thesis book

CAPITOLismthe identity crisis of the american capital city

Teresa Marboe

Syracuse UniversitySchool of Architecture

Undergraduate Thesis2011-2012

CAPITOLismthe identity crisis of the american capital city

by Teresa Marboe

Syracuse UniversitySchool of Architecture

and the Rene Crown University Honors Program

Undergraduate Thesis Fall 2011/Spring 2012

Primary Advisor:Susanne Cowan

Secondary Advisor:Art McDonald

Honors Reader:Susanne Cowan

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

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

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

1Introduction 07

2CAPITOLism 11

Albany, NYHarrisburg, PA

Boston, MA

385672

Contents

3The Capital in Operation 35

4A City Divided

Site87

5A Joint Mission

Program115

6

The Functioning Hybrid

123

7141

8Appendix 155

Charts

NotesImage Credits

156160176

Bibliography178

The Ideal Capital?Precedence

HTC Drawing Set

180

7 The state capitol complex exists as a paradoxical entry within the catalogue of American architectural typologies. It is both a historical artifact and a modern landmark. It is saturated with meaning, with centuries of imposed symbolism hidden beneath a veneer of explicitly formal and traceable architectural gestures. It functions as a microcosm within its host city, absorbing some of the values and systems of the larger entity while maintaining its autonomy. Principally, it operates as a locus of identity, as both the physical embodiment of a representative system of government and a status symbol of its host city.

This role of identity-generator forces a conflict between the capitol complexs supposed functions as architectural object and as urban contributor. For a new building, to join the capital complex is to be a part of a self-serving, self-referential entity, in many ways isolated from the surrounding urban context. Conversely, to become entrenched in the city fabric is to exist on the periphery of the capitol complex, forming an adjacency but not necessarily an interaction with the realm of government. Thus, the capital city inherently possesses a dual nature of capitol, a building or complex that houses the governments lawmakers, and capital, a city housing the administration of a state or national government, but often lacks a unified urban identity.

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

Introduction 1

8The Typical Capital City

The Hybrid Capital City

State

State

The Typical City

State

City

City Center

Suburbs

Capitol Complex

Capitol Complex

City Center

City

Suburbs

City

Suburbs

1.1 The Capital City Typology

9Contention

The capitol complex is currently expected to serve a multiplicity of roles and mediate between decades of imposed meanings. As the primary role of the capitol complex is to provide a home for representative government, it is unreasonable to expect it to function concurrently as the political center of the state and the urban center of the city. However, in cities like Albany and Harrisburg, which do not have a strong, extra-capitol urban center, this is precisely what the capitol complex is being forced to do. The inadequate performance of these dual roles has resulted in the border condition that is present between capitol and capital in many American cities today, generating the urban identity crisis.

Therefore, I contend that a new condition, a type of capitol-capital hybrid, must be invented to assume the role of urban center and act as the locus of the civic realm. As the capitol complex already provides a monumental public space, localism rather than monumentality is needed. This new typology could be termed an occupied border, but would essentially operate as a network of critical adjacencies between key spaces and nodes within both the city and the capitol complex. Adjacencies could be constructed through urban redevelopment at multiple scales; new architectural insertions in strategic sites, reclamation of key buildings or blocks, and activation of existing civic spaces would enable a network of built structures and small-scale public spaces. This would provide a method of introducing mixed-use spaces within the typically single-zoned capital city typology as well as establishing spatial relationships between government agencies, cultural institutions, commercial centers, and residential neighborhoods. These critical adjacencies and resulting network will support the functions of both the capitol and capital, allowing each to retain distinct identities while enabling the creation of a third, composite identity: the functioning hybrid.

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

11

Part I

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: A Case of Mistaken Identity

13

An inquiry into the current state of capital cities must first begin with a discussion of the vocabulary used to describe them. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of the word capitol is literally, a citadel on the head or top of a hill, referring broadly to the ancient citadel, the dominant governmental region within a city, and specifically to Romes Capitoline Hill, which housed the Temple of Jupiter, the seat of the Roman Senate.4

The ancient Roman capitol served as a symbolic center, the caput mundi (head of the world), which operated independently from its surroundings and was off-limits to all but a select, poweful few. In this way, the capitol was the antecedent of the capital, the aggregation of the spaces which grew outward from the capitol as supporting sites of ceremony and ritual.5

This linear evolution of capitol to capital did not occur in the United States. With the transition from British colony to democratic nation-state, the imposition of a new political system necessitated the designation of many capital cities to support the new representative system of government. State capitals were chosen for varying reasons, such as their colonial or revolutionary significance, territorial influence, or topographic advantages. However, in the early days of the republic, when built infrastructure could not keep pace with either the developing government or expanding state territories, the designation of state capitol shifted frequently

CAPITOLism 2Cities are not the result of a biological inevitability; they arise out of choices...any decision to designate a city as a capital is also an intentional move, an evolutionary break. 3

14

VERSUS

1. Literally, A citadel on the head or top of a hill. (OED)

2. The edifice occupied by the congress of the United States in their deliberations. Also, in some states, the state-house, or house in which the legislature holds its sessions. (OED)

1. Of or pertaining to the head or top. (OED)

2. A capital town or city; the head town of a country, province or state. (OED)

Capitol

Capital

object, microcosm, landmark, state

context, macrocosm, network, city

2.1 United States Capitol Building

2.2 Washington, DC Metropolitan Area

15CAPITOLism

between cities as they eclipsed one another in strategic location or governmental facilities.

