Erin Biediger Urban Objects Suburban Parks
Contents Urban 006 Green Link 026 Swarm 032 A Billionaire's Just City Objects 040 Park Library 054 Center for Sports Diplomacy Suburban 076 Nuburbia Parks 098 Hemisfair '68: An Architecture of its Time 106 The Loop
Urban
004
005
Urban 006 Green Link
Fall 2019 Critic: Hilary Sample (MOS) In Collaboration with Tung Nguyen
Green Link creates varying scales of natural spaces and corridors to intimately connect residents to each other, while also seeking to emphasize the presence of the Bronx Documentary Center on the site. Each scale of natural space and corridor are imagined in different ways. From the larger natural scales being more traditional, exterior gardens, to the living space implementing materials and textures that give the space a distinct feel to the rest of the unit. The corridor scales range 006
Urban
Green Link
from the exterior corridor of the ground plane which is primarily public, the semi-private interior corridor of the linking ribbon, and the corridors that link each unit and their living spaces together. These corridors act not only as circulation but as living spaces that bring residents together. Ultimately, Green Link hopes to connect its residents through the natural - winding and intertwining each individual to the rest of the community.
007
Diagrams describing the scales of ‘natural’ spaces and scales of corridors.
008
Urban
Green Link
009
Site Plan showing commercial frontage on the western avenue, connection to the existing Bronx Documentary Center, and porousity of the ground level.
010
Urban
Green Link
011
Level 3 typical residential floor plan.
012
Urban
Green Link
Level 5 community ribbon interaction with residential floors.
013
014
Urban
Green Link
015
Micro Unit
016
Urban
Green Link
Studio
1-Bedroom
Artist’s 1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
Superintendent’s 2-Bedroom
017
Building Cutaway Axonometric showing how the largest scale of corridor, aka the community ribbon, connects all four residential buildings and the Bronx Documentary Center ►
Isometric of Units describing how the building itself begins to interact with the idea of documentation through its connection to the Bronx Documentary Center. ◄
018
Urban
Green Link
019
020
Urban
Green Link
021
Model Photos of massing model and larger scale detailed model.
022
Urban
Green Link
023
Oblique Section Looking south into southeast building units, central courtyard, linking ribbon, and the Bronx Documentary Center extension.
024
Urban
Green Link
025
Urban 026 Swarm
Fall 2018 Critic: Lindy Roy (Roy Studio)
This project examines the future of delivery technology, and speculates on ways to accommodate swarms of drones bringing packages into Manhattan. Located at every neighborhood subway station, hivelike structures will be inserted with varying heights and densities to correspond with the neighborhood’s capacity. The structure is made up of pockets in which drones can leave a package. The package then waits for the arrival of its owner. Later, it will be carried 026
Urban
Swarm
down by interior carrier drones, controlled via an app on the owner’s phone. The new, dynamic space accommodates swarms of drones from the sky above, and of people from the subway and street below. The design allows them to intermingle within, leading to a new, democratic public space that embraces the future of delivery and human interaction.
027
Taxonomy of potential swarm structures, describing how they could relate to the density and footprint of their sites.
►
◄ Map describing how the swarm interventions relate to the 1 train and it's stops, as well as potential drone pick up and charging locations in the Bronx and New Jersey.
028
Urban
Swarm
029
Swarm Experience Diagram showing the interactions and use of the space. Above: drone entry and drone delivery. Below: human entry and human receipt of package.
030
Urban
Swarm
031
Urban 032 A Billionaire's Just City In 2010, Susan Fainstein published The Just City, describing an urban theory of justice, a city where equity, democracy, and diversity are the primary concerns of urban development.1 The timing of Fainstein’s book could not be
View of Midtown Manhattan from Central Park, 2004.
1. Fainstein, The Just City.
032
Urban
more potent in relationship with the state of urban development in New York City, and specifically Manhattan. Fainstein’s ideas and theories respond directly to the urban condition developing in Manhattan, where wealthy developers and foreign oligarchs monopolize housing in the name of progress and innovation.
A Billionaire's Just City
The Manhattan skyline has shifted – allowing for new condominium towers to sprout up along what is dubbed “Billionaire’s Row,” casting a shadow on the formerly dominant and undoubtedly iconic skyscrapers of the 20th century. In the 1960s, when modernism took root in the United States, the office building became a symbol of globalization and of capitalism driving economic growth and power. Modern architecture became a vehicle for the United States to exert its power over foreign countries as it became the primary language in which the U.S. built its embassies abroad. In New York, developers were inspired by Mies van der Rohe’s modernist vision for open plan office spaces. Mies’ design for the Seagram building in Midtown excited developers and white-collar office workers alike, drawing a new and appealing, fresh lifestyle around working in a city. A boom in office tower development in Manhattan subsequently took place and changed the city’s skyline forever, with buildings such as the JP Morgan Chase Tower, the MetLife (Pan Am) Building, and the
Exxon Building cropping up in Midtown. The Manhattan skyline today faces a new boom in condominium towers which rise, in some cases, 1,000 feet above the office towers that preceded them. While some may view this change in the skyline as a testament to contemporary building technology, others view these buildings in a more sinister light. While the office skyscraper boom has its bouts in relation to capitalist society and modern architecture, the condominium super tower boom presents larger questions of urban planning as it relates to financial accessibility in relation to the housing market and life in New York. This shift in development can be partially traced back to Michael Bloomberg’s policies as mayor. The former mayor famously said, "If we could get every billionaire around the world to move here, it would be a godsend. They're the ones that spend a lot of money in the stores and restaurants and create a big chunk of our economy, and we take tax revenues from those people to help people throughout the rest of the spectrum." Because of these economic ideas, he set out the welcome mat for the world’s billionaires to come to New York by cutting taxes on real estate developments, particularly the super tall ones at Billionaire’s Row. In one instance, at the tower called One57, taxes were slashed by 95 percent.2 Bloomberg’s idea was that the money these global billionaires would spend would trickle down to the doormen, concierges, cleaners, drivers, and construction workers, as well as the nearby shopkeepers and restaurateurs.3 Unfortunately, however, the super-rich pay very little in property tax
relative to market value, and because most foreign owners live and work outside of New York more than half the time, they also don’t pay city or state income tax. In fact, some of the foreign owners aren’t eager to pay taxes in their home countries either. Another driver for the shift in development in New York was a series of laws and allowances provided in New York, starting with the passing of the Limited Liability Company law by Mario Cuomo in 1994. Cuomo passed the law as a result of pressure from 40 other states who had already passed LLC laws, and under fear that the lack of LLCs in New York would cause it to stop being the center of U.S. business. Allowing the creation of LLCs, which only take about a week to form, effectively made it easier for foreign buyers to purchase condominiums while maintaining a limited liability, hence the name, and a level of secrecy around their property investments. This ultimately raised the demand for such high-end luxury condominiums in the
View of Midtown Manhattan from Central Park, 2019.
