has a much greater density of built structures. As the second diagram indicates, the Transportation Center is located at the terminus of two significant urban corridors: Commonwealth Avenue (N-S) and Market Street (E-W). Currently, Commonwealth Ave becomes very narrow and changes names as it passes from the capitol complex into the southern city, loosely ending in the Transportation Center plaza. Market Street, which is the primary commercial avenue of the business district and is one of several links to the communities across the river, folds underneath the train tracks when it hits the train station site, continuing into Eastern Harrisburg. Market Street also unites the city hall and county government complexes and Market Square, a significant urban space.

106

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

4.18 Intersection of Formal Grids (highlighting the Capitol Building and Transportation Center)

4.19 Ideal Site

As the only significant publically-accessible structure south of Market Street, the Transportation Center directs all train and regional/city bus traffic, but feels isolated from the rest of the city due to a skewed orientation from the established city grid and that of the capitol complex (as seen in the third diagram). Perhaps due to this skewed orientation, the Transportation Center is lacking a clear promenade from the transit lines into the city, with the loosely-defined entry sequence ending abruptly at the periphery of the capitol complex or snaking around a series of state-owned buildings. Because of this, the Transportation Center seems to be the ideal site for examining and reforming the capitol-capital relationship within the South of Market District. It has the potential to become a deliberate gateway into the city, mediating between the established state governmental and redevelopment axis (Commonwealth Ave) and the local governmental axis (Market Street) while remaining a significant civic monument.

A City Divided

107

Bus

rou

1-w a for y (exc e bus es) pt

tes

4.20 Transportation Center approach

0’ +18’

d an

0’

+15’6”

0’

-2’

+5’6”

4.21 Elevation differences on site

4.22 Existing site circulation

The Transportation Center exists on a triangular site which also includes a church and a few low-rise commercial buildings. It includes a train station and bus station (non-local buses) within the main building, as well as taxi and local bus pick-up along the main drive. Several changes in elevation around the site make circulation difficult and confusing, the most significant being a 15’6” increase in elevation between ground level and entry level into the train station lobby. Due to this shift, a raised drive folds up from Commonwealth Ave to provide access to the train station and shelter parking underneath. This existing “plaza” is intended primarily for cars and buses, and pedestrian activity is kept to a minimum. The drive is one-way, except for buses, which makes the area difficult to navigate. The current train and bus stations are severely lacking in public amenities, with inadequately sized and maintained waiting areas and a convenience store on the train station level serving as the only eatery. However, the station building itself and accompanying train shed are listed with the National Register of Historic places (due to a rare Fink roof truss), and cannot be easily renovated or redesigned.

108

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

4.23 Station building

4.24 Train sheds

4.25 Fink roof truss

4.26 Raised drive above parking

A City Divided

109

4.27 Train station lobby and ticket booth

4.28 Entry into waiting area

4.29 Original fireplace in lobby

4.30 Train station waiting room

4.31 Waiting room seating

The interior of the train station, accessed from 15â&#x20AC;&#x2122;6 feet above ground level, was remodeled in 1986 by Karn Charuhas Chapman & Twohey to match the original 1887 interiors. These include a large lobby, with a free-standing wood paneled ticket booth, original fireplaces, and large wooden doors opening into a corridor that transitions into the long waiting area. The waiting area, which provides benchs and several sets of stairs leading directly to the tracks, is located in a bar perpendicular to the main station building. (The drawing set in the appendix provides further details.)

110

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

4.32 Bus station at end of building

4.33 Bus parking

4.34 Disconnect from plaza

4.35 Market Street

A terminal for non-local buses was also provided in the renovation. Residing at ground level on one end of the station building the bus station is located at the point where Market Street dips down to pass under the railroad tracks. Due to this change in elevation, as well as being a full floor under the entry level into the train station, the bus station and waiting area feel very detached from the rest of the center, and can only be accessed from the street or from a set of stairs/elevator on the train station level, but not directly from the plaza.

A City Divided

111

“There is, in all probability, no building or building complex that can be considered public in as many different senses as a capitol... Ironically, many capitals may well fail to be public in the most important way of all, that is, by being under public control.” 38

A Joint Mission

The chosen site has the potential to be designed as a true gateway into both the city of Harrisburg and the capitol complex, While the transportation center serves as an equalizer or balance point between capitol and capital, the current sequences of exit tend to lead directly to the periphery of the capitol complex or around a series of state building, causing the state to dominant entry into the city. In order to allow the transportation center to truly function as an equalizer between capitol and capital, there must be a strong representation of the city within that initial exit sequence from the transportation center. An insertion of an overtly city-centered program would cause a shift in the current “gateway” dynamics and could allow for a detailed analysis through design of the capitolcapital, government-citizen relationships that are unique to capital cities. This would require a careful balancing act between the interests of each party and their roles in shaping the observer’s first impressions of the city. The following spread illustrates the traditional role of the train station/train shed in establishing an entry sequence into the city. In Harrisburg, the role of train shed as orienting device is severely underdeveloped, due in large part to the removal of the station entry plane from ground level and the separation of the train station from the urban fabric.