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

State Capitol

Larger cities within state

Washington, DC

Current Capitol Building (constructed following statehood)

Current Capitol Building (constructed prior to statehood)

States in which capital city is not the largest city

States which border Washington, DC

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

16 CAPITOLism: The Identity Crisis of the American Capital City

The evolution of the capitol from single building to complex has created several identifiable types for the modern-day capitol complex. Charles Goodsell, Professor Emeritus at VA Techs Center for Public Administration and Policy, developed several such type labels in his 1997 article, Bureaucracys House in the Polis. He addresses the issue of formal appropriateness of bureaucratic buildings, categorizing case studies of state capitol buildings or complexes into either appropriate or inappropriate type categories, based on their overall governmental presence and representation of democratic values.8 Although heavily influenced by Goodsells own biases, these simple categorizations are useful to consider, as they are remarkably clear in describing of how the capitol complex commonly functions architecturally.

Goodsell first determines the inappropriate bureaucratic building types, beginning with the bureaucratic box, an unremarkable modern or international style office block that resembles buildings of the commercial or private sector. Goodsell criticizes these designs for their lack of governmental presence and undifferentiated massing, making them poor representations of democracy and hard to relate to for the populace.9

The next type, the governmental fortress, has the opposite problem, in which governmental presence is so abundant as to be intimidating and alienating. Often located in close proximity to the capitol building or possessing excessive signage, the governmental fortress discourages access and excludes the ordinary citizen, diminishing the value of the individual in comparison with that of the government.10

The Capitol Complex Typology

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

17CAPITOLism

The Bureaucratic Box

The Governmental Fortress

The Consumer City

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

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

2.6 Atrium of the Floyd State Offi ce Building [Atlanta, GA]


His final example, the consumer city, overcorrects for the problems of the governmental fortress by being almost too welcoming, attempting to turn the citizens experience of government into the experience of a shopping mall or small city. This is usually in the form of a complex or underground concourse, with a strong physical but dubious conceptual connection to the capitol. The diversity of programs (mostly non-governmental) and amount of public circulation can confuse the citizen, and blurs the boundary between government and consumerism.11

Goodsell classifies appropriate bureaucratic building types in the same manner, beginning with the traditional temple, a strictly neoclassical design that incorporates classical architectural forms, such as the temple front, to reference the founding of republican government. The traditional temple directly combats the inadequacies of the inappropriate types, providing a ubiquitous symbol of government identity (bureaucratic box), an elevated and dignified image (government fortress), and a familiar, easily accessible character (consumer city).12

The local curiosity also provides a familiar image, but on a much more localized scale, usually a building that contrasts with other state buildings due to a peculiar formal move. Although identified as a government building through location or signage, the local curiosity provides a connection to the community through local materials or honorary statues, forming a kind of local vernacular that makes it easily recognizable and often beloved by local residents.13

Finally, the postmodern delight provides governmental presence through sheer openness and playfulness, using a variety of geometric forms, coloring, and irregular surfaces to epitomize innovation and democracy. Welcoming entrances and a range of openings encourage public access, making this building type the most overtly public out of the discussed types.14

As will be discussed in the next chapter, most capitol complexes are a hybrid of these typologies, with the character of individual buildings being more easily categorized than the complexes themselves. However, Goodsells analysis brings certain architectural issues to the forefront, emphasizing representation of government and democracy, public accessibility, scale, regional influence, and relationship to citizenry. These issues are critical to the study of capitol complexes and the cities that house them, and must ultimately be considered in any architectural design that has ties to the capitol through location or identity.

19CAPITOLism

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

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

2.9 William E. Powers Building, Smith Street [Providence, RI]

The Traditional Temple

The Local Curiosity

The Post-Modern Delight


Performs all or most of the highest national level functions, including commerce, finance, the media, and higher education.

London, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Moscow, Tokyo

GLOBAL

MULTI-FUNCTION

POLITICAL

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

Established primarily as a seat of government. Performs a primarily political function, usually missing other national functions found in a commerically-established city.

London, Tokyo

The Hauge, Bonn, Washington DC, Ottawa, Canberra, Brasilia

The Capital City Typology

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

EXAMPLES:

EXAMPLES:

EXAMPLES:

21CAPITOLism

Was formally the capital of a federal nation, but even after losing its capital designation it still retains political functions for its surrounding territories.

Milan, Turin, Stuttgart, Munich, Montreal, Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne

PROVINCIAL

EX-IMPERIAL

FORMER

SUPEREXAMPLES:

Was formerly the seat of an empire that has since been lost or dismantled. May still operate as a national capital or perform functions of a multi-functional city.

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

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

London, Madrid, Lisbon, Vienna

Berlin (1945-1994), St. Petersburg, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro

Brussels, Strasbourg, Geneva, Rome, New York

EXAMPLES:

EXAMPLES:

EXAMPLES:


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

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

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

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

GLOBAL

POLITICALMONO-FUNCTION

REGIONAL

MULTI-FUNCTION

23CAPITOLism

FORMERNATIONAL

SUPER

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

PROVINCIAL

EX-IMPERIALFive Types of STATE Capital Cities

Here are altered versions of Peter Halls Seven Types of Capital City classifications, revised to render them applicable to state capitols, which represent a sub-national territory that is subservient to a federal system rather than an autonomous nation-state.