2. Albright-Hanna, "Bloomberg Killed New York City's Soul." 3. Saul and Story, "Towers of Secrecy: Foreign Wealth Flows to NY Real Estate." 4. Parrot, "Heights of Privilege."
033
1. Moses, "Billionaire's Row ... Affordable Units Citywide." 2. Fung, "Overseas Investors Unload U.S. Real Estate."
034
Urban
heart of Manhattan, as now more foreign buyers were willing to invest in the properties. This is evident in the fact that about one-third of Manhattan condo sales since the 2008-09 recession have been to foreign buyers and LLCs.4 In addition to the LLC law and increased demand for luxury condominiums, New York City’s real estate development laws incentivize developers to build such projects. In 1971, the 421-A Tax Exemption program went into effect in NYC. The program effectively allows real estate developments to go tax free for the first few years of the project, and subsequently have the taxes increase by 20 percent every two years until they are paying 100 percent of the required taxes, at 10 years. In 2006, the program was updated to require that new residential buildings below 110th St. must provide affordable housing in order to receive the tax exemption benefits; but they are allowed to build these affordable units offsite and elsewhere in the greater New York City area. Apartments that meet this requirement can now gain a 15-year tax exemption, which upgrades to a 25-year tax exemption if the affordable units are built on site. As a result of 421-A, several of the Billionaire’s Row condominium developments have agreed to create affordable housing, although it is often seen as a mute-point. For example, One57 – the most famous Billionaire’s Row condo building – helped create 66 affordable housing units.1 However, these affordable units were built in the Bronx, which is not always considered the most prime location for individuals working in Manhattan and does nothing to help
A Billionaire's Just City
with the affordable housing crisis in the borough. New York’s zoning of air rights provides insight into why developers chose Midtown as the hotspot for these luxury, supertall condos. Air rights describe the vertical volume above a site that buildings are allowed to fill up. Many of the historic structures in Midtown will never use all of their newly zoned air rights and therefore are willing to sell them to developers looking to build super tall towers. By selling their air rights, the smaller historic buildings are able to make updates to their properties. Additionally, to build to these great heights, developers maximize the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) on their sites. FAR describes a set amount of floor area allowed in any building on a particular site. For example, if a site’s FAR allows a building that fills the entire footprint of the site to be only one-story, developers could alternatively build on only half of the site footprint and go up two-stories while staying within the FAR. Basically, by shifting to a smaller building footprint, the developers are allowed to build taller. This, in addition to small lot sizes, is why we end up with super skinny, strikingly tall buildings that advertise views and a seat at the top of the city. On top of all the glamour that a Billionaire’s Row apartment offers, the thing that attracts foreign investors is the comfort of the U.S. economy. Wealthy investors across the globe have long sought assets in the U.S. to gain steady returns. Many are also drawn to the U.S. economy’s relative stability, vast pool of consumers, and deep and liquid market. Because of this nation’s strong financial footing, as well as
continuing corporate share buybacks, U.S. equities are stronger relative to that of other countries.2 These foreign investors, such as government officials from Russia, Colombia, Malaysia, China, Kazakhstan, and Mexico, and businessmen across the globe, don’t view these properties as homes, per se. Many of these towers stay vacant most of the year, so their owners are not subject to local and state income taxes because they are not city residents. Rather, the condos act as safe-deposit boxes in a way, and as soft landing spots should the political or social climate in their home countries turn inhospitable or dangerous. An early example of these highend condo developments is the Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle. Most of the apartments at this property were purchased using LLCs, so the identities of the buyers are unknown. However, a New York Times investigation discovered that at least 20 of the apartments have been owned by Russians or citizens of other former Soviet Republics who, collectively, invested more than
$200 million in condos at Time Warner Center. “At least 16 of these foreign buyers [at the Time Warner Center] have been the subject of government inquiries around the world, either personally or as heads of companies. The cases range from housing and environmental violations to financial fraud. Four owners have been arrested, and another four have been the subject of fines or penalties for illegal activities.”3 One notable early buyer in the tower was Andrey Vavilov, a Russian politician and businessman who was a witness in a case involving the embezzlement of $231 billion that was allocated to the development and production of the MiG-29 fighter jet in 1997. He was also accused of committing fraud and abusing his power at the French Ministry in 2006.3 Vavilov is an example of the kind of foreign buyers who are providing the demand for these luxury condominiums in New York. Developers are attracted to all of the aforementioned laws, tax exemptions, zoning regulations, and current ◄ Andrey Vavilov in the Time Warner Center, 2007. Photo by The New York Times.
