The High Line Park +Standard Hotel

New York, NY

The High Line and Stan-dard Hotel represent a paradigm shift in the ide-ology of architectural de-velopment in Manhattan. The perspective of the abandoned rail bed has been transformed from a physical obstruction to a positively supported public space, stimulat-ing growth and devel-opment in Manhattan’s West Side. The hotel is a product of this gentri-fi cation which expands and develops further the concepts implemented in the park underneath.

THE H

IGH

LINE - FIELD

OPER

ATION

S &

DS+

R | S

TAN

DARD

HO

TEL - POLS

HEK

| NEW

YORK, N

Y The High Line ParkField OperationsDiller Scofi dio + RenfroStandard HotelPolshek Partnership

Christine EromenokSarah Rosenblatt

Nick Axel

Rensselaer Case Studies Project

1

Preface

Buildings embody cultural knowledge. They are testament to the will and forces that affect their conception, realization, use and experience. They bear cultural and professional signi� cance and possess within them and their constituent components, important lessons for anyone wanting to discover what a work of architecture is in its larger context, what brought it about, and how it contributes. As Emeritus Professor Peter Parsons points out, “their forms and spaces are invested with traces of habitation and be-liefs through the employment of materials wrought by craft and technology.” They are manifestos of habituated practice and progressive intentions, and range in their in� uence from reinforcing obsolete patterns and meanings at one extreme, to innovating and provoking yet unconsidered ones, at the other.

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

Rensselaer Case Studies ProjectMark Mistur, AIA

Associate Professor Stephanie Mendelson

Assistant

Rensselaer School of ArchitectureTroy, New York 2009

2

Nick AxelChristine EromenokSarah RosenblattProfessor Mark MisturRensselaer Polytechnic InstitureFall 2009

3

Table of Contents

Introduction 04History of the Context Urban Evolution 07 Architectural and Material Context 10

Industrial Renovations of the West Side History 13 Timeline of Use 14 Abandonment and Resurgence 15

Introducing the Standard Hotel Site 17 Balazs’ Standard Empire 17 Polshek Firm Profi le 18

The High Line’s New-Found Voice Friends of the High Line 25 Competition 27

Design of the High Line Field Operations 29 Diller Scofi dio + Renfro 35 Precedents 43 Restoration and Actualization 45 Program and Performance 53

Effect of the High Line The Elevated Perspective 73 Experiencing the Seasons 74 Spontaneous Activities 76 Ripple Effect 77

Design of The Standard Hotel Construction 79 Interaction with the High Line 80 Observer / Observed 82 Pixilation of the Façade 84 Le Corbusier and Pixilation 85 Contemporary Context of Pixilated Facades 86 Modulation of Mullions 87 Pilotis and Le Corbusier 89 Concrete Expressionism and Le Corbusier 90 The Roof, and Le Corbusier 91

Conclusion 95

Figure Table 96

Sources 98

4

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

Introduction

5

Figure 0.01: Frieght train in use

6

7

Chelsea and the Meatpack-ing District

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

By 1900, the Meatpacking District contained over 250 slaughterhous-es and meat packing plants. To further aid in its industrial nature, Chelsea Piers were built in 1910, providing a direct connection from the primary form of transportation with the spaces to process its de-livered products, all in proximity to the local distribution method of the train network. Population density continued to rise into the 1920’s, actualizing projects such as London Terrace [Figure 1.04] the largest single apartment block in the world. Plans for an elevated highway be-gan in 1925 served the connection between the residential areas of Chelsea to the Hudson River.

Figure 1.02: Hudson River Railroad

Figure 1.03: Chelsea Piers, built 1910 Figure 1.04: London Terrace, built 1928

Urban Evolution

8

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

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

Figure 1.06: Spur connecting a factory to the High Line

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

9

Figure 1.08: High Fashion Retail

Figure 1.09 Contemporary Overhang Design

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

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

10

Architectural and Material Context

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

Figure 1.10: Abandoned Buildings

Figure 1.11: Contextual Materials

11

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

Figure 1.12: Meat Conveyor and Street Art

Figure 1.14: Derelict OverhangFigure 1.13: Standard Grill Motif

12

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

by Jean Nouvel refl ecting in its glass

Figure 1.17: Porter House by SHoP ArchitectsFigure 1.15: Map of “starchitect” buildings

Today, West Chelsea is dominated by the modern renovations of old industrial spaces into lofts, art studios, galleries, and of� ces. It is home to some of Manhattan’s most explosive growth in the past decade, also being the site of the densest amount of “starchitect” development; within on single block there are buildings by Frank Gehry, Jean Nouvel, and Shigeru Ban [Figure 1.16], and a building by SHoP Architects [Figure 1.17] around the corner. The site map [Figure 1.15] shows the proximity of these notable buildings to the High Line and Standard.

13

History

New York’s West Side was a bustling industrial area in early 20th century. Freight needed to be trans-ferred from the port to factories and the warehouses. The High Line was an infrastructural project built between 1930 and 1934 designed to hold four fully loaded freight trains transferring shipments from the Hudson Rail Yards south to Spring Street [Figure 2.01]. This infrastructural improvement allowed for much safer streets in the area, eliminating 105 dangerous street-level rail crossings. In the early 1960’s the southernmost portion of the High Line was demolished, ap-proximately a length of 19 blocks. The rest of the High Line remained in service until 1980, and then fell into abandonment until 1999 when demolition of the rail line became a serious threat. At this point the birth of the High Line renewal project began.

Figure 2.01: High Line in context

Industrial Renovations of the West Side

14

1847

1851-1928

1929

1934

1950’s

1960’s

1980

Time Line of Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 2.02: West Side Cowboy Figure 2.03: High Line construction, 1929 Figure 2.04: Gansevort Street, 1934

15

Abandonment and Resur-gence

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

Figure 2.05: Joel Sternfeld: January 2001

Figure 2.07: Joel Sternfeld (HL.org)

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

16

17

A Provocative Site

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

Balazs’ Standard Empire

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

Introducing the Standard Hotel

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

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

Figure 3.02: Plan of High Line through site

18

Firm Profi le

In 1980 the partnership began, stemming from the of� ce of James Stewart Polshek started in 1963; to-day there are 10 partners including James Polshek. Current partners include Joseph Fleischer, Timothy Hartung, Duncan Hazard, Kevin McCurkan, Richard Olcott, Susan T. Rodriguez, Tomas Rossant, Todd Schliemann (lead designer of The Standard Hotel) and Don Weinreich. These partners guide the 145 person, multi-� oor studio. The of� ce is located at 320 West 13th St, New York City, where it has been since the 1980’s.