Regional Capitals

1788 Columbia, South Carolina 1790 Providence, Rhode Island1812 Baton Rouge, Lousiana1817 Jackson, Mississippi1819 Montgomery, Alabama1836 Little Rock, Arkansas1837 Lansing, Michigan1845 Tallahassee, Florida1846 Des Moines, Iowa1858 St. Paul, Minnesota1863 Charleston, West Virginia1867 Lincoln, Nebraska1889 Bismarck, North Dakota1889 Helena, Montana1890 Boise, Idaho1890 Cheyenne, Wyoming1907 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma1912 Santa Fe, New Mexico1959 Juneau, Alaska

Mono-Function Capitals

1787 Dover, Delaware1787 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania1787 Trenton, New Jersey*1788 Annapolis, Maryland*1788 Concord (New Hampshire)1788 Albany, New York1791 Montpelier, Vermont1792 Frankfort, Kentucky1818 Springfield, Illinois1820 Augusta, Maine1821 Jefferson City, Missouri1848 Madison, Wisconsin1859 Salem, Oregon1861 Topeka, Kansas1864 Carson City, Nevada1889 Pierre, South Dakota1889 Olympia, Washington

*Former National Capitals

Global Capitals

1788 Atlanta, Georgia1788 Boston, Massachusetts1788 Richmond, Virginia1803 Columbus, Ohio1816 Indianapolis, Indiana1845 Austin, Texas 1876 Denver, Colorado1912 Pheoniz, Arizona

Multi-Function Capitals

1788 Hartford, Connecticut1789 Raleigh, North Carolina1796 Nashville, Tennessee1850 Sacremento, California1896 Salt Lake City, Utah1959 Honolulu, Hawaii

25CAPITOLism

On the left, all 50 state capitals have been categorized according to the parameters of the Five Types of State Capital Cities in conjunction with the World According to GaWC (2011) chart of world cities (full chart can be found in the Appendix). Developed by the Geography Department of Loughborough University (UK), the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network assesses cities in terms of their production within the world city network. Based on their performance at the global scale, the capitals have been sorted into the 5 categories, with mono-function capitals having little or no connection to the global network (see Appendix for full categorization explanation).

As can be seen from the category lists, the majority of the state capitals fall into either the regional or mono-function categories. The majority of American state capitals fall into either the regional or mono-function categories. The mono-function classification is especially critical for understanding these types of capitals, as they provide the most extreme example of capitol-capital tension. With involvement in global affairs kept to a minimum, the role of state capital as political center has remained the overriding function of mono-function capitals, allowing the state to dominate the urban identity. Consequently, the study of regional or mono-function capitals might yield the clearest examples of the relationship between capitol and capital, as this relationship is paramount to the functioning of the city.

The trends that emerge from these categorizations are represented graphically on the following pages, in the form of a timeline charting the dates of statehood against current population for each of the 50 state capitals. This timeline is subsequently broken down to isolate each type of capital city, to indicate any possible relationships between the type of capital city, the date of state founding, and the size of its current population.

As a general trend, the capital cities belonging to the oldest states tend to have a smaller current population and less global involvement, while the largest cities belong to relatively newer states and have increased ties to the global network.

26

1775

1780 187018601790 1820 18301810 1840

1796

1791

1792

1812

1816

1788

1787

1803

1789

1790

1817

1818

1819

1837

1845

1846

1820

1836

1821

1850

1848

1850

1800

Dover DE(36,047)

Harrisburg PA(49,528)

Trenton NJ(84,913)

Atlanta GA(420,003)

Hartford CT(124,775)

Boston MA(617,594)

Annapolis MD(38,394)

Columbia SC(129,272)

Concord NH(42,695)

Richmond VA(204,214)Albany NY

(97,856)Raleigh NC(403,892)

Providence RI(178,042)

Montepelier VT(7,855)

Frankfort KY(25,527)

Nashville TN(601,222)

Jackson MS(173,514)

Indianapolis IN(820,445)

Baton Rouge LA(229,493)

Columbus OH (787,033)

Montgomery AL(205,764)

Springfield IL(116,250)

Augusta ME (19,136)

Jefferson City MO (43,079)

Little Rock AR(193,524)

Lansing MI(114,297)

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

Madison WI(233,309)

Des Moines IA(203,433)

Sacremento CA(466,488)

Salem OR(154,637)

Topeka KS(127,473)

Charleston WV(51,400)

Carson City NV(55,274)

St. Paul MN(285,068)

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

27

1975

192019101890 19301880 197019601940

1858

1859

1864

1867

1861

1863

1876

1889

1950

1900

V

V

Lincoln NE(258,379)

Denver CO(600,158)

Bismarck ND(61,272)Pierre SD(13,646)Helena MT(28,190)Olympia WA(46,478)

1896Salt Lake City UT(186,440)

1890

Boise ID(205,671)Cheyenne WY(59,466)

1907Oklahoma City, OK(579,999)

1912

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

1959

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


Global Capitals

2.11 Global Capitals [isolated from timeline]

1788 Atlanta, Georgia1788 Boston, Massachusetts1788 Richmond, Virginia1803 Columbus, Ohio

1816 Indianapolis, Indiana1845 Austin, Texas 1876 Denver, Colorado1912 Pheoniz, Arizona

1775 1975

1780 192019101890 19301880187018601790 1820 18301810 1840 197019601940

1950

1900

1850

1800

GAMAVA

COTXINOH AZ

29CAPITOLism

Multi-Function Capitals

2.12 Multi-Function Capitals[isolated from timeline]

1788 Hartford, Connecticut1789 Raleigh, North Carolina1796 Nashville, Tennessee

1850 Sacremento, California1896 Salt Lake City, Utah1959 Honolulu, Hawaii

1775 1975

1780 192019101890 19301880187018601790 1820 18301810 1840 197019601940

1950

1900

1850

1800

CT NC TN TN UT HI


1788 Columbia, South Carolina 1790 Providence, Rhode Island1812 Baton Rouge, Lousiana1817 Jackson, Mississippi1819 Montgomery, Alabama1836 Little Rock, Arkansas1837 Lansing, Michigan1845 Tallahassee, Florida1846 Des Moines, Iowa1858 St. Paul, Minnesota