3. Saul and Story, "Towers of Secrecy: Time Warner Center ... Powerful Russians."
035
high demand. They can confidently build knowing that foreign investors and other billionaires will compete between one another to own a space in the “hottest new tower on Billionaire’s Row.” They also know that the investment is smaller than it typically would be thanks to incentives put in place by the city government.
1. Higgins, "In NY, Falling Market ... Homes in the Sky."
036
Urban
As previously mentioned, developers have chosen to locate these super-tall condo buildings primarily in Midtown thanks to the available air rights in that area. The area specifically deemed Billionaire’s Row is just south of Central Park, between 8th and Park avenues, and clustered around 57th St. This is why 57th is traditionally thought of as Billionaire’s Row, although many of the buildings included under the name are not directly on that street. While there is no official list of buildings included in Billionaire’s Row, those unanimously considered Billionaire’s Row buildings include Central Park Tower, 220 Central Park South, One57, 111W57 (Steinway Tower), 432 Park Ave., and 53W53. Among the soaring heights at Billionaire’s Row, Central Park Tower will be the second tallest tower in the United States, after the Freedom Tower, when completed. At 220 Central Park South, more than 85 percent of all
A Billionaire's Just City
purchasers so far have bought their condos through entities ending in “LLC.” Also, notably, 53W53 purchased air rights from MoMA in exchange for allowing MoMA to expand into the lower levels of the tower, also helping fund the new Diller Scofidio + Renfro MoMA expansion. While the developers of Billionaire’s Row projects afforded ideal circumstances for over a decade, the tides are turning on their luck with these types of developments. For one, all of their development has flooded the top of the market at the same time that global market turmoil is causing wealthy investors to pull back. In addition to the volatile financial markets causing investors to tighten their spending, China added new restrictions on capital outflows, Brexit has caused a lot of uncertainty, wealth in the Middle East has been curbed due to lower oil prices thanks to fracking, tax increases have driven up property costs in some countries,1 and of course, most recently the market crash caused by the 2020 novel coronavirus. Globally, there was a misperception that the demand for luxury condominiums would be endless. However, now many of the Billionaire’s Row properties are unoccupied and unsold. One building, 140 W 57th, which was planned to be converted from an office building into condos, is now slated to become a 5-star drug rehab center after the plan failed. It begs the question: What is the importance of these buildings to New York City, to society, and to architecture? And what will become of them without demand in the market? The buildings and their articulation are a shrine to the mega-rich, using
◄ Marketing render for Billionaire's Row tower One57.
Bibliography Albright-Hanna, Kate. “Bloomberg Killed New York City's Soul.” CSNY, November 8, 2018. Fainstein, Susan S. The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011.
their sheen and height as an attractor but also to cloud what is really driving their growth. In a way, Billionaire’s Row condominiums are realized ivory towers rising above Manhattan’s skyline, a testament to the state of contemporary architecture and what drives development today. As the office building skyscrapers spoke to capitalism in the modern age of the 1960s, Billionaire’s Row presents a dark picture of the values of the contemporary age. While the modern office buildings were representative of the white-collar class, the super-tall contemporary condos describe a far more complex class relationship. Development today prioritizes wealth, and despite legislation opting for affordability, the extravagance of these new developments slowly helps to outweigh affordability in the city at large. With the current economic downturn, and thus a slowing of development, it is an apt time to revisit Susan Fainstein’s principles for a just city, and
begin to plan for the future. Over the last few decades, equity, democracy, and diversity have been pushed aside in favor of wealth, greed, and the protection of affluent individuals internationally, despite their ethics. The duty of changing the state of architecture does not solely fall on the architect, but rather the cooperation of architects, builders, developers, planners, and legislators. As a collective, these groups can and should readjust the policies that form our urban environments in favor of building a more Just City, rather than another Billionaire’s Row. ⌂
Fung, Esther. “Overseas Investors Unload U.S. Real Estate.” The Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2019. Higgins, Michelle. “In New York, a Falling Market for Trophy Homes in the Sky.” The New York Times, July 11, 2016. Moses, Claire. “Billionaires’ Row Paid for Only 89 Affordable Units City wide.” The Real Deal, July 30, 2015. Parrott, James. “Heights of Privilege.” The American Prospect, June 2, 2016. Saul, Stephanie, and Louise Story. “Towers of Secrecy: At the Time Warner Center, an Enclave of Powerful Russians.” The New York Times, February 11, 2015. Saul, Stephanie, and Louise Story. “Towers of Secrecy: Stream of Foreign Wealth Flows to Elite New York Real Estate.” The New York Times, February 17, 2015.
037
Objects
038
039
Objects 040
Park Library
Spring 2019 Critic: Erica Goetz (Studio Goetz)
The library aims to be a continuation of the park - weaving and pulling the park through the learning space and encouraging those who visit the park to further their physical fitness, to also further their mental fitness. The building achieves the weaving of the park and library programs through the use of an S-shaped module developed during a proto-building study. This module became successful because the walls can become the floors and can become the ceiling. The 040
Objects
Park Library
module’s orientation helps define space, but can also aggregate into larger open environments. The larger spaces then can contain weaving at smaller scale utilizing the now free plan. The resulting library will provide a democratic outlook on both library and park, catering to all types of people who pass by or choose to inhabit it.
041
Preliminary Studies in section, section oblique and physical model.
042
Objects
Park Library
043
Massing Models showing development of S-module design onto the project site. Dominant massing ideas were to lift the mass above the ground plane and weave the park through the project.
▲
044
Objects
Park Library
► Site Plan showing the porousity of the ground plane including three flex pavilions to serve the park.
045
West-East Section explaining the project’s circulation. The drawing shows how the library’s program increases in ‘seriousness’ as you ascend through the structure.