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

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

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

Polshek Partnership

Figure 3.03: Work Shop

Figure 3.05: Hierarchy of Workspaces

19

1930

1947

1955

1955-1963

1963

1972

1972-1987

1980

1982

1987

1988

1988

1992

1998

2003

2003

Offi ce Profi le

James Stewart Polshek born in Akron Ohio

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

Received a Masters of Architecture degree from Yale University

Worked for I.M. Pei

Formed Of� ce of James Stewart Polshek, Architect

Earned AIA National Honor Award

James Polshek appointed dean at Columbia University GSAPP

Joseph L. Fleischer becomes partner

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

Timothy P. Hartung becomes partner

AIA National Honor Award Carnegie Hall

Monograph published “Context and Responsibility”

AIA Architecture Firm Award

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

President’s Award, AIA NY Chapter

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

20

Cultural Geography

When James Polshek fi rst entered college he had thoughts of becom-ing a psychiatrist. Although he changed his focus to architecture, the social issues more prominent in a social science fi eld shape his design philosophy and manifested in his disciplinary contribution of Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPRSR). The history of the practice can be divided into two parts. The fi rst pe-riod J. Polshek was a private prac-titioner. This was a period in which the political convictions and social attitudes that drove him to become an architect were integrated into an evolving culture unique to the offi ce of Polshek.

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

All of Polshek’s projects, from both early and later periods, share characteristics from fi ve typologies, all concerning “architecture as a humanizing force.”1.Buildings that represent humane technology2.Buildings that enhance the natu-ral environment3.Buildings that preserve history4.Buildings that reinforce communi-ties5.Buildings that strengthen cultural identity

quote from http://www.polshek.com

Figure 3.06: First fl oor studio space

21

Pholshek PartnershipPhilosophy

“What we create is rooted in how we work: collaboratively, connecting with clients for the benefi t of their communities and the public realm. We believe in archi-tecture and design as inherently public: open, shared and enduring.”

Figure 3.07: Entrance space to offi ce (ours)

quote from http://www.polshek.com

“We make buildings whose designs au-thentically express the progressive mis-sions to their cul-tural, academic and scientifi c institutions. They demonstrate technical and artistic excellence and sig-nifi cantly contribute both to the cultural life of their communi-ties and to the en-hancement of their contexts.

We engage collabor-atively with our cli-ents, and our design process is rooted in extensive research involving the analy-sis of site, program, public image and emerging construc-tion and environ-mental technologies. A commitment to sustainable design solutions is integral.”

22

Disciplinary Contributions

Architects/Designers/Planners for Social ResponsibilityCo-founded by James Polshek in 1982, ADPSR works for peace, environmental protection, ecologi-cal building, social justice, and the development of healthy communi-ties.

Lewis Mumford AwardInstituted to honor people and orga-nizations that exemplify ADPSR’s goals of peace, preservation of the natural and built environment, and socially responsible development. Lewis Mumford’s writings con-tinue to inspire and remind us that architecture, design, and planning, must respond to human needs, har-monize with its surroundings, and re� ect the aspirations and social context of our civilization.

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

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

Figure 3.09: ADPSRFigure 3.08: ADPSR

23

Major Works

Projects that con� rmed the direc-tion of the practice and became the basis of a geographically and typologically diverse body of work: Teijin Central Research Institute, Japan 1964New York State Bar Center, Albany 1968Quinco Regional Mental Health Center, Indiana 1972

Museum of Natural History Rose Center for Earth and Science 1995-20002002 – AIA National Honor Award [Buildings that preserve history]The notion of a spherical planetar-ium emerged early in the process as a metaphorical reference to multi directional space. Becoming concrete in the programmatic and technical considerations, chal-lenged included supporting the sphere independently of the glass box, the transparency of the glass box, and the circulation ramp con-necting the two.

New York Times Plant Queens, NY 1993-972001 – AIA National Honor Award[Buildings that represent human technology]Seen mostly by cars driving sixty miles per hour, the building is easily legible. The building embodies an integrated approach to the design of a state-of-the art printing facility and a human and ef� cient workplace.

Figure 3.10: Rose Center

Figure 3.11: NY Times (?.com)

24

25

Friends of the High Line

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

Sternfeld’s photographs of the over-grown High Line raised the public awareness of its natural beauty. Help also came from Gifford Miller, a college classmate of Hammond who was the speaker of the NYC Council and was able to award public money to FHL. The commu-nity board became very active and motivated to help the project. The High Line’s support group gained wealthy, in� uential supporters and the median age within the group lowered signi� cantly.

As they grew, the FHL began to operate more as a business than a typical grassroots organization. They hired lawyers to challenge the structure’s demolition and conduct-ed a feasibility study. They created a 10,000-person strong e-mail distribution list to keep interested people informed.

In 2002, as fundraising developed, FHL became a full-time salaried job for the founders. Sternfeld’s photographs showed New Yorkers Figure 4.02: Politicians and FHL Founders on the High Line’s openning day

The High Line’s New-Found Voice

Figure 4.01: The High Line logo

26

that the High Line was more than a corroded old train line; it had a rare beauty and untapped potential. The group also commissioned a designer to produce a savvy logo [Figure 4.01].

In 2004, a design competition was held to determine the architects of the project. Below are the criteria that outline FHL’s original intentions that set the foundation for the 2003 Ideas Competition.

(a) Start public dialogue about potential use of High Line – having no pre-formed perspectives on the way parks should be(b) Promote idea of linear park onto of unused railroad bed. (c) Preserve the “unlikely wilder-ness” (d) High Line will be a quiet, simple, unkempt, slow promenade of agriculture, light and architecture. Organic and inorganic material, intimacy and space as performance

In June of 2005, a Certi� cate of In-terim Trail Use had to be obtained; this allows a railroad company to give the tracks to a local govern-ment for recreational purposes. This was a long process, and involved convincing many people who initially favored demolition to sign the document. Under Mayor Bloomberg, the New York City Council was able to reverse the City policy favoring demolishing. The new agenda ensured the High Lines preservation.

Figure 4.03: An FHL Employee gardening

27

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

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

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

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

The Competition

The Ideas Competition of 2003 was an open, international ideas com-petition to encourage design that is bold, unique, and forward-thinking. The requirements were simple. Submit two boards – no models, no videotapes – that address the competition objectives: Defi ne a comprehensive vision for the High Line as a whole; identify innovative ways to deal with access; present ideas for the spaces below the Line; and create a compelling pub-lic environment on the structure’s elevated rail bed. The submittal for this competition did not have to be practical or realistic. The response to the competition was outstanding; 720 entries from 36 countries par-ticipated in the competition. The 17 winning and honorably mentioned designs were exhibited in Grand Central’s Vanderbilt Hall in July of 2003, a great place for the project to get attention.

In 2004, Friends of the High Line and the City of New York sent out a Request for Qualifi cations in search of the High Line’s perma-nent design team. After a six month process, 7 teams were short listed from the 52 respondents. The list of seven was then narrowed to four fi nalist teams. These fi nalists were asked to exhibit their design ap-proach at the New York City’s Cen-ter of Architecture in summer 2004. After a face to face interview with each fi nalist team, Field Operations and Diller Scofi dio + Renfro won

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

4 Finalists:

28

Intentions of winning scheme:

(a) “Agri-tecture” proposal of a series of � exible plans interspersed with wetlands, sunken overlooks, � oating ponds.