1863 Charleston, West Virginia1867 Lincoln, Nebraska1889 Bismarck, North Dakota1889 Helena, Montana1890 Boise, Idaho1890 Cheyenne, Wyoming1907 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma1912 Santa Fe, New Mexico1959 Juneau, Alaska

Regional Capitals

1775 1975

1780 192019101890 19301880187018601790 1820 18301810 1840 197019601940

1950

1900

1850

1800

2.13 Regional Capitals[isolated from timeline]

SC RI LA MS AL ARMI

FLIA

MN WV NE NDMT

IDWY

OK NM AK

31CAPITOLism

1787 Dover, Delaware1787 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania1787 Trenton, New Jersey*1788 Annapolis, Maryland*1788 Concord (New Hampshire)1788 Albany, New York1791 Montpelier, Vermont1792 Frankfort, Kentucky1818 Springfield, Illinois1820 Augusta, Maine

1821 Jefferson City, Missouri1848 Madison, Wisconsin1859 Salem, Oregon1861 Topeka, Kansas1864 Carson City, Nevada1889 Pierre, South Dakota1889 Olympia, Washington

*Former National Capitals

Mono-Function Capitals

2.14 Mono-Function Capitals[isolated from timeline]

1775 1975

1780 192019101890 19301880187018601790 1820 18301810 1840 197019601940

1950

1900

1850

1800

DEPANJ

MDNHNY

VT IL ME MOKY WI OR KS NV SDWA

32

1775

1780 187018601790 1820 18301810 1840

1850

1800

2.15 State Capital City Timeline[overlayed with type categorizations]

33

1975

192019101890 19301880 197019601940

1950

1900

global

multi-function

regional

mono-function

former national

35

The Capital in Operation 3

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

In order to examine the nature of urban identity and possible methodologies for operating on capital cities, the following three case studies were performed as a means to study the capitol/capital relationship, focusing on two mono-function capitals (Albany, New York and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), and one global capital (Boston Massachusetts). These case studies concentrated on the capitol complexs public accessibility, scale, regional influence, relationship to citizenry, and representation of government. As a type, the mono-funciton capital is the most interesting, as these are traditionally cities in which the capitol complex plays a large role in both providing civic space and establishing the identity of the city. However, the inclusion of a global city provides a foil against which to judge the operation of the mono-function city.

Albany and Boston illustrate opposite poles of the capitol versus capital identity spectrum. In Albany, Nelson Rockefellers 1959-1976 Empire State Plaza dwarfs the surrounding city in scale, subjugating the identity of the city to the identity of the capitol (state). In Boston, the evolution of the governmental center has created distinct nodes of governmental operation, with the new city hall becoming a centralizing element by nature of its enormous brick public plaza and monumental form. In this unusual case, the influence of one significant built structure has allowed the identity of the city to overshadow the identity of the capitol (state). The third case study, Harrisburg, PA, falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum: the capitol complex has a strong but not completely dominating presence within the city, causing a less severe scalar shift between capitol and city than is found in Albany.

36

HARRISBURG, PAALBANY, NYMono-Function

Pop. 97,8561797

Mono-FunctionPop. 49,528

1810

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

37

BOSTON, MA

GlobalPop. 617,5941632

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

EMPIRE STATE CAPITOL COMPLEX

ALBANY, NY


49%

19%

10%

8%

5%4% 3% 2%

Government Health CareManufacturing RetailUtility EducationDefense Finance

71%

19%

7% 3%

State of New York

United States

County of Albany

City of Albany

Capital18

Feb 6 1778Articles of

Confederation signed in Poughkeepsie

1781New York legislature

meets for the first time in Albanys Town Hall

1683New York is

divided into 12 counties

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

April 20 1777First state

constitution adopted at Kingston

Oct 1765The Stamp Act

Congress meets in New York City

1650 18001700 1750

July 6 1788New York ratifies

the US Constitution

1797The capital is

officially moved from New York City to Albany

City Evolution [Capital vs. Capitol]

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

3.1 Top Employment Sectors17 3.2 Top Government Employers

41Case Study: Albany, NY

Capitol19

1797Capital

officially moved from

New York City to Albany

1809Philip

Hookers Capitol built for $110,000

1865Legislature establishes Capitol Commission to construct a larger

capitol on the same site; Thomas Fuller wins resulting

competition

1883Isaac Perry appointed as the

Architect of the Capitol

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

1875Fuller dismissed for illegal operations; replaced by an

Architectural Advisory Board (Leopold Eidlitz, Frederick Law

Olmsted, H.H. Richardson)

19001800 1850

3.3 Fuller & Laver plan, 1871 3.4 Fuller & Gilman design, 1871


New York State Capitol

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

3.5 Cross-section through Great Western Stair

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


3.7 NY State Senate Chambers

3.8 Richardsons Million Dollar Staircase [1875]


Empire State Plaza [Capitol Complex]

3.9 Raised plaza with government buildings and refl ecting pool

3.10 Underground concourse


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

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

3.11 Panorama from State Library steps

3.12 Old and new superimposed 3.13 Primary access stairs to concourse


Buildings of the Capitol Complex

1. Swan Street Building

2. Agency Buildings 1-4

3. Legislative Office Building

86

5

8

9

4

3

2

1

Empire Plaza

Underground Concourse

4. Alfred E. Smith Building

5

6

7

3.14 Complex Buildings and Organization


9. State Library and Museum7. The Egg

8. Corning Tower6. Justice Building

5. NY State House


State Government Zone

City Government Zone

Residential Zone

Cultural Zone

Industrial Zone

Park Zone

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

Land Use

3.15 Land use diagram, Central Albany


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

Access Conditions

3.16 Nolli diagram, NYS Capitol Complex


3

21

Border Conditions

Node

Landmark

Detachment from ground

Shift in topography

Pedestrian access

State Government Zone (Capitol)

City Government Zone (Capital)

Residential Zone

Park Zone

Topographical barrier

Major physical barrier

Minor physical barrier

Vehicular traffic only

Cultural Zone

3.17 Lynch diagram, Central Albany


2. South Swan Street

The border conditions between the Empire State Plaza and the surrounding city of Albany are extreme, with physical and visual barriers existing between complex and city. The Lynch-style map21

and diagrammatic sections to the right catalog the types of barrier conditions present on the edges of the complex. In the most extreme case, the southeast side of the complex is divided from the city by a topographical barrier, with a 20ft drop between the complex and the highway. This is echoed in a constructed way in the state library (see section 4), which is removed from street level by monumental steps leading up from the plaza.