046
Objects
Park Library
047
Level 06
Level 06 most ‘serious’ study floor.
Level 03
Level 01
Lower Level 01
048
Objects
Level 03 least ‘serious’ play floor.
Park Library
Perspective Collage emphasizing the woven and effortless sequence through the building as it pulls visitors up from the park.
049
▲ Structural Model demonstrating the steel pre-fabricated module pieces attaching to a concrete core.
050
Objects
Park Library
► Detail Chunk Model showing how material systems and construction come together in the project.
051
South-North Section showing ‘alternative’ circulation options such as a climbing wall, as well as the interaction between the indoor and outdoor spaces of the building.
052
Objects
Park Library
053
Objects 054 Center for Sports Diplomacy Fall 2020 Critic: Dan Wood (WORKac)
The Center for Sports Diplomacy aims to be a space for recreation, as well as a place where sports spectators are forced to interact with and consume information about social and political issues through a promenade experience. The spectator experience during sports games is characterized by advertising. This building subverts that experience by projecting messages of social and political justice across its facade. By occupying the space between the existing sports fields on the southwest portion of Randall’s Island, the building forces visitors to the sports 054
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
events to come into contact with messages of activism. The interior of the Center contains additional sporting spaces. When visitors come to the interior athletic facilities, they will be met with the other programs in the building: spaces for the development and organization of political and social justice by athletes and the sports industry. The resulting design will provide space for the activism athletes are already doing, and help it thrive, grow, and impact the national and international dialogue. 055
Spectator Experiences Collage shows the different ways in which people experience sports today.
056
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
Advertisments and Avenues Collage contrasts sports advertising and signage of protest. Both types of signage require the passerby to acknowledge them.
057
058
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
059
Site Plan showing how the ground plane is extremely porous, consisting only of small pavilion-like spaces for diplomacy in between the athletic fields.
060
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
061
062
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
063
Second Flood Plan which blends both athletic and diplomatic spaces.
064
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
065
Entry from Pedestrian Bridge passing between soccer and baseball fields, and seeing into the diplomatic library above.
066
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
Visitor Experience entering the second floor, seeing the overlapping programs of sports and diplomacy in the entryway to the library.
067
Diagrammatic Model demonstrating the concepts of solid and void through the plus shaped structure, as well as the signage facade which projects current diplomatic issues being worked on within the Center.
Production Offices + Sound Stage
068
Objects
Basketball Court + Small Track
Center for Sports Diplomacy
Library + Raquetball Courts
Primary Circulation Cores + Exhibition
Auditorium
Fitness Center
069
Frame and Wire Mesh
LED Lights clip onto intersections in the wire mesh
◄
Facade panel construction concept.
► Interior Experience behind the signage facade.
070
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
071
Section through the broadcast core of the building, showing the sports broadcasting at the ground level, soundstage on the second floor, and editing office on the third.
072
Objects
Center for Sports Diplomacy
073
Suburban
074
075
Spring 2021 Critics: Justin Garrett Moore (NYC Public Design Commission) + Alicia Ajayi (BlackSpace Urbanist Collective) Suburban 076 Nuburbia Nuburbia promotes new approaches to occupying land and building better homes for America’s changing social and cultural landscapes. The affordable and adaptable community and homes intend to serve the wider variety of people moving to the suburbs, acknowledge the Cherokee and Creek and former plantation land they occupy, and offer new images and spaces for shaping American cultural and political ideals. Because of its history, the image of 076
Suburban
Nuburbia
the suburbs is linked to 1950s images of the American dream. The houses in the suburbs were designed around and for a specific type of family, and the spaces within those houses created domains that forced the subjects into performativity and dictated what the body will do within it. Nuburbia offers a new model for suburban neighborhoods that provides an increased sense of community and adaptability, while maintaining the “single family home” structure. 077
078
Suburban
Nuburbia
079
Cherokee Housing Typology Collage depicting the two houses Cherokee people lived in between seasons prior to colonization. Disclaimer: the image of a Cherokee family seen here is from a 1950s postcard, inferring that this is the image of Native Americans that Anglo America preferred to see.
080
Suburban
Nuburbia
Shotgun House Typology Collage The shotgun house is a premier example of how Black people have shaped and influenced American building customs. The porch became incredibly important in Black culture, being a place to gather, tell stories, and watch the world outside.
081
A B C D
Community Programs Open Area Community Garden Existing Pond
01 Housing Cluster Type 1 02 Housing Cluster Type 2 03 Housing Cluster Type 3
01 C
A
B C
02
03 A
B
C
03
D
082
Suburban
Nuburbia
083
▲ Housing Cluster Type 1 is the most "high density" area, consisting primarily of the smallest house type. In this area, the small house type is frequently joined with another, giving the option to combine the two houses through the permanent space.
084
Suburban
Nuburbia
Smallest House Type shown in a party setting where the resident is using their patio space and shared outdoor area.
►
085
House Type Plans from left to right: Smallest, Largest, Mid-Size, and Single Floor. The plans are designed to have a "bar of permanance" containing the wet, unmoveable programs such as the kitchen and bathroom, and a central courtyard as private outdoor space. The rest of the plan is flexible and up to the choice of the residents.
086
Suburban
Nuburbia
087
◄ Largest House Type caters towards multi-generational families, large families, roommates, and people who wish to rent out their extra space.
088
Suburban
Nuburbia
▲ Housing Cluster Type 2 primarily consists of the largest, multigenerational home. In addition to the multigenerational homes, often in this area, mid-size homes are placed adjacent to the smaller homes.
089
Interior Scenes offering new images of suburban families to contrast with those put out by mainstream suburban developers for the last 70 years, which only depicted one type of American family.