(b) Approach to High Line as a structure and a landscape, one does not dominate the other.

(c) Trust for Public Land – NYC averages 4.6 acres of green space per 1,000 residents. The High Line offers 6.7 acres.

Figure 4.09: “What Will Grow”

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

Figure 4.08: “What Will Grow”

29

Figure 4.10: Principal James Corner

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

Their design approach attempts to bring out the natural potential of a site through proper planning, infrastructure and maintenance; es-sential characteristics of the prac-tice of Landscape Urbanism, which James Corner has single-handedly helped create. Major tenets of the discipline, proclaimed by Corner in the essay entitled “Terra Fluxus”2

and exemplifi ed by all of the fi rms’ design proposals entail: evolution over time, the object of design as a surface (not a form), and the duality of city and nature. These are all employed as chief concepts in their major projects such as the High Line and Fresh Kills, where they proposed a revitalization of a defunct infrastructural area, re-appropriating it for pedestrian use over a process of time, ranging from seasons to decades (re-spectively). Other projects in San Juan and Korea seek to achieve a spatial cohesion creating a new public space through the exuberant expression of nature, and Shelby Farms where the existing condi-tion is planned to evolve to a better state and more desirable location than pre-intervention.

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

Field Operations sees the reality of cultural synthesis and place-making to be a result of incorpo-rating design into all scales of the project. This is done with an over-all vision of non-prescription within the fi nished product; instead, they attempt to create a fi eld of varied conditions to allow the inhabitants to “inscribe their own scenarios of occupation and identity”.

Firm Profi le: James Corner + Field Operations

30

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

This has allowed the � rm to successfully take on projects of massive scales and execute them to the � nest degree of detail and success. Field Operations’ perspective of ecology in a design sense has allowed them to succeed in a relatively niche but crucial role in the future of landscape design; that of reclamation. Through this integrative design approach, James Corner has been able to approach sites of spoil and re-appropriate them into vibrant landscapes of use and environmental regeneration. Due to their close collaboration with architects, they have been able to envision place-making in a new light, from a perspective of architecture as an integral part of the landscape as opposed to the other way around.

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

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

Figure 4.15: Proposal for Governor’s Island

Figure 4.14: TOPO-LIFE

Figure 4.11: South Street Seaport Development Plan

Figure 4.13: Rio Piedras Stream Restoration

Figure 4.12: Nordhavnen Waterfront

31

1961

1983

1984

1984

1986

1986

1988

1996

1996

1997

1997

1998

1999

2000

2000

2001

2003

2004

2004

Offi ce Profi le

James Corner born

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

Worked for Gillespie and Partners

Worked for Wallace, Roberts, and Todd

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

Worked for Richard Rogers

Began Teaching at University of Pennsylvania

Wrote Taking Measures Across the American Landscape with Alex MacLean

Awarded G. Holmes Perkins Award

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

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

Field Operations formed with Stan Allen

Fellow of the Urban Design Institute

Named Chair of Landscape Architecture Department

Daimler-Chrysler Award for Design Innovation

Architectural League of New York Design Award

Ended Collaboration with Stan Allen

High Line Competition - Winner

American Academy of Arts and Letters, Academy Award in Architecture

32

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

The � rm’s high involvement with academics is unique as James Cor-ner and two associate principles teach studios at UPenn. There are six senior associates; two are registered landscape architects and one is a registered architect who teaches a landscape architectural design studio at the University of Pennsylvania. There are six associ-ates, one of whom is a registered architect and one of who teaches core media courses at UPenn in landscape architecture. There are six designers, one of whom teaches � rst year visual studies at UPenn architecture.

Cultural Background

James Corner was raised in Manchester and educated at Man-chester Metropolitan University, England, graduating in 1983. Man-chester was an early textile manu-facturing city that rose to its peak of industrialization around 1850. It was then surpassed by other cities, creating a decline in population and economy, but was revitalized in the early 1900’s as a � nancial capital. This shift in production left a large amount of abandoned factories and industrial spaces, which inevitably served as an adequate frame-work for Corner to in� uence in the American landscape.

When he came to America in the mid-1980’s he entered into a small and often neglected � eld of public landscaping and design. Corner was critically in� uential at establish-ing an understanding and a recon-sideration of how we use our en-vironment (evidenced by his book Taking Measures across the Ameri-can Landscape). This perspective was instrumental in the emerging institution of landscape urbanism, situating himself and his practice in the forefront of landscape and urban revitalization. With its strong interdisciplinary approach and his-tory with architects and urban plan-ners, Field Operations organizes and orchestrates the complexity of the urban environment as land-scape into a social catalyst through dialogue and design.

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

33

Major Works

Downsview Park, Toronto: 2001This was Field Operation’s � rst project to receive recognition, plac-ing second to OMA. This was their � rst proposal at a large-scale land-scape intervention and shows the emergence of a style in this type of project to design over time.

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

Fresh Kills Landfi ll: 2001-PresentThis project was instrumental in revealing Field Operation’s large-scale vision and potential for landscape intervention. The competition called for a reuse of an old land� ll located on Staten Island. The response for Corner was to propose a long term develop-ment plan lasting thirty year until completion with an active design sense and intention throughout all the stages to produce different and evolving kinds of environments and ecologies.

Figure 4.17: Downsview Park, Toronto

Figure 4.18: Downsview Park, Toronto

Figure 4.19: French Embassy, New York City

Figure 4.20: Fresh Kills Landfi ll

Figure 4.21: Fresh Kills Landfi ll

34

High Line: 2004-PresentThe High Line project showcases the integrative creativity of Field Operations, orchestrating one of the largest public design projects to occur in Manhattan in decades. The project was the re-habilitation of an old elevated subway line on the lower west side, spanning from the meatpacking district up to the Hudson Rail yards. This project not only implemented a large active park space into the dense fabric of Manhattan, but proved that public design was possible and could be extremely successful.

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

Figure 4.24: High Line

Figure 4.23: High Line

Figure 4.22: High Line

Figure 4.26: Shelby Farms Park

Figure 4.25: Shelby Farms Park

35

Born in New York City

Attended Cooper Union School of Architecture

Born in Lodz, Poland

Moved with family to New York City

Received a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Columbia University

Born in Baytown, Texas

Received a Bachelor of Architecture from the Cooper Union School of Art

Firm formed as Diller + Sco� dio in NYC

Professor Emeritus at the Cooper Union School of Architecture

Assistant Professor of architecture at The Cooper Union School

Published “Body Buildings: Architectural Facts and Fictions”

Received a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Rice University

Moved to New York City

Received a Masters of Architecture degree from Columbia University

Published “Back to the Front: Tourisms of War”

Published “Flesh: Architectural Probes”

Assistant Professor of architecture at Princeton University

Received the MacArthur prize, the � rst given to an architectural � rm

Professor of architecture at Princeton

Adjunct Assistant Professor at Cooper Union

Published “Blur: The Making of Nothing”

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

Became partner, creating Diller Sco� dio + Renfro

ED = Elizabeth DillerRS = Ricardo Scofi dio, AIACR = Charles Renfro, AIA

RS

RS

ED

ED

RS

CR

ED

RS

ED

CR

CR

CR

ED

ED

CR

CR

1935

1952-1955

1954

1959

1960

1964

1979

1979-Present

1981-1990

1987

1989

1994

1990 -2000

1999

2000 -Present

2002

2003

2004

Firm Profi le: Diller Scofi dio + Renfro

36

Offi ce Profi le

Diller Sco� dio + Renfro is run by three partners, Elizabeth Diller, Ri-cardo Sco� dio, and Charles Renfro. Diller and Sco� dio met at Cooper Union, where he was her professor and then they later wed. The three partners bring different views to the � rm and act as a system of checks and balances for one another. They describe the ways in which they change roles: one will be the dreamer, another the bad cop, and the third will � ll the professorial role, challenging each other and working through problems.