At South Swan Street, which divides the Empire State Plaza from the adjacent residential neighborhood, the intentional construction of a barrier is again evident. There is both an extreme shift in scale between the Swan Street Building and the residential neighborhood beyond, complicated by a sectional shift within the road itself, resulting in a 2-part border zone between the two areas.

1. State Street

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

2. South Swan Street

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

3. Madison Ave

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

3.18 Sections describing edges of NYS Capitol Complex

3.19 Scaler difference between built construction on either side of street


Street-level library entrance Opening in Swan St. Bldg

1. Plaza Level2. Street Level3. Concourse Level4. Highway Level

32

1

Topographic Conditions

3.20 Longitudinal section and experiential vignettes through NYS Capitol Complex


South Mall Arterial highway (beneath the concourse level) Plaza edge meets Capitol

4


3

2 1

Opportunities for Architectural Intervention

3.21 Aerial views, NYS Capitol Complex and surrounding city


1. Re-Integrate Concourse

2. Insert series of gateways

3. Re-Invent State Library

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

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

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

STATE CAPITOL COMPLEX

HARRISBURG, PA


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


55%38%

5%

2%

State (Commonwealth of PA)

National (U.S. Government)

County (Dauphin County)

City (Harrisburg)

45%

8%

24%

11%7%

2% 1% 2%

Government ManufacturingHealth RetailEducation RecreationElectronics Consulting

Capital23

Oct 27, 1682William Penn lands in Pennsylvania,

after being given 50,000 acres of land by Charles II as a

payment of a debt to his father

March 10, 1683The General

Assembly meets in the city of

Philadelphia for the first time

April 1799Capital temporarily

moved to Lancaster while a new, more central

capital is considered

February 1810Harrisburg is designated permanent state capital

1735The Assembly meets in its

first official Headquarters, Independence

Hall

1787U.S. Constitution

drafted in Independence Hall;

1790Pennsylvania Consitution

ratified

1777-1778Due to British

occupation, Assembly

temporarily meets in Lancaster

1650 18001700 1750

3.22 Top Employment Sectors22 3.23 Top Government Employers

59Case Study: Harrisburg, PA

1741Andrew Hamiltons Independence Hall (Philadelphia) is finished

1787US Constitution is drafted in

Independence Hall1799

Legislature meets in the Lancaster

County Courthouse

1816Capitol commission created, sponsors competition 1898

Henry James Cobb of Chicago

constructs a new Capitol

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

1822Stephen Hills Redbrick Capitol is constructed for $135,000

Feb 2, 1897

Redbrick Capitol is demolished

by fire

Capitol241750 19001800 1850

1812Legislature meets in the Dauphin County Courthouse for 9 years

1810Capital moved to Harrisburg

3.24 Redbrick Capitol (Hills), 1822 3.25 Unfi nished Capitol (Cobb), 1898


Pennsylvania State Capitol

Pennsylvanias Italian Renaissance Capitol features an immense dome, modeled after that of St. Peters Basilica in Rome. In plan, the building is organized to represent the balance of power within the legislature, with the Senate and House of Representatives located on opposing wings, and the Executive Office located in the center, off of the rotunda.

3.26 PA State Capitol back facade

3.27 PA State Capitol fl oor plan


3.28 Central Rotunda 3.29 Supreme Court of PA

3.30 PA-themed stained glass 3.31 PA House Chamber


Buildings of the Capitol Complex25

6

9

2

11

12

3

16

4

7

10

815

14

1

13

5

10. Health and Welfare Bldg (1955) 13. Capitol East Wing (1986)

3.32 PA Capitol Complex buildings and layout


1. Matthew J. Ryan Legislative Office Building (1893) John T. Windrim 5 floors

2. Northwest Office Bldg (1904) Verus T. Ritter 7 floors

3. PA State House (1906) Joseph M. Huston PA Legislature 5 floors

4. K. Leroy Irvis (South) Office Building (1921) Brunner and Manning 7 floors

5. North Office Building (1928) Brunner and Manning 7 floors

6. Soldiers Grove (1930) Gehron and Ross tree-lined quadrangle

7. Forum Building (1931) Gehron and Ross State and Law Libraries 6 floors

8. Finance Building (1939) Gehron and Ross

5 floors

9. Labor and Industry Bldg (1955) Lacy, Atherton and Davis 18 floors

10. Health and Welfare Bldg (1955) Lacy, Atherton and Davis 11 floors

11. State Archives (1964) Lawrie and Green 20 floors

12. State Museum of PA (1964) Lawrie and Green 5 floors

13. Capitol East Wing (1986) Celli-Flynn Associates 2 floors (above ground)

14. Rachel Carson State Office Building (1992) Hayes, Large, Suckling, Fruth Dept of Environ. Protection 16 floors

15. Keystone Building (2001) Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Department of Transportation 10 floors

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

14. Rachel Carson State Bldg (1992) 16. PA Judicial Center (2009)


Access Conditions

3.33 Aerial view, PA State Capitol Complex


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

3.34 Nolli diagram, PA State Capitol Complex


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

Land Use

Capitol Complex

Capitol District

Central Business District

Shipoke District

Historic Midtown

Old Uptown

Allison Hill/Eastern Harrisburg

Infrastructure (Train Tracks)