090
Suburban
Nuburbia
091
▲ Housing Cluster Type 3 is the least dense, consisting primarily of the mid-size house which can suit a wide variety of American families and living situations.
092
Suburban
Nuburbia
► Mid-Size House Type suits the widest variety of family situations.
093
094
Suburban
Nuburbia
095
Parks
096
097
The late 1960s were a turbulent time in the politics of the United States. There were several intense events happening in parallel within the social and political spheres of the country. By 1968, the Vietnam War had been raging for 13 years with no end in sight. Yet the U.S. was striving to improve relations with Central and South America and formed the Organization of American States (OAS) to promote democracy in those regions. Thus, the American
Postcard from HemisFair '68: Fair Scene.
people were tense and weary but hopeful. They looked toward 1968 as a pivotal year, when elections could bring not only a new president, but also peace, tolerance, and equity. These political events and collective emotions brewed together to create the American Spirit of the 1960s. Americans at the time were defined by the tumultuous cloud over their country. The Black Rights Movement was transitioning into the Black Power Movement, and El Movimiento would shine a light on Mexican-American civil rights. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 bolstered the fight for all people of color. Women were banding together as well, fighting for more than just enfranchisement in the second wave of the women’s movement. And a youth rebellion was on the rise due to the long-perceived dualities of American life. The intense political environment gave rise to an intense social environment in the country and provided the foundation upon which the first world’s fair to be held in the American Southwest was built. San Antonio at
Parks 098 Hemisfair '68: An Architecture of its Time
098
Parks
Hemisfair '68: An Architecture of its Time
the time had a diverse population of a half million people, and in 1963 city leaders would choose several acres of land, occupied by a multi-ethnic community, just south of center city for the fairgrounds. HemisFair ‘68, while presenting itself as inclusive and cosmopolitan, served as an architecture for local cultural exploitation alongside international political issues on the backdrop of modernity. While some aspects of the fair were quite successful and should be celebrated, such as the Women’s Pavilion and Project Y, the situations that scaffolded them must be considered. This paper will look at different social and political episodes that intersected during HemisFair ‘68, much like the confluence of cultures that the fair boasted as its theme. It will examine how this particular world’s fair is an architecture of the events of its time, and how the relics of that architecture affected the local community and global relations. An excerpt from the HemisFair ‘68 official guide book states:
“ HemisFair ‘68 captures the sights and sounds of the old world and the new in a gem-like landscape of wonder, fantasy and entertainment. It is the only world’s Fair to be held in 1968 and the first set in the U.S. Southwest. In a sense, HemisFair’68 is a birthday celebration for San Antonio – a six-month fiesta in honor of the city’s 250th year. But it is more than just a birthday party. It is vivid recognition of the growth potential of a particular region and its people. Appropriately, HemisFair takes full advantage of its San Antonio setting. That
prismatic city is one of the most picturesque in the United States today. Its people speak for every pioneering group that ever ventured into the Southwest. Bilingual and cosmopolitan, San Antonio lays claim to a lustrous heritage spun from the colorful threads of many cultures. On that foundation, HemisFair’68, in the truest sense, is the outcome of visionary, 20th Century pioneering.”1 The guide book for HemisFair clearly presented itself and its host city, San Antonio, Texas, as cosmopolitan and futuristic, but also as a bilingual metroplex with a “lustrous” cultural heritage. The emphasis HemisFair placed on culture separated it from other world’s fairs of the time. For example, the 1964 world’s fair in New York emphasized universality and peace in relation to technology, and the 1962 Seattle world’s Fair focused its events and programs on technology and industry. The souvenir book from the fair, another important historical artifact, puts a heavy emphasis on the fact that the world has come to San Antonio though it also seems to focus most sharply on the Latin American countries that have come to the city. The author of the book opens by stating “The World is Here …,” and spends five pages introducing the countries that participated – Mexico, Honduras, Panama, and Central America’s collective pavilion. The book then gives only four pages introducing the remaining world’s fair pavilions, which also included a few South American countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela.2 Even the general postcards emphasized this Latin American participation. The postcard above shows a fair scene that includes
1. 1968 World's Fair – HemisFair '68, (worldsfair.info). 2. Souvenir Book of HemisFair '68, (San Antonio Plastichrome of Texas, 1968), 4-12.
099
only one country’s pavilion: Panama.1 This clear emphasis on Latin America is due in part to San Antonio’s demographic makeup. San Antonio, named for St. Anthony of Padua, was founded by Spanish missionaries in the 18th century and remained a part of Mexico until the mid-19th century when the state of Texas was annexed into the Union. Because of this, the people of San Antonio are, and were at the time of the fair, majority Latin descent. Evidence of this is seen in the bilingual diction of the fair, with areas given names such as “Las Plazas del Mundo,” the zone holding the international pavilions, and “Fiesta Island,” the fair’s theme park. The narrative of San Antonio as a melting pot of culture plays well into the cosmopolitan American mindset of the 1960s. Striving to present the city as open-minded and futuristic, HemisFair also emphasized women’s rights and youth empowerment. Because of San Antonio’s particular position as a city with seven military bases, the local community was very invested in the Vietnam War. This allowed San Antonio, a place already accepting of the cohesiveness and collaboration among different cultures and peoples, to organize one of the first Women’s Pavilions at a world’s fair, as well as the first ever youth pavilion, which they dubbed “Project Y.” The tragic irony of HemisFair is that while it strived to highlight San Antonio’s cultural heritage, it ultimately razed one of the city’s most diverse and oldest neighborhoods and replacing it with a manufactured cultural environment. The fair provided a space in which injustice and cultural appropriation were masked by a picture of a multicultural and revolutionary utopia. 1. UTSA Libraries Digital Collections.