The remainder of the � rm consists of two senior associates (Chris Andreacole and Matthew Johnson), four associates (David Allin, Ben Gilmartin, Kevin Rice, and Gerard Sullivan), and 30 other employees. The � rm describes themselves as “something between an atelier and a democratic structure.” They are not organized with a pyramidal hi-erarchy. When the � rm was young and consisted of ten employees the design hierarchy was easily manageable. Despite the growth, the practice is still highly produc-tive, with the three partners always making � nal decisions.

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

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

Figure 4.27: Members of the fi rm

37

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

Figure 4.29: The fi rm’s studio space

“Good design, we think, has to solve all

the problems at every level, at every scale,

at every juncture, critical juncture of decision-making.”

–Charles Renfro

38

Art versus Architecture

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

Diller also cites that she studied ar-chitecture at Cooper Union without any intention of actually becoming an architect. She originally wanted to be an artist, but her work with Sco� dio made her more interested in how people use space, which drew her to architecture. She was also greatly in� uenced by John Hejduk, the dean at Cooper Union. She describes him as “brilliant…a poet… [and] crazy” and says that he seduced her into architecture.

The � rm’s early work was a blend of art, installations, and architec-ture. Their work was described as architectural non-buildings. Although founded in 1979, their architectural work began much later with Switzerland’s Blur Building and Boston’s Institute for Contemporary Art, completed in 2002 and 2006, respectively. The � rm uses study

models extensively in their design process; Figure 4.30 shows itera-tions of the ICA.

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

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

Figure 4.30: ICA study models

Figure 4.31: Eyebeam proposal

39

Major Works

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

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

Figure 4.32: Traffi c cone installation

Figure 4.34: suitCase studies arrangementFigure 4.33: suitCase studies detail

40

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

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

Figure 4.35: Vice/Virtue drug glass

Figure 4.36: Brasserie television screens Figure 4.37: Brasserie entry stair

41

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

Institute of Contemporary Art, 2006Boston, MAThe ICA was personally important for Diller given her background in art (both in education and practice); it was a chance for her to experi-ence the other side of art, the museum. The project had many responsibilities, being the � rst museum to be built in Boston in over 100 years. Aside from being an art museum, it also interacts with the public boardwalk, which is something they value, “making architecture work in the city at the public realm” –Charles Renfro . The dramatically cantilevered gal-lery box drew public attention and praise [Figure 4.39]. The � rm rec-ognizes that this project put them on the map in the United States.

Figure 4.38: Eyebeam performance vs production

Figure 4.39: Boston’s ICA

42

Blur Building, 2002Exposition Pavilion for Swiss ExpoLake Neuchâtel, SwitzerlandThe Blur Building has been de-scribed as a perfect synthesis of art and architecture for the � rm. It challenges our need to rely on vision and to see a building in order to interact with it. The project shed new light on how a country chooses to represent itself to the world and what people are meant to expect. The � rm won a competition for the expo with their proposal to build a habitable cloud on top of the water.

Figure 4.41: Approach to the Blur Building

Figure 4.40: The Blur Building

43

Linear Park: Paris Prom-enade

The Promenade Plantée in Paris is a 2.8 mile long elevated park. It was originally constructed as a railway viaduct, and usage ceased in 1969. The renovated project of 1993 occurs on the elevated and ground levels, serving pedestrians above and cyclists below. The structure passes through modern buildings as well as having open-air sections.

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

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

Precedents for the High Line

Figure 4.42: The Paris Promenade

Figure 4.43: Original railroad tracks on the High Line

44

Battery Park

The High Line and Battery Park, both in Manhattan, are situated on man-made structures; the High Line is built on the abandoned train line and Battery Park on a land� ll. These contexts were dealt with differently, however. Designers of Battery Park implemented a master plan with zero regard for integration of the preexisting conditions. They kept a more traditionally manicured feel to the landscape and pathways [Figures 4.45 and 4.46]. Looking at the images, one cannot tell that the park is situated on a very industrial man-made structure.

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

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

Figure 4.44: Modular paving units disappearing into the landscape

Figure 4.45: Battery Park’s superimposed layout

Figure 4.46: Battery Park’s manicured landscape

45

Preparation

Once the rehabilitation of the High Line became a reality, the pro-cess of converting an overgrown wilderness into a habitable place became a primary focus of great importance.

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

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

Restoration and Actualization

Figure 5.02: Using a crane to lift construction vehicle onto the High LineFigure 5.01: Laying out the original members

46

Clearing the Ground

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

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

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

Figure 5.03: Cleaning the Surface

Figure 5.04: Exposing the Structure

Figure 5.05 Figure 5.06

47

Structural Rehabilitation

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

Figure 5.09

Figure 5.07

Figure 5.08

Figure 5.06: Re-Painting

48

Historic Hand Railing Res-toration

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

Figure 5.12: Original Construction DrawingsFigure 5.11: Restored railings

Figure 5.10: Railings before restoration\

49

10” Concrete Base

Primer

Hot Rubberized Asphalt

Polyester Fabric

Hot Rubberized Asphalt

Asphalt Protection Board

Root Blocker

Drainage Mat

Filter Fabric

Growing Medium

Building Up

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

Once the foundation layer was prepared, the laying of the pedes-trian surface, original rail tracks and soils could begin. The paving modules and tracks sit on top of standard CMU blocks fastened into the concrete platform [Figure 5.16]. Horizontal joists were placed on top of the CMU blocks to support the cast concrete panels or the selec-tive reinstallation of the rail tracks, with a greater distance between rail ties than before. The negative space created by lifting the paving modules and tracks was in � lled by soil.

Figure 5.15: Elements sitting on CMU Blocks

Figure 5.14: Reinstallation pattern of the tracks

Figure 5.13: Exploded axonometric of the ground layers

Figure 5.16: Elements sitting on CMU Blocks

50

Recreating the Wilderness

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

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

Figure 5.18: Lifting plants onto the High Line

Figure 5.20: Planting

Figure 5.19: Laying areas for different plants

51

Modular Elements

The paving of the High Line ground plane is made up of modular elements, three of which are predominant in the experience of traversing the linear park. Two are rectangular, and the other forms an angled taper [Figure 5.21]. The rectangular units vary in length and are arrayed along the sub-structure to generate pathways and dictate where users may walk (since walk-ing on or touching the plants is pro-hibited). The � nger-like elements are the “sidewalk cracks”, refer-enced by Diller previously, through which the landscape permeates. Tapering in plan and section, they seem to disappear into the landscape, especially in densely planted areas [Figure 4.44].