115

Role of the train station as LOBBY OF THE CITY

Elements:

Purpose:

Shed tells (partial) story of city through contained images in a sequence • • • •

large scale perspective views shapshots “postcards” vignettes

Station way of reading the city as a system of many destinations • • • • •

directed, specific views borders grand public space can view hierarchy of adjoining roads, buildings gateway, grand entry into city different experience from bus or plane

5.1 Traditional train station role in establishing entry into the city

116

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Operates as...

Result:

VIGNETTES / STORYBOARD

emphasizes the dominance of the capitol and its position as the largest scale open space and the most â&#x20AC;&#x153;postcard-worthyâ&#x20AC;? view [current]

ORIENTING DEVICE (or compass, map) relates elements of the storyboard into an understandarble and navigatable reading of the city [ideal]

A Joint Mission

117

The elevated part of the town, or the citadel, in a Grecian city; esp. that of Athens (OED).

The public place or market place of the city. In ancient Rome the place of assembly for judicial and other public business (OED).

The Capitol: Acropolis

5.2 Role of the capitol versus the role of the capital

The Capital: Forum

Currently, the capitol complex is acting as the dominating center within the city, a kind of urban acropolis. The South of Market District has the ability to re-assume the role of city center, not as a dueling acropolis but as its opposite: the forum. As the terminus of both the state governmental axis (Commonwealth Avenue) and the city/county governmental axis (Market Street), the Transportation Center has the opportunity to serve as a support piece for both types of governmental function, as well as rediscovering its status as a key civic node. In order to facilitate interaction between city and state governmental entities as well as encourage future city development, new office spaces will be inserted in the Transportation Center site for the Harristown Redevelopment Corporation and Harrisburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GIS Resource Center, as well as informal meeting areas for collaboration between various city organizations. The Transportation Center and these types of governmental support programs (as defined in Fig. 5.3) could operate in tandem to provide a clear, deliberate entry sequence or gateway into Harrisburg, as well as provide the type of small-scale public spaces and amenities that both the transportation center and the city currently lack. This would re-establish the Transportation Center as a functioning civic node, helping to mitigate the dominance of the capitol complex by reducing it to one civic node in a string of many (illustrated on following spread).

118

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

5.3 Proposed program SF

Government Lobby/Reception Area

1,500

Council/Meeting Chamber

7,000

Interdisciplinary working rooms

1,000

Office Suites Harristown Development Corporatio

8,000

Harrisburg GIS Resource Center

8,000

Archives

10,000

Sub Total

35,500

Support Spaces (15%)

5,325

Circulation (30%)

10,650

Total Government

51,475

Exhibition Area

1,000

Community Flexible meeting space (s)

2,000

Office Suites (short or long term let)

10,000

Grassroots Organizations Food/retail

5,000

Sub Total

18,000

Support Spaces (15%)

2,700

Circulation (30%)

5,400

Total Community

26,100

Ticketing Regional Bus Terminal Local Bus terminal Taxi Stand

500 6,000 4,000 150

Sub Total

10,650

Support/Circulation (30%)

3,195

Total Transportation

13,845

Transportation

Add-on Program Partially-enclosed public space Outdoor public space Short-term living space (hotel/apartment?) Addition food/retail or commercial

Total Project

91,420

A Joint Mission

119

5.4 Intersection of governmental axes and chain of established civic nodes

Node 1: Proposed Federal Court-

120

Node 2: Capitol Complex

Node 3: Former City Hall Building

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Transportation Center: Necessary additional node in the sequence (*new site strategy depicted)

3 4

Node 4: State Government Buildings

Node 5: City Government Complex

Node 6: County Government Complex

A Joint Mission

121

Part III Restoring Identity: A Capital Strategy

123

124

The Ideal Capital?

“It may be that urban design placement of the capitol is of greater symbolic importance than its embryonic architectural form. There is something important to be learned from the slow growth of Washington’s Capitol, which began as a relatively modest structure on the city’s prime site and, over a period of seventy years of national development, sprouted its wings and a series of ever-more-soaring domes.” 39

For the past two years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken an initiative named “Greening America’s Capitals,” which provides funding to current or proposed urban redevelopment in capital cities which can incorporate innovative green building and infrastructure strategies.40 Five capital cities are selected for project funding each year, with the end goal of aiding in redevelopment of all fifty capital cities. The EPA funds a team of designers to produce schematic designs for each city, which can then be implemented by the city. This results of this initiative could be very telling, as it is the only current urban redevelopment project that directly targets capital cities as a type. The following five short case studies examine the schematic designs for the cities selected in 2010, the first year of the iniative: Boston, Massachusetts; Hartford, Connecticut; Little Rock, Arkansas; Charleston, West Virginia; and Jefferson City, Missouri. While the EPA’s goal is to encourage smart growth strategies within the city as a whole, many of the design proposals focus on areas near or adjacent to the capitol complex, reinforcing the capitol-capital relationship as a stillpresent urban issue within the capital city. Several of these proposals, although schematic, attempt to resolve urban issues that are present in many capital cities, including Harrisburg.