100
Parks
Hemisfair '68: An Architecture of its Time
The Women’s Pavilion and Project Y Located on the southern end of the fair, the Women’s Pavilion and Project Y were tucked in with some of the fair’s biggest spectacles. No doubt, these important social pavilions gained visibility through their proximity to the IBM, Kodak, and Coca-Cola pavilions. However, through their own strength, they became some of the most influential spaces at the fair. HemisFair separates itself from other fairs at the time by having pavilions that celebrated the Civil Rights movement. Neither the New York and Seattle fairs before, nor the Spokane and Knoxville fairs after, hosted pavilions for women and young people. For Spokane, this led to local young hippies protesting the fair by burning banners from across the street. Inclusion in HemisFair prevented this, and allowed both women and young people a space to voice opinions and discuss issues, no matter how controversial, in a peaceful way. The Women’s Pavilion, one of the most successful parts of the fair, focused on celebrating the achievements of women in society. It showcased an exhibit on the many contributions that all types of women have made on society in a modernist structure that stands to this day. The Women’s Pavilion intended to continue working on the advancement of women’s issues long after the fair concluded, although that goal never came to fruition. The Federated Women’s Club of San Antonio initiated and created the pavilion. In an interview, Doris Irby, one of the pavilion’s founding members, discussed how the pavilion quickly gained support from women in the city. She describes them as coming out of the woodwork
immediately. “They answered the call to join and become charter members in fairly large numbers. I think there were several hundred charter members ... almost overnight.”2 This type of support, generated so quickly, was made possible because of the social state of America in the mid-1960s. Women wanted more freedom and autonomy from men, and demanded more respect. The women in charge felt very strongly that the pavilion should be created on their own, and not “farmed out.” Women from all over the world bought memberships that went toward to pavilion building and exhibition. They chose to have the pavilion building made in the modern architectural style. As seen in the architectural drawing of the pavilion above, it buys into a Frank Lloyd Wright style. It provided a clean, simple canvas on which they could showcase a diverse group of women and the multitude of important contributions they brought about. Doris Irby said of the building, “It had many natural skylights that were designed to catch the sunlight and the shadows effectively on the interior. It was meant to be an explosion of color and textures and sunlight. We felt that it was a building worthy of its purpose. A testimony to the uniqueness, the graciousness, and the stamina of women everywhere. And most of all, we wanted it to be an expression of woman’s contribution to man’s cultures.”2 Tangentially, Project Y sprung from young people’s frustration at the time with the duality of American life that became clearer during the Vietnam War. Young people felt that while America claimed to be innocent and full of promise, there was much about which to be cynical in a country they saw as having failed them. While watching thousands of young soldiers die every year, they
became increasingly frustrated with the U.S. government. They began to feel that the government had falsely persuaded them into the war, and wanted to put an end to it. This is seen in other examples of the time, such as the Woodstock festival of 1969. America’s young people were boldly bringing attention to their causes and voicing their call for world peace like no other time in history. Project Y broke new ground in the realm of world’s fairs by providing a platform for young people of all backgrounds and cultures to come together. It created a space for American youth to interface with young visitors from around the world. They created music, art, and plays. They hosted impromptu events and open discussions. They held protests. The HemisFair guidebook advertised Project Y as “an area where young people from many nations meet to share their enthusiasm, their talents, and their concerns. It is an area where no barrier separates audience from actor and the result, in large, is a ‘happening.’”3 Of course, this “happening” would not have been possible were it not for the American state of mind in the 1960s, specifically because of the Vietnam
Architectural Drawing of the Women's Pavilion.
2. Doris Irby, Interview with Doris Irby (Mrs. Fred), 1979. 3. 1968 World's Fair – HemisFair '68, (worldsfair.info).
101
War. While HemisFair should be praised for supporting spaces in which young people and women could raise their voices, where their contributions were recognized, these architectures of the fair were born into existence because of the tumultuous nature of the time in history.
The OAS and Latin American Pavilions
1. Claire F. Fox, Making Art Panamerican: Cultural Policy and the Cold War, 196. 2. Fox, 188. 3. G. Jones, Connally to boost HemisFair in South American nations, (The Austin Statesman, 1966).
▼
Photo of the OAS Pavilion.
102
Parks
San Antonio, through HemisFair, chose to market its multicultural history by building its tourism industry on the basis of being a Latin American cultural destination within the U.S. Because of this, local and national politicians used HemisFair as a way to strengthen relations with the Organization of American States (OAS) and maintain a democratic stronghold throughout Latin America. The OAS was founded in 1948 as a sign of regional solidarity between the countries of North and South America. At the time of the fair, members of the OAS included Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. While the organization was founded 20 years before HemisFair took place, in 1962, they began a more rigorous program to oversee free and fair democratic elections following the Cuban Revolution. At this same time, however, the U.S. controversially put forth more effort to intervene in the elections of Latin American countries. It seems that the OAS, rather than providing solidarity for the Americas, was a way for the U.S. to legitimize its political interventions in Central and South America.