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

The High Line provides a number of drinking fountains, although the is-sue of acquiring water on the High Line has not yet been recti� ed. The design of the drinking fountains is

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

On the sundeck, lounge chairs are designed atop the original rail lines. Wheels on the bottom of the chairs allows for movement along the lines, and the heavy timber construction makes users feel as if they are on a heavy, slow-moving train from earlier in the century. The chairs are of simple design, with beams stacked to form linear shapes [Figure 5.22].

Figure 5.22: Lounge chairs on the Sun Deck

Figure 5.22: Modular bench variations

Figure 5.21: Modular paving units

52

Lighting

Architecture lighting designer Herve Descottes, Principal of L’Observatoire International Inc., contributed his ideas to the High Line’s night experience through a LED lighting concept. Descottes philosophy of lighting is to reveal the scope, shape and form of a project. The lighting elements occur at or below the waist level to softly backlight the � ora and il-luminate the architectural elements. This lighting strategy allows for increased safety at night as well as the ability to appreciate the city and the nighttime sky as backdrop. Be-low the High Line, pools of colored light are re� ected off the structure onto the sidewalk.

Figure 5.25: Will Femia Figure 5.26: Lights accent linearity

Figure 5.24: Light fi xture

53

01: Gansevoort Street Look-out

There are many different spatial experiences encountered along the High Line’s linear progression. Field Operations conceived of it as a digitized system of paving that can easily transition between wide expanses of walkways and areas that are more taken over by the nat-ural landscape. The park is open to the public 7:00AM to 10:00PM daily, and is used by locals and tourists alike. It is, however, closed to bikers, skateboarders, scoot-ers, and dogs. Wheelchair access is available via elevators at many of the entry points [Figure 5.28]. The park is open year-round, and because of its unique landscaping strategies is continually chang-ing and blooming. The individual programmatic areas of the High Line are discussed on the following pages.

The Gansevoort Street lookout is located at the southernmost point of the High Line, and confronts the edge condition with a glass railing. To access the lookout point one must meander through a highly de-signed and regimented landscape of arti� cial cor-ten planters [Figure 5.27] with grey gravel serving as a soil. This is very different experi-ence from the rest of the park as this portion is not engaged with the remnant of old tracks, but actually has multiple tiers of plantings to

01

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

Figure 5.29: Southern end of the High Line at Gansevoort StreetFigure 5.28: Map showing points of egress

Figure 5.27: The Look-out area

Program and Performance

54

02: Entry Plaza 03: Gansevoort Street Entry

As one enters from the Gansevoort Plaza below, you come onto a large open space that causally blends back to the peripheral landscape. As the backdrop to this landscape is the southern façade of Standard Hotel [Figure 5.31]. There is ample space for the � rst exposure to the city through an elevated perspec-tive by a large viewable area along the western rail. Also, there are amenities such as a water fountain, benches, and a possible tour guide.

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

Figure 5.30: Stairs at Gansevoort Figure 5.31: High Line entrance at Gansevoort

02

03

55

04: 13th Street Stretch

In between the Gansevoort Street entrance and the Standard Hotel is a long stretch of park designed to accustom the user with their context within the city. The area is � lled with a relatively low density of plants. The paths are tapered and surrounded by large swathes of green where the interaction of pav-ing, railroad track, and planting can be seen easily. Due to the straight nature of the stretch, the paths con-tinually bifurcate and come back together to offer different perspec-tives of the surroundings, allowing

Figure 5.32: Looking south along 13th Street Figure 5.33: Planting along 13th Street

04

the walker to meander along a straight line [Figure 5.32 and 5.33]. This experience is quite different than that of walking a city block at street level. In one location along the west edge there is a cluster of peeled away seats, providing not only a rest space but a possibly space for picnics and communal gatherings.

56

05: Underneath the Stan-dard

The area of the High Line that passes directly underneath the Standard Hotel is a unique space as it is the culmination of the inter-action between the two elements. The paving surface is expanded and all plantings removed, creating a semi-enclosed spatial experience [Figure 5.34]. Here an expanse of pavers denote a “� oor”, the rough concrete forms of the Standard cre-ate of “walls” and the underneath of the Standard’s main structural truss acts as a “roof”. The roof keeps a

Figure 5.34: The Terrace of the Standard Hotel Figure 5.35: The East Pier of the Standard Hotel

05

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

57

06: Standard Hotel Plaza 07: Standard Hotel Terrace

The plaza in front of the Standard Hotel occurs not on the High Line, but on the corner of Little West 12th Street and 9th Avenue. This area is open to the public and serves as a strictly urban resting place with all hard surfaces of metal, stone, iron, and concrete [Figure 5.36]. This material palette is contrasted by the seating and entrance being denoted in a bright yellow [Figure 5.36], as well as a temporary art installation of a multi-colored fabric “sock” appliqué to the poles sur-rounding the plaza.

The Standard Hotel has a private event space located on the third � oor with an outdoor patio space looking directly onto the High Line. The ground plan of the patio is situ-ated at eye level when on the High Line [Figure 5.37].

Figure 5.36: Entrance to the Standard Hotel lobby Figure 5.37: The Standard Hotel Terrace

06

07

58

08: Standard Hotel Grill 09: Standard Hotel Biergar-ten

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

The Biergarten is a less formal eatery nested under the High Line. It is an outdoor space covered by the structure of the rail bed above. Here the historic structure of the High Line can be appreciated as the steel girders and columns with intricate rivet detailing are exposed and contribute to the aura of the space [Figure 5.40].

Figure 5.39: Outdoor seating ath the Grille Figure 5.40: The Biergarten underneath the High Line

Figure 5.38: Fire stair coming down the pier

0809

59

10: Standard Hotel Lounge 11: 14th Street Elevator

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

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

Figure 5.41: The “Living Room” Lounge Figure 5.42: The Elevator at 14th Street

11

10

60

13: Spur Branch-Off

12: Sun deck

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

The sun deck provides users with moveable seating elements placed on the tracks themselves [Figure 5.43]. People use the seats to read, sunbathe, and casually con-verse. These benches are almost always in use during warm weather and a highly popular area of the High Line. Recent inappropriate use of slamming the seating ele-ments together has forced clamps to have to be put onto the chairs’ wheels to prevent damage to the chairs themselves.

13

12

Figure 5.43: Lounge chairs on the sun deck

Figure 5.44: The Spur

61

14: Passage through the Chelsea Market

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

14

Figure 5.45: The passage through the Chelsea Market

Figure 5.47: Chelsea Market art installationFigure 5.46: Vendors on the pass-through

62

15: Amenities

16: Wooden Deck

The Caledonia, a luxury housing complex, provides public restrooms at the level of the High Line [Figure 5.48]. They are the only facilities on Phase 1 of the High Line and are used and cleaned frequently. They have not had issues with consistent water supply, as it is a private building.