125

“Greening America’s Capitals” Matrix

Corridor

Jefferson City, Missouri

Charleston, West Virginia

Little Rock, Arkansas

Hartford, Connecticut

Boston, Massachusetts

Plaza

6.1 Matrix comparing improvements to five capital cities

126

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

District

Type

City Center Capitol Complex

Global

City hall plaza, a 7-acre brick expanse in the center of downtown Boston, surrounded by federal government buildings and private businesses. It operates as a roofscape for an MTBA station and tunnels underneath.

Pop. 617,594

City Center Capitol Complex

Issues

Site

Capitol Ave, a corridor which connects the State Capitol, Legislative Building, State Library, Supreme Court, and State Armory, as well as residential, retail, and park land.

• often devoir of visitors, windswept, and barren • disconnected from immediate surroundings • must balance between public and private stakeholders • poor physical and visual connections to Faneuil Hall and surrounding city

• • • •

walking difficult diminished sense of place stormwater runoff lack of connection between neighborhoods, cultural districts, downtown, and future transit stops

• • • •

polluted stormwater runoff heat island effect underdeveloped sense of place lack of consistency in street design

Multi-Function Pop. 124,775

Capitol Complex

City Center

Main Street, a northsouth historic corridor which connects two areas of current redevelopment, the River Market district and the Southside Main Street district.

Regional Pop. 193,524

Capitol Complex

City Center

Regional Pop. 51,400

Capitol Complex City Center

Mono-Function

Slack Plaza, constructed in 1984 on the site of a former Greyhound station, is located between Summers and Laidley Streets in NW downtown Charleston. The Plaza forms an integral pedestrian link between the downtown business district and the mall/civic center.

• most animated during weekday lunch hour • plaza edge is the primary hub and transfer point for bus routes • gathering spot for illicit activity (feels unsafe) • lacks green space • no real sense of place

The Millbottom area, considered the gateway to the State Capitol building, is centered on the intersection of Wears Creek and the Missouri River, and is made up of state buildings, surface parking, and commercial construction.

• not functioning as effective gateway to Capitol • lack of connection between city and river, or existing attractions • water quality and flood mitigation

Pop. 43,079

Introduction

127

Boston, MA Global Capital Population: 617,594 Site Selected for Improvement: City Hall Plaza [PLAZA} City hall plaza is currently a 7-acre brick expanse in the center of downtown Boston, surrounded by federal government buildings and private businesses. It operates as a roofscape for an MTBA station and tunnels underneath. Existing Issues: • often devoir of visitors, windswept, and barren • disconnected from immediate surroundings • must balance between public and private stakeholders • poor physical and visual connections to Faneuil Hall and surrounding city Strategy: • create well-defined edges and enterences • increase the tree canopy and vegetation for better stormwater management • encourage the development of a multi-modal transportation hub by adding a bike share station and parking and electric vehicle charging stations

6.2 Proposal A: minimal grading and addition of trees to form edges

NEW SUDBURY STREET

JFK FEDERAL BUILDING TOWER

MB RID

GE S

JFK FEDERAL BUILDING TOWER

CA M

T R EE T

JFK FEDERAL BUILDING LOWER WING

B RID

SS R ES

BOSTON CITY HALL

R ES

TRE

123 CENTER PL A Z A

G E ST R EE T

BOSTON CITY HALL

SEARS CRESCENT

UR TS TR EE T OL D HO STA US TE E

128

28 STATE STREET

FA NE HA UIL LL

SEARS CRESCENT

ONE WASHINGTON MALL E TR

ONE WASHINGTON MALL

FA NE HA UIL LL 28 STATE STREET

6.3 Existing plaza site plan and panorama

S RY

T DIN

VE NO

UIL LB G R A WIN D E ER F E OW L

RIAL

REE

EMO

S ST

ST M

REE

GRES

CAU

BOSTON L CIT Y HAL

United States Government

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

3 12

FANEUIL HALL

IT Y

RID

ER RM AIN FO UNT FO

N ST

CO N

HOLO

UNIO

K JF R AL G DE IN FE ILD ER B U OW T

City of Boston

Boston Redevelopment Authority

NT ER

CORN HILL

Privately Owned

SEARS CRESCENT

JOHN ADAMS COURTHOUSE

COU

RT ST

REE

ONE WASHINGTON MALL

Privately Owned: Public ser vice/utility

26 COU R STREE T T

Cambridge Street

28 STATE STREET

Federal Building - Tower

JFK Federal Building - East Wing

Boston City Hall

OLD STATE HOUSE

Community Arcade

JFK Tower

JFK Low-rise

Hanover Street

Holocaust Memorial

28 State Street

Sears Crescent

6.4 Proposal B: Regraded slope, subdivisions of space

NEW SUDBURY STREET NEW SUDBURY STREET

JFK FEDERAL BUILDING TOWER

MB RID

JFK FEDERAL BUILDING TOWER

GE S

CA M

T R EE T

JFK FEDERAL BUILDING LOWER WING

B RID

R ES

BOSTON CITY HALL

R ES

TRE

123 CENTER PL A Z A

G E ST R EE T

BOSTON CITY HALL

SEARS CRESCENT

UR TS TR EE T

OL D HO STA US TE E

28 STATE STREET

FA NE HA UIL LL

SEARS CRESCENT

ONE WASHINGTON MALL

T TS

ONE WASHINGTON MALL

FA NE HA UIL LL 28 STATE STREET

129

Hartford, CT Multi-Function Capital Population: 124,775 Site Selected for Improvement: Capitol Ave [CORRIDOR] Connects the State Capitol, Legislative Building, State Library, Supreme Court, and State Armory, as well as residential, retail, and park land. Goals of Project: • make walking easier and more pleasant • create stronger sense of place • better manage stormwater • make connections between neighborhoods, cultural districts, downtown, and future transit stops Strategy Use different scales of green infrastructure to reinforce the design of open public spaces, streets and alleys, and underused parking lots.