3.35 Land use diagram, Central Harrisburg



Pedestrian access

Park or Green Space

Historical District

Residential District

Major Node

Minor Node

Major Landmark

Minor Landmark

Major shift in topography

Minor Shift in Topography

Border Conditions

Minor Commercial District

Major Commercial District

Infrastructure Zone

Major barrier

Minor barrier

3.36 Lynch diagram, Central Harrisburg


Redevelopment Initiatives26

1. Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex & Expo Center

2. Old Uptown (ongoing redevelopment)

3. Skynet Property Managements Apartments (proposed)

4. Maclay Street Bridge

5. HACC Midtown

6. 1500 Project (under construction)

7. Federal Courthouse (planned)

8. Susquehanna Art Museum (proposed redevelopment)

9. Marketplace Townhomes (ongoing construction)

10. Furlow Building (proposed redevelopment)

11. Broad Street Market

7. New Federal Courthouse

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

3.37 Redevelopment map

3.38 New courthouse site


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

6. 1500 Project27

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

3.39 1500 Project presentation drawings



3

2

1

1. 282 North Third Street 3. New Federal Courthouse

3.40 Aerial view of Central Harrisburg, potential sites


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

Commonwealth Ave is one of the primary arteries connecting the capitol district to Harrisburgs midtown and uptown. It bisects the capitol complex itself, separating the Capitol and adjacent buildings from from Soldiers grove and the Forum and Finance Buildings. Further north, it connects several recent redevelopment projects Development of an overall corridor strategy and one or two key buildings could address the separation of midtown/uptown from the governmental and commercial centers.

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

1. 282 North Third Street

2. Commonwealth Ave (6th St)

3. New Federal Courthouse

GOVERNMENT CENTER

BOSTON, MA


1628Charles I grants colonial charter to Massachusetts

(great migration of Puritans from

England)