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

15

16

Figure 5.48: Entrance to the restrooms

Figure 5.49: The wooden deck area

63

17: Amphitheater

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

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

17

Figure 5.52: Section of the Amphiteater

Figure 5.51: The Amphitheater

Figure 5.50: The tiered benches of the square

To pedestrians at street level, users sitting in the amphitheater are put on display like a � sh in a � sh bowl. Although sometimes obscured by re� ections and lighting, the sense of people being elevated above the intersection experiencing a different perspective is close and apparent [Figure 5.51].

64

18: 18th Street Seating

19: 18th Street Stairway

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

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

The 18th street staircase is the � rst non-monumental staircase (as op-posed to the Gansevoort Street and 14th street entrance) in the north-ern procession of the High Line. It provides intermittent access to the High Line, while also creating a location of emphasis for street vendors to accumulate at the bot-tom [Figure 5.54]. In its protrusion

18

19

Figure 5.53: The 18th Street seating

Figure 5.54: The 18th Street stairs

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

65

20: Future 18th Street Plaza

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

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

20

Figure 5.56: The grand stairs of the new plaza

Figure 5.55: The new volume of the proposed plaza

66

21: 20th Street Exit

22: Future Chelsea Thicket

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

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

2122

Figure 4.49: The future Chelsea Thicket

Figure 4.48: View from the 29th Street stairs

67

23: Future Seating and Lawn

At 22nd and 23rd Streets, there will be a more manicured lawn setting. This area will “peel up” away from the tracks, affording users with greater views of the city. This will be enhanced by stepped seating. The zone is intended to be more of a destination and place of leisure than other areas on the High Line; it is the only place where users are allowed to leave the paved walk-ways and traverse the greenery.

23

Figure 4.49: Future seating and lawn

Figure 4.48: Future seating and lawn

68

24: Future 23rd Street Entry

25: Future Woodland Fly-over

This entrance will include stairs and an elevator. The stairs will rise between the High Line’s beams, puncturing the surface, and the elevator, clad in glass, will supple-ment the entrance alongside the structure.

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

24

25

Figure 5.58: Future woodland fl oyover

Figure 5.57: Future 23rd Street entry

69

26: Future 26th Street Viewing Spur

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

Conversely, to pedestrians on the ground level, the frame recalls the aesthetic of billboards, which were once attached to the High Line. The frame will put the users on display for those below to see. This showcase will replace the adver-tisements of the past.

26

Figure 5.59: Future viewing spur

Figure 5.60: Future viewing spur

70

27: Future Wildfl ower Fields

The � elds will take advantage of a long, straight portion of the High Line to allow users to fully ap-preciate the axiality of the project. Plants will include both species indigenous to the High Line’s period of overgrowth, and new species. New plants will be chosen to allow for changing blossoms throughout the entire year.

27

Figure 5.61: Future wildfl ower fi elds

Figure 5.62: Future wildfl ower fi elds

71

28: Future 30th Street Entry

29: Future 30th Street Cut-Out

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

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

28

29

Figure 5.63: Future 30th Street entry

Figure 5.64: Future 30th Street cut-out

72

73

Effects of the Projects

Elevated Perspective

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

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

Figure 6.01: View along the Chelsea Market

Figure 6.02: View down 14th Street

74

Experiencing the Seasons

The wild landscape that was on the High Line prior to it’s renewal strongly in� uenced what plantings are grown on the High Line today. In the currently completed section of the project there are over 210 species of perennials, grasses, shrubs and trees. The planted landscape is primarily native to what grew rampant, providing a low-maintenance atmosphere with a great deal of variation in height and color throughout the year. A diversity of blooming seasons oc-curs on the High Line year round, always giving users a new experi-ence. Plant designer Piet Oudolf consulted with the architects to syn-thesize the landscaping that makes the project so unique.

There is not a preferred season to see the High Line as all seasons have a unique plant aesthetic to appreciate. February through October there are plants in bloom. Bulbs bloom in spring and early summer, perennials from March through October, trees and shrubs � ourish late winter to late sum-mer, while the vines bloom in May through October.

Figure 6.03: June bloom

75

Figure 6.04: November bloom

76

Spontaneous Activity

The unique situation of the High Line has given rise to multiple forms of “guerilla” activity. Ven-dors of crafts, food, and art have taken advantage of the elevator to transport their wares for the public. They traditionally locate them-selves at points of interest, such as underneath the Standard Hotel or on the threshold of a passage through a building.

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

Figure 6.05: Food vendors on the High Line

Figure 6.08: A cabaret performer

Figure 6.07: A jazz bandFigure 6.06: An exhibitonist

77

Figure 6.09: Buildings created or affected by the Ripple Effect

Contextual Infl uence: The Ripple Effect

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

78

79

Construction of The Stan-dard

Formwork for the Standard Hotel is very intricate and of a high quality. A textured, naked look was desired, which could only be achieved with board-formed concrete. The con-crete represents the grit and grime of the Meatpacking District, while the glass façade above represents the sophistication the area has come to take on.

The thin eastern pier houses no program aside from the metal � re stairs [Figure 7.01], which cling to the side of the massive support. The sides are faceted and mimic the bend of the bar building above. Although designed to be poured in four segments, the contractor was able to successfully construct the pier in a single pour. The four piloti columns on the terrace were de-signed and constructed in a similar manner [Figure 7.02].

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

The Standard Hotel

Figure 7.01: Standard Fire Stairs Figure 7.02: Terrace Pilotis Columns

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

80

The Standard Hotel’s Inter-action with the High Line

The Standard Hotel interacts with the High Line in the material expression and programmatic or-ganization. The hotel itself adopts a phenomenon that occurs within the High Line itself. The elevated per-spective of the High Line reinforces the openness and public nature of the park, while providing a “near yet far” sensation. The Standard Hotel, in its massing and situation on the site suggests a familiar yet different attitude of a tower in Manhattan; where usually the building takes up the maximum building volume, the hotel block sits comfortably within the site boundaries producing a thick buffer between it and the sur-rounding buildings. This heightens the interaction of sight between the High Line and the Standard while improving the views from inside the hotel itself to the greater context of Manhattan, the Hudson River and New Jersey.