Hemisfair '68: An Architecture of its Time
The U.S. government viewed HemisFair as an opportunity to further exert their control over Latin American countries by continuing to strengthen the bonds of the OAS. “The Johnson administration invited the Latin American and OAS ambassadorial corps to tour the construction site of HemisFair Plaza and enjoy a barbecue at the LBJ ranch two weeks prior to the April 1967 Punta del Este Summit meeting.”1 HemisFair ’68 indirectly advanced the United States’ international goals via its messaging and focus on culture. The fair presented culture as a barrier of differences that, when worked through, was the way to placate political efforts. “The theme of mestizaje [confluence] at HemisFair offered a cultural solution to the political and economic dilemmas that plagued U.S. relations with Latin American countries during the 1960s.”2 The OAS itself established a pavilion at the fair that aimed to showcase every member country. However, due to lack of funding, the pavilion was a small, mid-century modern decorated shed that became overwhelmed with signage and information. The pavilions of the Latin American countries that participated, with the exception of Mexico, were similarly simple buildings, only expressing the flavor of their culture on the exterior via signage. While HemisFair boasted San Antonio as a Latin American tourism destination within the U.S., it also focused on bringing in more Latin American countries to participate in the fair. John Connally, Texas governor at the time, personally travelled to several South American countries to extend invitations to showcase pavilions at HemisFair.3 While in this pre-global era it is difficult to pinpoint the state’s political
reasons for bringing Latin American countries to the Fair, some of the people involved in making HemisFair a reality had personal businesses that benefited from these relationships. One such example of this is businessman Jerome K. Harris who is said to have originated the idea of the fair.4 A department store owner, Harris hoped to maintain his customer base of Mexican people who had relocated to San Antonio. Harris’ fear about losing his customer base came from the rise of competition from cities like Miami, New York, and Los Angeles, which were beginning to pull more immigrants from Mexico. Several Latin American countries did participate in the fair, including Bolivia, Panama, and Venezuela. In addition, five Central American countries, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, shared a joint pavilion in order to participate in a way that was economically feasible for them. Mexico also had a large role in the fair due to its proximity to San Antonio, its established trade relationship and deep-rooted history in the city. As seen on the map of the fair, the Latin American pavilions were evenly dispersed among the pavilions of the other countries in “Las Plazas del Mundo.” By spreading these pavilions out, HemisFair helped increase their visibility to fairgoers. Perhaps they did this to enhance the message of mixing civilizations or to help visitors discover something about Latin America without looking for it. HemisFair, purposefully or not, allowed the U.S. to employ San Antonio and its cultural heritage in its efforts to gain control over Latin America. If it had not been for the United States’ ramping up of international self-insertion in Central and South America, there may
have been a much less visible LatinAmerican representation at the fair. The national political climate toward Latin America and the condemnation of communism all around the world sculpted the fair experience on the ground.
Architectural Drawing Proposal for the Interior of the OAS Pavilion.
Siting HemisFair ‘68: the Local Effect All of this social, political, and economic turmoil of the 1960s crashed down into the southeastern edge of downtown San Antonio when the fair work began. Before the intersection of previously parallel events could occur, they needed to create space in the city. But the nearly 100 acres that would become HemisFair Park was before that a community of over 2,000 low-income residents, their homes that had been held for generations, and nearly 700 businesses. Located
4. Jerome K. Harris, Interview with Jerome K. Harris, 1979.
103
1. Steve Bennett, The Neighborhood That HemisFair '68 Erased, (San Antonio: ExpressNews.com, 2017). 2. 1968 World's Fair – HemisFair '68 (worldsfair.info). 3. Miguel De Oliver, Postmodernity and the Geography of Regressive Multiculturalism: A Case Study, (San Antonio: Journal of Social and Ecological Boundaries, 2005), 54. 4. De Oliver, 57. ▼ Photo of the HemisFair site under construction with downtown San Antonio in the background.
104
Parks
between the central business district and Lavaca neighborhood, it was known as Germantown. Germantown was a vibrant community of immigrants ranging in origin from Germany and the Alsace region to Poland and Mexico. An AfricanAmerican population had settled there as well.1 This area held the blend of cultures that still makes up San Antonio to this day, and the one HemisFair sought to celebrate. Fair goers were likely unaware, however, that the fair itself displaced the people who lived in this area and historic homesteads and buildings were destroyed. Of the nearly 1,500 structures that existed there, only 22 were preserved. Some were for use as the fair’s headquarters. Most of the former Germantown residents were forced to relocate to the East Side of the city, an established but impoverished area with a predominantly Mexican and African American population. Further reinforcing the expulsion, the city then failed to provide an entrance or gateway on its Eastern border – sending a message to the former Germantown residents and other low-income San Antonians that they were not welcome at the fair. Understandably, the people displaced by HemisFair felt mistreated. If anything, Germantown was once the ultimate proof of HemisFair’s statement about San Antonio – “bilingual and cosmopolitan, [it] lays claim to a lustrous heritage spun from the colorful threads of many cultures.”2 If HemisFair’s messaging was to be believed and embraced, the neighborhood that was demolished should have been preserved and treated with care in order to more authentically support the future tourism the messaging would bring. Miguel de Oliver, a political science
Hemisfair '68: An Architecture of its Time
and geography researcher at the University of Texas at San Antonio, discusses HemisFair’s “aggressive multiculturalism” and how it drove the people who were the foundation of San Antonio’s heritage away from public view in favor of a more fabricated and tailored cultural expression. “For a growing mainstream mass market intent on visiting San Antonio’s Latinflavored tourist landscape, the proximity of the city’s Latino population to tourists becomes problematic. This is because approximately half of the population of these inner-city Latino environments lives below the poverty line.”3 With the onset of tourism and growth that HemisFair and the Civil Rights movement brought to San Antonio, new highways were built. Notably, Interstate 10 carved its way through downtown, separating El Mercado, a market meant for the people, from the Latinx community on the West Side where its workers and shoppers lived and that it was meant to serve. These highways ultimately segregated the cultural population of San Antonio from the multicultural environment being fabricated for tourists in the downtown area. “The expansion of multicultural marketing spearheaded by HemisFair overwhelmed the objective to develop and integrate intimate, culturally authentic downtown neighborhoods, as well as the architectural heritage that visually reflected the same.”4 Since wiping away the rich architectural history that previously existed on the HemisFair site, city officials have struggled to reinvigorate the area in a way that reflects the true heritage of the city; a heritage that may have remained without the world’s fair of 1968. It is an unfortunate dichotomy that HemisFair, motivated by the goal of bringing economic prosperity to San
◄ Aerial photo of the HemisFair '68 site before demolition and construction.