Proposal:

6.5 Before improvements

6.6 After improvements

130

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Strategy:

3 2

4 5 6 7

6.7 Areas of interest along Capitol Ave corridor

131

Little Rock, Arkansas Regional Capital Population: 193,524 Site Selected for Improvement: Main Street [CORRIDOR} A north-south historic corridor which connects two areas of current redevelopment, the River Market district and the Southside Main Street district. Existing Conditions: • polluted stormwater runoff • heat island effect • underdeveloped sense of place • lack of consistency in street design Interventions: • redevelopment of vacant buildings and underused parking lots • streetscape improvements • public art • new parks and green spaces

PROPOSAL: Highway Orchard

LOUISIANA STREET

Community Gardens

Nursery

Parking Concentrated in Rear

C New Green Streetscape, Rain Gardens and Gathering Areas

Improved and Covered Sidewalks on Bridge

MAIN STREET Improved Pedestrian Crossings

6.8 Node 1: SOMA Neighborhood Park

Section ‘A’: Proposed Extra-Wide Rain Garden (Parking Lot)

Section ‘B’: Proposed Extra-Wide Rain Garden (Building)

132

8-20’ rain garden

6’ sidewalk

8-20’ rain garden

8’ sidewalk

Potential Green Roof Potential Green Alley

SCOTT STREET

6.9 Node 2: 1-630 Crossing

8’ rain garden 3.25’ existing planting

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

9TH

12TH

13TH Potential Green Roof

SCOTT STREET

Residential Infill

DAISY L GATSON BATES DR.

15TH

16TH

17TH

Existing Sculpture Garden Enhanced

10TH

Improved Pedestrian Crossings

MAIN STREET

11TH

Strategy: • Implement series of nodes or destination, spaced approximately 5 min in walking time from each other

ARKANSAS RIVER

Convention Center Gateway

Arts Park

1. Soma Neighborhood Park - build on existing arts community and development projects with streetscaping 2. I-630 Crossing - improve the pedestrian walkway and resuse vacant lots as community gardens 3. Arts Park - more public plazas to host community arts events and more outdoor seating 4. Convention Center Gateway screen adjacent parking lots and convert space in front of city parking garage into a rain garden

I-630 Crossing

SOMA Neighborhood Park

Post Office

6.12 Series of nodes within city

LOUISIANA STREET

E Sculpture as focal point at terminus of Main Street

Future Office Development with Plaza

Convention Center

Plaza

Cafe Seating (Typical)

Plaza

Cafe and Stormwater Streetscape

Stormwater Streetscape

MAIN STREET

Pervious Parking

Rain Garden Park

MAIN STREET

S S

Center Theatre Park

Trees and Rain Gardens at Corners City Parking Garage for Convention Center and River Market

Potential Green Roof

SCOTT STREET

MARKHAM

2ND

3RD

4TH

3RD

4TH

CAPITOL

6TH

7TH

Stage

Potential Green Roof

SCOTT STREET

Potential Green Alley

6.10 Node 3: Arts Park

Potential Sculpture Location

6.11 Node 4: Convention Center Gateway

11.25’ sidewalk

8’ parking Section ‘A’: Proposed Rain Garden and Porous Parking

Existing: Limited Tree Root Space and Impervious Parking

8’ sidewalk

8’ porous parking 3.25’ rain garden

8’ sidewalk

11.25’ cafe space + rain garden

with street tree

Section ‘B’: Proposed Rain Garden (All Planted)

8’ sidewalk

11.25’ rain garden

Section ‘C’: Proposed Rain Garden (Cafe)

Introduction

133

Charleston, WV Regional Capital Population: 51,400 Attained Statehood: 1863 Designated Capitol: Site Selected for Improvement: Slack Plaza Constructed in 1984 on the site of a former Greyhound station and located between Summers and Laidley Streets in NW downtown Charleston. Forms an integral pedestrian link between the downtown business district and the mall/civic center. Existing Conditions: • most animated during weekday lunch hour • plaza edge is the primary hub and transfer point for bus routes • gathering spot for illicit activity (feels unsafe) • lacks green space • no real sense of plaza 7

6.13 Plaza location and timeline of improvements

#3 Small Steps

1 #5 Kanawha Valley Regional Transit Authority vements Near-term Impro #7 Complete Streets

Immediate

Near-term 1-3 years

#6 Art Walk to Mall

Long-range 3 years + #8 Main Plaza Redesign

#4 Temporary Improvements to Enhance Plaza #2 Address Crime: Real and Perception

Objectives: 1. create a lively and active space that appeals to a broad range of users and reflects Charleston’s character 2. make the space more comfortable and easier to use by defining paths, individual zones of activity, and increasing areas of shade 3. decrease stormwater runoff that enters the local combined storm/sanitary sewer system