1630Puritans arrive

in Massachusetts Bay, led by John

Winthrop

1798Boston Massacre

takes place under balcony of

old statehouse

1632Boston

designated capital of the Massachusetts

Bay Colony

1600 17501650 1700

Capital28


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

3.41 Old Statehouse, 1713 3.42 MA Statehouse (Charles Bulfi nch), 1798

75Case Study: Boston, MA

1713Statehouse constructed (primary seat of government until 1797) 1798

Charles Bulfinchs

Capitol finished for

$27,000

1831Addition

to Capitol by Isaiah

Rogers

Capitol29

1750 19001800 1850

1856Addition

to Capitol by Gridley

Bryant

1895Rear extension

by Charles Brigham

1917Wing additions by

R. Clipson Sturgis, William Chapman,

Robert Andrew

3.43 Current MA Statehouse, 1798-1917


1. Old State House (1713)

2. Massachusetts State House (1798)

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

4. Old City Hall (1865) 5. New Court House (1937) 6. John F. Kennedy Federal Building (1966)

7. Boston City Hall (1968)

8. Saltonstall State Office Bldg (1971)

9. State Service Center (1971)

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

11. Edward W. Brooke Court House (2000)

8 7

10

11

2

3

5

96

14

Buildings of the Capitol Complex

3.44 MA Capitol Complex, buildings and layout


8. Saltonstall State Bldg

5. New Court House

7. Boston City Hall

6. JFK Federal Building


Access Conditions

3.45 Nolli diagram, Bostons Governmental Center


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

3.47 City Hall stair detail

3.46 Edge of City Hall

3.48 City Hall stair


Land Use

H

H

H

H

Charles RiverPlaza

Commercial St

Sargents W

MercantileWharf

RowesWharf

Paul RevereMall

PembertonSquare

SaltonstallPlaza

King's ChapelBurying Ground

CardinalCushing

Park

CurleyMemorial

Plaza

Union Park/HolocaustMemorial

City HallPlaza

StateHousePark

ChistopherColumbus Park

DeFilippoPlayground

Copp's HillCemetery

Prince St.Park

PuopoloPlayground

LangonePark

Copp's HillTerrace

IrishFamine

Memorial

GranaryBurying Ground

Boston Common Post OfficeSquare

North BennetStreet School

EliotSchool

Old NorthChurch

NazarroCommunity

Center

St Stephan'sChurch

FireStation

West EndBranch Library

SuffolkCounty

Jail

LowellSquare

O'Neill Federal Building

Saltonstall andMcCormackState Office

Buildings

Old Suffolk County

CourthouseSuffolk

University

Paul RevereHouse

City of BostonPrinting Office

North EndNursing Home

ColumbusHousing

AusoniaHomes

North EndBranch Library

Vent Building/Parking Garage

NewA

Old WestChurch

City Hall

John F. KennedyFederal Building

District A-1Police Station

State Health and Welfare

Building

Suffolk CountyCourthouse

FanueilHall

North End Community Health Center

African MeetingHouse

Fleet Center

SpauldingRehabilitation

Center

U.S. Coast GuardStation

New CharlesRiver Dam

TremontTemple McCormack

FederalBuilding

and Post OfficeSuffolk University

Law School

Park StreetChurch

BostonAthenaeum

InternationalPlace

W

Long Wh

Long Wha

Lovejoy Wharf

Haymarket

GovernmentCenter

State

Aquarium

NorthStation

Park Street

Bowdoin

Stop & Shop

S R

ussell St

Joy St

Som

erse

t St

Dev

onsh

ire S

t

Was

hing

ton

St

Gar

den

Cou

rt St

Richmond St

Moon

St

Hano

ver S

t

Fulto

n St

Com

mer

cial S

t

Blackstone St

Central Wh

arf

Stanford S

tCambridge St

Bratt

le Wa

y

Trave

rse St

State StCourt St

Broad St

Congress St

Kilby St

Central St

Lewis Wh

Sale

m S

t

Thacher St

Pinckney St

Clark St

N M

argin St

Prince St

Unio

Sno

whi

ll S

t

Henc

hman

St

Charter St

Cons

titutio

n Wha

rfBridge

Charlestown

Leverett Connector

School St

Prov

ince

St

Batterymarch St

Hawl

ey S

t

Exchange P

l

Water

St

Pearl St

Beacon

St

Park St

India St

Bromfield St

Frankl

in St

Old City HallKing's Chapel

Long Wharf Marriott

Pilot House

Steriti Rink

Quincy Market

Custom House Tower

Old State HouseState House

Am

y C

t

Arch S

t

Atlantic A

v

Canal St

Cause

way S

t

Chatham St

Clinton St

Cottin

g St

Endicott St

Federal St

Fleet St

Friend St

Hawkins St

Hull St

India Wha

Lancaster St

Lincoln Wha

Marke

t St

Medford St

Merrimac St

Milk St

Portland St

Temple S

t

Tileston StN

Washington S

t

Winter St

New

Congress St

Cou

rt Sq

Oliver St

Nashua St

Eastern Av

Battery St

Co

Ashburton Pl

New S

udbury

St

Bow

doin

St

Hancock St

High St

Jenton Way

Wha

rf StCu

stom

Hou

se S

t

Well St

East India Row

Atla

ntic

Ave

North St

Batte

ry Wh

arf

Merchants R

ow

Spring LaBosworth St

Cross St

Cooper St

Lomasney W

ay

Martha Rd

Ridgew

ay La

Sheafe St

N Hu

dson

St

Derne StW

alnut St

New Cha

rdon St

Trem

ont S

t

Interstate 93

1 Family Residential2 Family Residential

CommercialInstitutionalIndustrialOpen Space

Legend

3 Family ResidentialApartments/CondosMixed Use (Res./Comm.)

Surface ParkingMain Streets District

Surface Parking

H

MBTA StationsMBTA Surface Subway LinesMBTA Underground Subway LinesCommuter RailBelow Ground Commuter Rail

Water Transit RoutesWater Transit Facilities

Bus Routes

Main Streets District3.49 Land use diagram, Bostons Governmental Center


Border Conditions


Pedestrian access

Park or Green Space

Historical District

Residential District

Major Node

Minor Node

Major Landmark

Minor Landmark

Major shift in topography

Minor Shift in Topography

Minor Commercial District

Major Commercial District

Infrastructure Zone

Major barrier

Minor barrier

3.50 Lynch diagram, Bostons Governmental Center


Design Competition30

A Boston developer, Raymond Property Company, has proposed One Congress Street, a four million square foot complex with a mixed-use program of office, residential, and retail. This development would replace the current Government Center Garage, a 150 ft tall building neighboring city hall which provides parking for governmental offices. Due to its enormous size, the garage divides the Haymarket area, isolating the commercial zone to its north.

An invited design competition was held for the project, with the selected list of architects being Foster + Partners, OMA, SOM, Gensler, and Cook + Fox. Cook + Fox won the competition, with a proposal that grouped two towers with more small-scale construction.

3.51 Current Government Center Garage (photo and plan)


3.52 Winning Entry, Cook + Fox

3.53 Entry, Foster + Partners 3.54 Entry, OMA

3.55 Entry, SOM 3.56 Entry, Gensler


2

1


1. Corner of garage 2. City Hall Plaza

3.57 Aerial view, Governmental Center, and potential sites


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

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

1. Government Center Garage

2. City Hall Plaza

87A City Divided

A City Divided 4To view government buildings as an act of urban design as well as instances of architecture is to be able to judge how the larger design carefully delimits the zones for public gathering and defi nes areas of increasingly exclusive privacy. 31

Out of the three capital city case studies, Harrisburg has the most potential for critiquing and improving the relationship between capital and capitol. Governmental buildings display monumentality while typically remaining accessible from street level, acknowledging the existence of the surrounding urban context and occasionally interacting with it. With independent redevelopment initiatives already taking root throughout the city, there exists an opportunity for strengthening other zones within the city in order to establish the capitol as an integral but balanced portion of the capitol.

Harrisburg was first settled as a crossing point for the Susquehanna River, and became an official settlement when John Harris, an Englishman, established a trading post and ferry service within the region. Officially founded in 1791, Harrisburg gained notoriety as a market center and a stopping point for travelers. Following the construction of the Pennsylvania Canal and the Pennsylvania railroad, Harrisburg evolved into a center of industry, developing into a major transportation center in the late 19th century that was accompanied by an influx of population. The completion of the new (current) state capitol building in 1906 resulted in additional city growth, as it bolstered commercial, hotel, and retail development within the central business district. Although heavy manufacturing has waned over the last century, the government and food service industries (the Hershey chocolate factory is located 10 miles east) remain key components of its economy.32


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

4.1 Location of Harrisburg within U.S.

4.2 Harrisburg Metropolitan Area, Topography (opposite)


o

n

n

o n

nnn

o

o

q0 5 102.5

Miles

The central city of Harrisburg is framed to the north by I-81 and to the east by a swath of railroad infrastructure and 322. Its location along the river necessitates quite a few bridged roadways, with the three bridges from the downtown serving as continuations of Forster Street (edge of capitol complex), Walnut Street (edge of capitol complex, only provides access to City Island) and Market Street (runs past the Transportation Center).