Bibliography "1968 World's Fair - HemisFair '68." 1968 World's Fair - HemisFair '68. http://www.worldsfair68. info/#.
Antonio, and reinforcing world dominance for the U.S., facilitated the exploitation of its people and heritage. While trying to promote the city’s colorful cultural history, HemisFair lost hold of the reins and changed the landscape of the city for good. In order to promote the cultural legacy of the city at high speed, HemisFair fabricated much of the cultural downtown area specifically for tourism and cut its actual residents off from contributing to it in a meaningful way.
Conclusion The social movements spun from the war in Vietnam and the United States’ political agenda in Latin America contributed to HemisFair ’68 its most unique and distinctive programs and architecture. The storm of these events helped expedite the fair and raised the stakes at hand. The way HemisFair dropped into San Antonio irreversibly changed the demographics of the city
and gave way to a more constructed and tailored version of the city’s cultural heritage. While HemisFair strived to be futuristic, democratic, and culturally rich, it became a modern architecture that manipulated the local culture in parallel with facilitating the international political motives of U.S. politicians. The Women’s Pavilion and Project Y were successful and groundbreaking in providing spaces for marginalized groups to have a voice, but these spaces could not have been achieved without the tough political situations around them. HemisFair ‘68, an architecture of the confluence of the social environment cast out of the Vietnam War and American political interventions in Latin America, left San Antonio a changed city – one that is now grappling with these truths, seeking to undo the wrongs, and preserve the legacies that the world’s fair sought to promote. ⌂
Bennett, Steve. "The Neighborhood That HemisFair '68 Erased." ExpressNews.com. August 28, 2017. De Oliver, Miguel. Postmodernity and the Geography of Regressive Multiculturalism: A Case Study. Journal of Social and Ecological Boundaries. 2005. Fox, Claire F. Making Art Panameri- can: Cultural Policy and the Cold War. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central. Harris, Jerome K. "Interview with Jerome K. Harris, 1979." Inter- view by Esther G. MacMillan.
Irby, Doris. "Interview with Doris Irby (Mrs. Fred), 1979." Inter- view by Esther G. MacMillan. Jones, G. (1966, Jan 27). Connally to boost HemisFair in South American nations. The Austin Statesman (1921-1973). Roche, Maurice. Mega-events and Modernity Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Global Culture. London: Routledge, 2000.
105
Spring 2020 Critic: Adam Frampton (Only-If) In Collaboration with Alek Tomich
The Loop strives to connect disparate populations along the periphery of Downing Park, improving circulation while breaking down the scale of the site into clearly defined spaces to gather. The loop itself ensures equal access on all sides of the park and encourages neighbors from diverse economic and social backgrounds to come together. Rooms, or spaces within the park defined by specific topographic conditions, provide clear areas for gathering, much like in Olmsted & Vaux’s original plan for the park. The space between the rooms is filled with ‘un-maintained’ native grasses,
left to grow wild as a restorative meadow and define the boundary of the rooms. By un-maintaining 50% of the park, not only does upkeep become more affordable for the city, but Downing Park becomes a small yet important player in the larger ecosystem of the Hudson Valley, giving land back to pollinators and wildlife. Architectural interventions are inserted into the interstitial spaces that form when the loop intersects a room, adding another layer of draw and programming into the park. The resulting design will provide a revitalization of a historical asset for the people of Newburgh.
Parks 106 The Loop 106
Parks
The Loop
107
Black Population Density
Latiné Population Density
White Population Density
108
Parks
The Loop
109
A Pavilion B Support/Restrooms C Observatory D Incline Steps E Food Truck Pull-In F Stage G Tulip Garden H Café
110
Parks
The Loop
111
◄ Perspective showing how when loop touches the edge of the park, it meets the sidewalk on-grade, encouraging interaction with the park from passersby.
112
Parks
The Loop
Plan Enlargement showing the condition when the loop meets the sidewalk.
▲
113
Room / Not Room Plan Enlargement showing the loop passing from the room to the not-room, or meadow, area.
114
Parks
The Loop
Water Room / Not Room Plan Enlargement showing how the room/not room boundary is formed by cattails and sedges in the Polly Pond.
115
Detail Sections through the loop as it intersects with a room, a 'not-room' meadow, and over the Polly Pond.
116
Parks
The Loop
117
Plan Enlargement of the loop passing through a more flat room. It carves out an interstitial space that rises up as a pavilion.
▲
118
Parks
The Loop
► The Pavilion provides shade and a space for rest along the loop, as well as an asset to the room it inhabits.
119
Plan Enlargement of the loop passing through a steep area of the site. It becomes an anchor for vertical circulation and gathering.
120
Parks
The Loop
The Incline Steps show how the underside of the loop itself can provide space for essential infrastructure within the park such as restrooms.
121
Animation Stills advertising the project, showing it full of life, activity, and vibrance.
122
Parks
The Loop
123
The Stage is built for small, informal performances, but also has the ability to function as a central space for city festivals.
124
Parks
The Loop
The Stage sinks below grade to retain the soil and avoid passersby blocking the view from audience to stage.
125
The Café sits at the north edge of the Polly Pond.
126
Parks
The Loop
127
◄ The Café acts as an attractor, offering food, beverages, equipment rentals and an access point to kayak, canoe, or skate around the pond.
128
Parks
The Loop
▲ The Observatory acts as an extension to the loop, wrapping around the highest point of the site and lifting off the ground to provide an even clearer vantage point towards downtown Newburgh and the Hudson River.
129
The Observatory forms a courtyard that can double as an event space, performance space, or be used for other casual programming.
130
Parks
The Loop
131