134

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

6.14 Renderings of improvements

6.15 Proposed changes to plaza lk Wa Art Public art visible from both mall and plaza

Strategy: • innovative greening technologies •

improvements to public transportation

•

bring more activity through community events, opportunities for local businesses, better mangement of storm water runoff, increasing green space

Redesigned transit mall

et y Stre

Laidle

Public art visible from art walk

Skate Park

Vendor kiosks Shady grove with moveable seating Multi-use paved surface (spray jets/ice rink)

Natural play area with water jets Use blank wall as movie screen

Light poles help to define walkway Trees define edge

Main pathway with strong paving pattern

ay alkw ley W Braw

treet

ers S

m Sum

Public art visible from Brawley Walkway

Introduction

135

Jefferson City, MO Mono-Function Capital Population: 43,079 Site Selected for Improvement: Millbottom Area [DISTRICT} Considered the gateway to the state capitol building, the Millbottom area is centered on the intersection of Wears Creek and the Missouri River, and is made up of state buildings, surface parking, and some commercial construction. Goals of Project: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Transform the Millbottom area into an attractive gateway to the Capitol Re-connect the people of Jefferson city to the river through pedestrian and bike improvements as well as waterfront programs and projects Improve water quality, provide flood mitigation, and promote ecological education and responsibility by transforming â&#x20AC;&#x153;grey to greenâ&#x20AC;? in the floodplain Encourage economic revitalization through adaptive reuse and vibrant public spaces Connect existing attractions to one another, and link ongoing initiatives in the Millbottom area Lead by example incorporating emerging technologies and green building techniques into environmentally and economically sustainable planning and design

PROPOSAL:

Five initiatives which can be developed concurrently

2H 2A 2E

Figure 17 > Bioswale

Figure 18 > Wetland with parking beyond

Figure 19 > Permeable asphalt

Figure 20 > Permeable pavement

2G 2C 2C 2C 2C

3A 3B 3A 3B

3A 3B

2A 2F 2C

2B Figure 12 > Trails + River Access Initiative

Wears Creek Riparian buffer Trails Access points Existing rail line Existing trails

6.16 Wears Creek Restoration/Trails and River Access

Figure 21 > Parking Improvements Initiative Wears Creek Riparian buffer Green infrastructure improvements

6.17 Parking Improvements

51%

of the study area is in the floodplain

136

68%

of the study area is impervious surface

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

59%

of the study area is owned by the city and state

6.20 Full implementation of all 5 initiatives, transforming the Millbottom area into a proper gateway into the capitol

5I 4E

5J 5K

5J 5K 5K

5J 5D

5B 5H

5E 4B

Figure 27 > Complete Streets + Transit Connectivity Initiative

Proposed trail access points Potential trolley route Primary street improvements Existing Jeff Tran routes

6.18 Complete Streets and Transit Connectivity

Figure 32 > Parks + Adaptive Reuse Initiative Wears Creek Riparian buffer Existing buildings for adaptive reuse

6.19 Parks and Adaptive Reuse

Introduction

137

6.21 Redevelopment areas in relation to government centers, Boston [plaza strategy]

6.22 Redevelopment areas in relation to government centers, Hartford [corridor strategy]

6.23 Redevelopment areas in relation to government centers, Little Rock [corridor strategy]

Capitol Building Boundaries of Capitol Complex City Hall Building City Center Area of Redevelopment

138

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

6.24 Redevelopment areas in relation to government centers, Charleston [plaza strategy]

6.25 Redevelopment areas in relation to government centers, Jefferson City [district strategy]

Although most of the proposed projects operate at the level of surface treatments or streetscapes rather than new built construction, the node approach used in Little Rock could be helpful in identifying and augmenting existing areas of interest within Harrisburg. The strategy used in Jefferson City is particularly relevant, as it involves an area at the scale of a district, directly adjacent to the capitol complex, and includes the objective of developing the area as a proper gateway to the capitol. Jefferson City is also a mono-function city, very similar in size and population to Harrisburg. While most of the included proposals for the area are infrastructural, it is not hard to imagine that a similar strategy involving key built structures could also be proposed and deployed successfully in the area, addressing the interface between capitol and capital.

Introduction

139

The Functioning Hybrid

The site strategy required careful consideration in order to allow the new program insertions to facilitate the Transportation Centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation as a civic node and a point of entry shared by both capitol and capital. As demonstrated in the following drawings, the new spaces were arranged to provide a formal edge between the Transportation Center and surrounding city as well as establish a frame around the public plaza. With the capitol complex already serving the role of a monumental government presence, the built additions to this civic space are designed around function, rather than presence. Their role is to provide support to the various government functions hosted within the city, while simultaneously engaging the civic realm at its most dynamic and transitory point. The new structures will provide a built framework around the existing train station building, at once celebrating its status as a significant historic civic building while promoting the plaza as a key urban node which will bolster both identities of city and the state. By stitching together existing transportation infrastructure with the governmental and commercial districts of the city, the redeveloped Transportation Center becomes a â&#x20AC;&#x153;functioning hybrid,â&#x20AC;? serving to strengthen the relationship between the capitol complex and the capital city fabric.