The ground � oor of the Stan-dard Hotel is dedicated to public program and to welcome people into the upper � oors of the hotel. The lobby is situated at the rear of a public plaza with bright yellow chairs and tables [Figure 7.04]. The paving of the plaza expresses an axial linearity to the yellow revolving door that brings you into the hotel itself. The door is located on the threshold of the High Line and is intended to recall the transition between an airport terminal and the airplane; its bright

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

Figure 7.04: Entrance to the Standard Lobby

Figure 7.05: The Standard Hotel Lobby

81

The third � oor of the Standard Ho-tel is the most direct connection to the High Line, and was the planned location of a physical connection between the two (the Friends of the High Line did not want anything touching the park, though talks are still in process). The third � oor is the location of private event spaces comprised of one large room with double height ceilings and an exterior patio where the other, smaller scale pilotis are located. Both of these spaces face directly onto the High Line at the clos-est proximity code will allow with easement regulations. On the other side of the building is the east pier, with a � re escape landing punch-ing through the massive concrete form to look onto the High Line, minimally ornamented through a subtle indentation of an L-shaped geometry. The space on the High Line itself underneath the Standard in-between these two conditions was designed as a covered space of urban congregation and has no plantings in it [Figure 7.06]. There are sets of peeled benches on the periphery, but due to the high demand for seating in the area fold-able chairs and tables are now in located along the railing.

Figure 7.06: View from the Standard’s Conference space, showing the underside of the Hotel above the High Line

82

Observer / Observed

Both the High Line and Standard Hotel create ways for users to observe others and to be observed. The relationship between the two projects is very transparent. Pedestrians on the High Line often have clear views into hotel rooms above [Figure 7.07]. Conversely, occupants of these rooms can easily look down onto the pathways below. Because of their close proximity (there is less distance and a shallower angle than there would be from a normal street view); this relationship becomes more personal.

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

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

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

Figure 7.07: Relationship between users Figure 7.09: The outside of Julliard

Figure 7.08: Interior of a Julliard studio

83

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

Figure 7.11: The underside of the ICA

Figure 7.10: Interior of the ICA computer lab

Figure 7.13: View of the Amphitheater’s exterior

Figure 7.12: View from within the Amphitheater

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

84

Pixilation of the Standard Hotel Façade

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

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

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

Figure 7.14: Pixelation

Figure 7.15: Day view of the Standard Hotel

85

Le Corbusier and Pixilation

The idea of a facade pixilation emerged out of the development of a programmatic module arranged repeatedly. This element of archi-tecture has been existent for thou-sands of years but it was not until projects such as Le Corbusier’s Salvation Army Hostel (1933) [Fig-ure 7.17] and his Unite d’Habitacion (1946-1959) [Figure7.20] where the technique of pixilation was utilized. Traditionally, facade elements were accentuated in ornamental ways other than size and surface area. But in the attempt to maximize the internal relationship to the facade, techniques of differentiation were implemented such as color and surface patterning.

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

Figure 7.17: Le Corbusier, Salvation Army Hostel

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

Figure 7.19: Le Corbusier, Millowners BuildingFigure 7.18: Le Corbusier, Carpenter’s Center

86

Contemporary Context of Pixilated Facades

Sauerbrach Hutton ArchitectsGSW Headquarters, Berlin

The façade of the GSW Headquar-ters is a double skin façade pixi-lated with vertical louvers [Figures 7.21-7.23]. To achieve variation and a dynamic looking facade a spec-trum of reds are applied randomly to the louvers which are computer controlled to open and close based on environmental data.

Gigon/GuyerBrunnenhof Housing Complex, Zurich

The pixilation of this facade is entirely driven by the residents for the purposes of light modulation. There is a secondary façade on the outside of the circulation balconies where colored panels of transpar-ent, translucent and opaque panels slide to achieve an array of depth and light qualities [Figures 7.24 and 7.25].

Figure 7.21: GSW Headquarters

Figure 7.22: GSW Headquarters

Figure 7.24: Brunnenhof Housing Complex Figure 7.25: Brunnenhof Housing Complex

Figure 7.23: GSW Headquarters

87

Modulation of Mullions on the Standard Hotel

The façade of the hotel has a quilt like quality which is achieved by a rhythmic patterning of modules. A module is comprised of the surface area each room takes up on the facade, and is differentiated by a different proportioning of the mullions [Figure 7.27]. To maintain a sense of movement on a static object, each module is asymmetri-cally proportioned in both the x and y dimensions, making it dif� cult at times to � nd the module itself. Each elevation on the north and south sides of the buildings have their own sets of modules, adding to this complexity. Like a quilt the only separation between rect-angles is the seam, the mullion, allowing each panel to speak for itself against the others [Figures 7.28 and 7.29]. The east and west

Figure 7.26: Le Corbusier, Chandigarh

Figure 7.27: Similar logic on the Standard Hotel

Figure 7.29: Pixilated impression from belowFigure 7.28: Curtain Wall section

88

facades are detailed in a similar but different manner; mullions and their differentiation are carried out in the same fashion but the � oors punch through the curtain wall, structur-ally changing it, providing regular interruptions to the vertical reading and giving the ends a sense of “gravitas”.

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

Le Corbusier’s in� uence in the Standard Hotel is profound in its formal composition, material expression and facade logic. The project designer, Todd Schlei-mann, studied at Cornell under Colin Rowe, a profound Corbusian scholar.

Figure 7.32: Facade logic for the distribution of window modules

| A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | | C | C | C | C | C | C | C | C | C || B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D || A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A || B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B |

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

Figure 7.30: Subtle shifts within a defi ned framework

Figure 7.31: Patchwork of facade mullions

89

The Standard, Pilotis, and Le Corbusier

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

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

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

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

1: Corbusier’s Five Points: (1) pilotis (2) free façade (3) ribbon windows (4) open � oor plan (5) roof garden

Figure 7.34: Le Corbusier, Villa Savoye Figure 7.35: Bier Garten under the High Line

90

The Standard, Concrete Expressionism, and Le Cor-busier

The Standard’s rough concrete pilotis show exceptional craftsman-ship and detail. The un� nished nature of concrete speaks well to the grittiness of the area. Although extremely large in scale, the “deli-cate colossus,” as The New York Times called it, brings back the human scale through the detailing of the pilotis [Figure 7.38].

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

His early work was in� uenced by his time working with Auguste Per-ret. In his early villas, concrete was de-materialized with a stucco � nish. As his projects grew in scale, its material qualities began to emerge (such as in the Swiss Dormitory of 1930). At the apex of Le Corbus-iers residential career, in the Unite d’Habitacion in Marseille (1946-1952), mass, plasticity, and texture were all artistically expressed on both the ground plane and the roof [Figure 7.36].

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

Figure 7.36: Le Corbusier, Unite d’Habitacion

Figure 7.37: Vilanova Artigas, FAU/USP

Figure 7.38: Concrete formwork on the east pier

91

The Standard, The Roof, and Le Corbusier

The second point in Le Corbusier’s � ve points, that of the “� fth facade” and the design of the roof has in� uenced the formal manifestation of the Standard Hotel. The idea for the “roof garden” emerged from the smaller scale of his villas in the 1920’s. It was conceived as a re-placement for the open space taken up by the building on the ground. This was particularly applicable in the smaller-scale residential design as the ground was to be dedicated to the car and the transition from public to private, and the volume was not elevated off the ground enough to allow light below.