141

Evolution of Site Strategy

7.1 The building must be conceived as having two separate agendas: act as a gateway to the city via Commonwealth Avenue and address the status of the train station as an important civic building

7.2 Although the gateway function must remain dominant, the disparate geometries can be allowed to overlap and blend, and create a frame for the train station plaza in conjunction with addional edge buildings 142

7.3 Potential site strategy, in which a unified facade is presented to Market Street, but a shifting edge faces the train station

7.4 Final site strategy, in which both the existing train station and the inserted building masses operate collectively as a framing device for the raised plaza, emphasizing the civic importance of the public space over that of the buildings and allowing all three axis to function concurrently.

143

7.5 Program placement on site

New Program: Harrisburg City Archive (level 0)

Formal Meeting Chamber (level 2)

Local Bus Stop/Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Center (level 0)

Circulation Cores

Offices (levels 1+2)

Existing Program:

Plaza (level 1)

Ticketing

Cafe (level 1)

Waiting Areas

Small Meeting Rooms (level 2)

In the primary formal move, a suspended meeting chamber acts in conjunction with a stepped ramp to provide a literal gateway into the raised train station entry plaza. The raised plaza spans the central portion of the station (a reduction from the previous size), while two smaller plazas border each end of the site at ground level. One plaza provides access to the waiting room for regional buses and while the other provides a local bus shelter, visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s center, and exhibition area. The Harrisburg City Archive, currently closed due

144

7.6 Facade wrapper in relation to program

to inadequate facilities, occupies the area beneath the plaza, connecting the ground-level courts, and is accessible from the central meeting chamber and offices above. A ceramic louver â&#x20AC;&#x153;wrapperâ&#x20AC;? envelops the building, creating maximum transparency at points of entry and adding a semi-transparent effect to more private spaces. The wrapper folds into a canopy which shades a portion of the raised plaza opposite from the primary station faĂ§ade, providing shelter for a seating area while preserving views to the adjacent church and city beyond.

145

7.7

Ground Floor Plan (Elevation 5’-6”) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Stepped Ramp to Raised Plaza Main Lobby Existing bus station (regional) Harrisburg City Archive Bus Station (local) Visitor’s Center Exhibition Plaza

4 1 Section A

5 6

7.8

First Floor Plan (Elevation 15’-6”) 1

1. 2.

Offices Circulation to Meeting Chamber 3. Raised Plaza 4. Sheltered Plaza Area 5. Cafe 6. Train Station Lobby 7. Train Station Waiting Area 8. Convenience Store 9. Keystone Room 10. Rentable Space

3 Section A

9 7

7.9 1

Second Floor Plan (Elevation 30’-6”) 1. 2. 3. 4.

Offices Small Meeting Rooms Formal Meeting Chamber Informal Event Space 2 2

Section A

7.10

Axonometric

Appendix

155

State Capital Information Summary

State Capitol Larger cities within state Washington, DC

Current Capitol Building (constructed following statehood)

Current Capitol Building (constructed prior to statehood)

States in which capital city is not the largest city

States which border Washington, DC

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

156

STATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Delaware Pennsylvania New Jersey Georgia Connecticut Massachusetts Maryland South Carolin New Hampshire Virginia New York North Carolin Rhode Island Vermont Kentucky Tennessee Ohio Louisiana Indiana Mississippi Illinois Alabama Maine Missouri Arkansas Michigan Florida Texas Iowa Wisconsin California Minnesota Oregon Kansas West Virginia Nevada Nebraska Colorado North Dakota South Dakota Montana Washington Idaho Wyoming Utah Oklahoma New Mexico Arizona Alaska Hawaii

ABBREV. CAPITAL DE PA NJ GA CT MA MD SC NH VA NY NC RI VT KY TN OH LA IN MS IL AL ME MO AR MI FL TX IA WI CA MN OR KS WV NV NE CO ND SD MT WA ID WY UT OK NM AZ AK HI

TYPE

Dover Mono Harrisburg Mono Trenton Mono/Former Atlanta Global Hartford Multi Boston Global Annapolis Mono/Former Columbia Mono Concord Mono Richmond Global Albany Mono Raleigh Multi Providence Regional Montpelier Mono Frankfort Mono Nashville Multi Columbus Global Baton Rouge Regional Indianapolis Global Jackson Regional Springfield Mono Montgomery Regional Augusta Mono Jefferson CityMono Little Rock Regional Lansing Regional Tallahassee Regional Austin Global Des Moines Regional Madison Mono Sacremento Multi St. Paul Regional Salem Mono Topeka Mono Charleston Regional Carson City Mono Lincoln Regional Denver Global Bismarck Regional Pierre Mono Helena Regional Olympia Mono Boise Regional Cheyenne Regional Salt Lake CityMulti Oklahoma City Regional Santa Fe Regional Phoenix Multi Juneau Regional Honolulu Multi

POPULATION

UNION

BUILT

36,047 49,528 84,913 420,003 124,775 617,594 38,394 129,272 42,695 204,214 97,856 403,892 178,042 7,855 25,527 601,222 787,033 229,493 820,445 173,514 116,250 205,764 19,136 43,079 193,524 114,297 181,376 790,390 203,433 233,209 466,488 285,068 154,637 127,473 51,400 55,274 258,379 600,158 61,272 13,646 28,190 46,478 205,671 59,466 186,440 579,999 67,947 1,445,632 31,275 337,256

1787 1787 1787 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1796 1803 1812 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1836 1837 1845 1845 1846 1848 1850 1858 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1876 1889 1889 1889 1889 1890 1890 1896 1907 1912 1912 1959 1959

1792 1861 1891 1889 1879 1798 1779 1907 1819 1789 1899 1840 1904 1838 1910 1859 1861 1932 1888 1903 1887 1851 1911 1919 1914 1878 1977 1888 1886 1917 1874 1905 1938 1906 1932 1871 1932 1907 1934 1910 1912 1928 1921 1917 1916 1917 610/196 1900 1931 1969

Appendix

157

“The World According to GaWC” Chart (2011)

Global Capitals

158

Multi-Function Capitals

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Chart Key: (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/group.html)

)Alpha++: highest level of integrated city (London and NYC) Alpha+: highly integrated cities that complement London and New York Alpha/Alpha-: important world cities that link major economic regions and states into the world economy Beta: important world cities that link their region or state into the world economy

Gamma: world cities that link smaller regions or states into world economy, or whose major global capacity is not in advanced producer services Sufficiency of services: non-world cities, but have sufficient services to avoid being overly dependent on world cities (include smaller capital cities and centers of manufacturing regions)

Developed by the Geography Department of Loughborough University (UK), the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network works to document the relationships between world cities.“The World According to GaWC” chart itself assesses cities in terms of their production within the world city network. “The World According to GaWC (2011)” chart is used to classify all 50 state capitals in accordance with the “5 Types of State Capital City.” Global capitals were formed of the state capitals within the alpha, beta, or gamma lists, and multi-function capitals were formed out of the sufficiency of services list. Regional and mono-function capitals were determined by the amount of nongovernment-driven industry in the area.

Appendix

159

Harrisburg Transportation Center Drawing Set41

160

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

161

162

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

163

164

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

165

166

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

167

168

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

169

170

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

171

172

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

173

174

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Appendix

175

Notes

1. Henry-Russell Hitchcock and William Seale, Temples of Democracy: The State Capitols of the USA (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), 3. 2. Greg Hise, “Architecture as State Building: A Challenge to the Field,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 67 (June 2008), 176. 3. Lawrence Vale, Architecture, Power, and National Identity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 15-16. 4. Ibid, 11. 5. Ibid, 12-13. 6. Ibid, 17. 7. Ibid. 8. Charles T. Goodsell, “Bureaucracy’s House in the Polis: Seeking an Appropriate Presence,” J-PART 7 (July 1997), 394-395. 9. Ibid, 396-399. 10. Ibid, 399-401. 11. Ibid, 401-406. 12. Ibid, 407-410. 13. Ibid, 410-413. 14. Ibid, 414-416. 15. Peter Hall, “Seven Types of Capital City,” in Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities, ed. David L.A. Gordon (New York: Routledge, 2006), 8-14. 16. Hise, “Architecture as State Building,” 176. 17. “Employment,” Albany County, accessed Nov 1, 2011, http://www. albanycounty.com/aboutus.asp?id=395. 18. Eldon Hauk, American Capitols: An Encyclopedia of the State, National and Territorial Capital Edifices of the United States (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Publishers, 1991), 158-163. 19. Ibid. 20. Hitchcock and Seale, Temples of Democracy, 200-203. 21. Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964). 22. “Top Regional Employers,” Harrisburg Regional Chamber and CREDC, accessed Oct 21 2011. http://www. harrisburgregionalchamber.org/reg-edc/bus-dev/reg-info/42credc/76-reg-info.html. 23. Hauk, American Capitols, 194-203.

176

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

24. Pennsylvania General Assembly, “The Capitol Complex,” The Pennsylvania Capitol (2011), 3-4. 25. Pennsylvania General Assembly, “The Capitol Complex,” 25-26. 26. Jason Scott, “Northern gateway could bolster Harrisburg’s urban renewal,” Central Penn Business Journal, October 14, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011, http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/ article/20111014/FRONTPAGE/111019886/Northern-gateway-couldbolster-Harrisburg’s-urban-renewal. 27. “About 1500 Project,” Vartan Group, Inc., accessed October 21, 2011, http://1500project.com/about. 28. Hauk, American Capitols, 97-102. 29. Ibid. 30. Matt Chaban, “The New Green Monster,” The Architect’s Newspaper, March 5, 2009. accessed October 15, 2011, http://archpaper.com/ news/articles.asp?id=3268. 31. Vale, Architecture, Power, and National Identity, 7. 32. Jeb Stuart, “Harrisburg: A Brief History,” Harrisburg City Archives, http://www.harrisburgarchives.org/history/ harrisburghistory. 33. “Engleton,” The Historical Marker Database, http://www.hmdb.org. 34. “Capitol Heights,” Wikimapia, http://wikimapia.org. 35. “Market Square/Verbeke Street Neighborhood,” Wikimapia, http:// wikimapia.org. 36. “Fox Ridge,” Wikimapia, http://wikimapia.org. 37. “SoMa District,” Wikimapia, http://wikimapia.org. 38. Hauk, American Capitols, 339. 39. Hauk, American Capitols, 327. 40. http://www.epa.gov/dced/greencapitals.htm 41. Library of Congress, “Pennsylvania Railroad, Harrisburg Station & Trainshed,” Prints & Photographs Online Catalog, accessed March 4, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/pa0995.sheet.00001a.