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

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

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

Figure 7.40: Le Corbusier, Unite d’Habitacion

Figure 7.41: Roof of the Standard Hotel

Figure 7.39: Le Corbusier, Villa Savoye Roof

92

13th Street

12th Street

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Figure 7.42: Standard Hotel, Ground Plan

93

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

94

95

The High Line and Standard Hotel critically engage and challenge the traditional notions of building in Manhattan. The adaptive reuse of the park and the hotel’s massing strategy is representative of the ideology of optimization and quality over carelessness and quantity. The Standard Hotel is strategi-cally formed with a shrunken mass within the lot boundary to produce a unique, unobstructed view of the skyline which is contrary to the norm of extruding the lot line to maximize square footage. The High Line as non manicured park references the need for a new type of public space that pushes back against the strict order of the grid and its concrete in� ll.

Conclusion

96

Figure TableFigure 1.01 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 1.03 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 1.04 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.05 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 1.06 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.07 - http://picasaweb.google.comlhphoto4cGDzLhQgD3vhugz9Lv-M5A.JPGFigure 1.08 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.09 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.10 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.11 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.12 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.13 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.14 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.15 - Diagram, Nick AxelFigure 1.16 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 1.17 - http://www.� ickr.com_pho-tos_laurenmanning_3879470903_.jpg

Figure 2.01 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 2.02 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 2.03 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 2.04 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 2.05 - Joel Sternfeld, Photogra-pher. http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 2.06 - Joel Sternfeld, Photogra-pher. http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 2.07 - Joel Sternfeld, Photogra-pher. http://www.thehighline.org/

Figure 3.01 - Diagram, Sarah RosenblattFigure 3.02 - Diagram, Christine Ero-menokFigure 3.03 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 3.04 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 3.05 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 3.06 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 3.07 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 3.08 - http://www.polshek.comFigure 3.09 - http://www.polshek.comFigure 3.10 - http://www.archleague.comFigure 3.11 - http://www.nyc-architecture.com/ARCH/UNDER30-28.jpg

Figure 4.01- Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 4.02 - http://www.mbpo.org/blog_details.asp?ID=180Figure 4.03- Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 4.04 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 4.05 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 4.06 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 4.07 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 4.08 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 4.09 - Image from “Designing the High Line”

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

Sco� dio”Figure 4.38 - Image from “The Ciliary Function”Figure 4.39 - Image from “Scanning: The Aberrant Architectures of Diller + Sco� dio”Figure 4.40 - Image from Architectural Design, Jan Feb 2009Figure 4.41 - Image from “The Ciliary Function”Figure 4.42 - http://commons.wikimedia.org_wiki_Category-Promenade_plantée.jpgFigure 4.43- Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 4.44- Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 4.45- http://www.batteryparkcity.orgFigure 4.46- http://www.batteryparkcity.org

Figure 5.01 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.02 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.03 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.04 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.05 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.06 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.07 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.08 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.09 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.10 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 5.11 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 5.12 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 5.13 - Diagram, Nick AxelFigure 5.14 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 5.15 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.16 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.17 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.18 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.19 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.20 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.21 - Diagram, Sarah RosenblattFigure 5.22 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.23 - Diagram, Sarah RosenblattFigure 5.24 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.25 - http://www.curbed.comFigure 5.26 - Image from “Designing the High Line”Figure 5.27 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 5.28 - Diagram, Nick AxelFigure 5.29 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.30 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.31 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.32 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 5.33 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-

97

rapherFigure 5.34 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 5.35 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.36 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.37 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.38 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 5.39 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.40 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.41 - Nick Axel, PhotographerFigure 5.42 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.43 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.44 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.45 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.46 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.47 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.48 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.49 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.50 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-raphertFigure 5.51 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.52 - Section, Sarah RosenblattFigure 5.53 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.54 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 5.55 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.56 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.57 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.58 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.59 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.60 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.61 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.62 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.63 - http://www.thehighline.org/Figure 5.64 - http://www.thehighline.org/

Figure 6.01 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 6.02 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 6.03 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 6.04 - Sarah Rosenblatt, Photog-rapherFigure 6.05 - http://www.� ickr.com/pho-tos/garysoup/3840106838/Figure 6.06 - http://www.baldpunk.comFigure 6.07 - http://www.� ickr.com/pho-

tos/32042195@N00/3805377805 Figure 6.08 - http://www.� ickr.com/pho-tos/larimdame/3710482654/Figure 6.04 - Diagram, Nick Axel

Figure 7.01 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.02 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.03 - Photograph Courtesy of Polshek PartnershipFigure 7.04 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.05 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.06 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.07 - http://www.� ickr.com/parkds00/re� ection and sky.jpgFigure 7.08 - http://www.beyondcriticism.comFigure 7.09 - http://www.artearquitetu-raeua.wordpress.comFigure 7.10 - http://www.amhpub.amherst.eduFigure 7.11 - http://www.dillersco� dio.comFigure 7.12 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.13 - http://www.thehighline.orgFigure 7.14 - http://www.aanda.orgFigure 7.15 - http://www.� ickr.com by Niall KennedyFigure 7.16 - http://www.standardhotels.com/new-york-city/webcam/Figure 7.17 - Thomas Mical, Modernity 2009 Lecture SlidesFigure 7.18 - Thomas Mical, Modernity 2009 Lecture SlidesFigure 7.19 - Thomas Mical, Modernity 2009 Lecture SlidesFigure 7.20 - http://www.� ickr.com/pho-tos_44639544@N00/2400864766Figure 7.21 - http://www.amazon.comFigure 7.22 - http://www.wikimedia.orgFigure 7.23 - http://www.e-architect.co.ukFigure 7.24 - http://www.gigon-guyer.chFigure 7.25 - http://www.gigon-guyer.chFigure 7.26 - http://www.toddoldhamstu-dio.comFigure 7.27 - Diagram, Nick AxelFigure 7.28 - Section, Nick AxelFigure 7.29 - http://www.farm3.static.� ickr.comFigure 7.30 - http://www.llph.co.ukFigure 7.31 - Render, Nick AxelFigure 7.32 - Diagram, Nick AxelFigure 7.33 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapherFigure 7.34 - http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/yannic.rudolph/Figure 7.35 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapher

Figure 7.36 - http://www.� ickr.com/pho-tos/clydehouse/2056418896Figure 7.37 - http://www.vitruvius.com.br/ac/ac002/1.aspFigure 7.38 - http://www.� ickr.com/pho-tos/grufnik/573598000Figure 7.39 - http://rol.vn/weben/chuy-ende/thegioi/2009/07/07/043614/1298Figure 7.40 - http://www.extraextra.orgFigure 7.41 - Sarah Rosenblatt, photog-rapher

98

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“James Corner Named Chair of Landscape at University of Pennsylvania.” University of Pennsylvania. University of Pennsylvania, 6 Sept. 2000. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. <http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=476>.

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

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

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

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

Sources

99

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

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

Polshek, James Stewart. Polshek Partnership Architects. New York: Princ-eton Architectural, 2005. Print.

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

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

Tyrnauer, Matt. “New York’s Standard Hotel.” New York’s Standard Hotel. Vanity Fair, Feb. 2009. Web. Nov. 2009. <http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/02/standard-hotel200902>.