Appendix

177

Image Credits

Cover

“Map of District of Columbia park system” by D.H. Burnham and E.H. Bennett (http://www.nps.gov/history/ history/online_books/ncr/designing-capital/plates.html)

1.1

Author’s diagram

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4-2.9

www.visitingdc.com www.gettyimages.com Author’s diagram Charles T. Goodsell, “Bureaucracy’s House in the Polis,” 395-414. Author’s diagrams

2.10-2.15 (Pg 36-37) 3.1-3.2 3.3-3.4 3.5-3.21 (Pg 54-55)

Author’s photo Author’s charts Hitchcock and Seale, Temples of Democracy, 153-154. Author’s photos and diagrams (Albany, NY) http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/07/ harrisburg_needs_donations_fro.html) 3.22-3.23 Author’s charts 3.24 Hitchcock and Seale, Temples of Democracy, 61. 3.25 Pennsylvania General Assembly, “The Capitol Complex,” 4. 3.26 http://www.pacapitol.com/main.html 3.27 Steffensen, “Toward an Iconography of a State Capitol,” 191. 3.28-3.31 Pennsylvania General Assembly, “The Capitol Complex,” 25-30. 3.32 Author’s photos 3.33 www.bing.com/maps 3.34-3.36 Author’s diagrams 3.37 Jason Scott, “Northern gateway could bolster Harrisburg’s urban renewal” 3.38 Author’s photos 3.39 http://1500project.com 3.40 Author’s photos (Pg 70-71) www.bing.com/maps 3.41-3.42 Hitchcock and Seale, Temples of Democracy 3.43 upload.wikimedia.org 3.44-3.48 Author’s photos and diagrams

178

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

3.49 3.50-3.51 3.52-3.56

3.57

Boston Redevelopment Authority, http://www. bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/maps/governmentcenter. pdf Author’s Photos and Diagrams Matt Chaban, “The New Green Monster,” The Architect’s Newspaper, March 5, 2009. accessed October 15, 2011, http:// archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=3268.) www.bing.com/maps

4.24-4.25 4.26-4.35

it.wikipedia.org Author’s diagram Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, http://www.tcrpc-pa. org/content/?/tri-county-regional/regional-growth-managementplan. Author’s diagram http://www.cattransit.com Author’s diagrams www.bing.com/maps Author’s diagrams www.bing.com/maps Author’s diagrams http://www.panoramio.com/photo/20996253 Author’s diagrams http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14788776/415-Market-StreetHarrisburg-PA/ www.flickr.com Author’s photos

5.1-5.4

Author’s diagrams

6.1 6.2-6.20 6.21-6.25

Author’s matrix http://www.epa.gov/dced/greencapitals.htm Author’s diagrams

7.1-7.10

Author’s diagrams and drawings

4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5 4.6-4.7 4.8 4.9-4.10 4.11 4.12-4.19 4.20 4.21-4.22 4.23

Appendix

179

Bibliography

Craig, Lois A. The Federal Presence: Architecture, Politics, and Symbols in the United States Government Building. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1978. Edelman, Murray. “Space and the Social Order.” JAE (Blackwell Publishing) 32, no. 2 (November 1978): 2-7. Goldberger, Paul. “A Bit of Old Athens on the Susquehanna.” The New York Times. October 8, 1989. Goodman, Nelson. “How Buildings Mean.” Critical Inquiry (The University of Chicago Press) 11, no. 4 (June 1985): 642-653. Goodsell, Charles T. “Bureaucracy’s House in the Polis: Seeking an Appropriate Presence.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART (Oxford University Press) 7, no. 3 (July 1997): 393-417. —. The American Statehouse: Interpreting Democracy’s Temples. University Press of Kansas, 2000. Gordon, David L.A., ed. Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities. New York: Routledge, 2006. Hauck, Eldon. American Capitols: An Encyclopedia of the State, National and Territorial Capital Edifices of the United States. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1991. Hise, Greg. “Architecture as State Building: A Challenge to the Field.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (University of California Press) 67, no. 2 (June 2008): 173177. Hitchcock, Henry-Russell, and William Seale. Temples of Democracy: The State Capitols of the USA. New York, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976.

180

CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

Huxtable, Ada Louise. “State Capitols Go ‘Radical.’” The New York Times. May 12, 1963. Kennon, Donald R., ed. The United States Capitol: Designing and Decorating a National Icon. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2000. Loeffler, Jane C. The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies. New York, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964. Steffensen, Ingrid. “Toward an Iconography of a State Capitol: The Art and Architecture of the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Geography (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania) 126, no. 2 (April 2002): 185-216. Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. 2nd. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1992. Whyte, William H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1980.

Appendix

181