The roads that bound the capital complex are highly-trafficked, although four of the N-S roads (1st St., 3rd St., 6th St., 7th St.) serve the major transportation arteries of the city. This is especially evident in the diagram on the next page, in which the 20+ city bus are structured along the same set of major thoroughfares within the city.

Interstate RouteUS RouteRampState RouteLocal Road

4.3 Transportation within the Tri-County Area

4.4 Harrisburg Metropolitan Area, Major Roadways (opposite)


!"#$

!"#$

!"#$

!"#$

!"#$

!"#$

!"#$

(/(/

(/

(/

(/

(/(/

(/

(/

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!(

"

!(!(

!(

MX

MX

8

15

19

7

7

13 322

13

L

M120

B

DK

L

K

K

F

81CX

81CX

81

81

C D

C

B

M

M

B

B

D

9

A

A

3

2

F

21

9

9

CX

816

23

6

CX

3

23

20

322

18

12

3

12

12

16

16

1415

14 8

8322

2019

7

7

T5

T1

T2

T3

26

14

13

3

8

11

7

5

17

18

16

15

11

22

22

322

22

322

15

11

15

641

230

230

39

581

581

283

283

76

83

83

83

81

81

CAT Park and Rides

Transit Centers

The location of the bus routes within the city also serve to illuminate key city centers. The capitol complex remains a dominant area, as does the central business district to the southeast of the capitol. The Transportation Center assumes an especially critical role, as every bus route, city or commuter, passes through one of its outdoor bus stations.

Here it is important to note the connections to City Island, which is located to the southwest of the central business district, in the Susquehanna. City Island is the primary recreational cen-ter in the city, providing sports arenas and facilities as well as family-centered recreational activities.

4.5 Bus Routes within the Tri-County Area

4.6 Harrisburg Metropolitan Area, Bus Routes (opposite)

93A City Divided

T2

T1

94

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

1. Engleton33

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

2. Capitol Heights34

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

3. Lottsville

4. Market Square/Verbeke Street35

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

5. Jackson Lick

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

6. Old Midtown

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

7. Fox Ridge36

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

8. Capitol District

9. SoMa (South of Market) District37

The central business district, currently under redevelopment by the private Harristown Development Corporation in an attempt to establish a hub for international business and the arts.

100 2000 400

1

6

5

4

3

2

7

8

9

Downtown

Midtown

4.7 Harrisburg neighborhoodstructure

96

The midtown district is characterized by its multitude of residential neighborhoods, many of which feature historic homes. Commonwealth Ave bends through midtown, separating the western residential zone from the eastern commercial and industrial zone. Commonwealth Ave forms the basis for a corridor that is hoped to structure the redevelopment of midtown, with a federal courthouse project and a condominium project in the design and construction phases respectively at the intersection of Commonwealth and Reily Street.

Defined cultural districts of midtown include the several blocks occupied by the midtown branch of the Harrisburg Community College as well as Broad Street Market, two blocks of long, bar market buildings that showcase locally produced food and products. Next to HACC Midtown is a collection of blocks known locally as book row, which contained a cluster of booksellers. The predominance of row houses in the midtown district allows for a mix of commercial and residential programs within blocks, with only a few state or city agency buildings.

Midtown [Overview]

State

City

Parking

Green Space

Transportation

Residential

Cultural

Commercial

4.9 Harrisburg Midtown programmatic breakdown(opposite)

4.8 Harrisburg Midtown, aerial photo

16

5

4

3

2

7

HACC Midtown

Book Row

7

1500 Project

Federal Courthouse

98

Midtown [Experience]

1

2 3

4

5

1. New construction at Reily St..2. Marketplace Town homes3. Commercial Building4. Lower density construction af-

ter crossing Forster St.5. Messiah Lutheran Church and

Parking Garage for PA Dept. of Revenue

4.10 Experiential views from within Midtown

12

3

4

5

100

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

The capitol district and SoMa district are bridged by Restaurant Row, the portion of 2nd street that spans from Market Street to Forster Street and is a center for eateries and nightlife.

Downtown [Overview]

State

City

Parking

Green Space

Transportation

Residential

Cultural

Commercial

4.12 Harrisburg Downtown programmatic breakdown(opposite)

4.11 Harrisburg Downtown, aerial photo

100 2000 400

8

9

102

Downtown [Experience]

1

2

3

4

1. Edge of train station and highway overpass

2. Strawberry Square shopping center and bridge

3. Walnut Street, continuation of Commonwealth Ave to train station

4. Walnut Street, from capitol

4.13 Experiential views from within Downtown

103

100 2000 400

1

23

4

104

Site [Specific]

100 2000 400

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

4.14 Site, South of Market District

100 2000 400

Midtown Redevelopment

Industry

State Government

Transit Hub

Uptown Redevelopment

4.15 Signifi cant urban areas along Commonwealth Ave


The South of Market district is an ideal place to examine the relationship between city fabric and government buildings, as it is adjacent to the capitol complex, contains both the city hall complex and the county government complex, and is part of the Central Business District.

The first diagram in the above series shows the capitol complex in relation to the two most prominent civic buildings in the South of Market district: City Hall and the Transportation Center. While the two zones are rather similar in size, the South of Market District has a much greater density of built structures.

As the second diagram indicates, the Transportation Center is located at the terminus of two significant urban corridors: Commonwealth Avenue (N-S) and Market Street (E-W). Currently, Commonwealth Ave becomes very narrow and changes names as it passes from the capitol complex into the southern city, loosely ending in the Transportation Center plaza. Market Street, which is the primary commercial avenue of the business district and is one of several links to the communities across the river, folds underneath the train tracks when it hits the train station site, continuing into Eastern Harrisburg. Market Street also unites the city hall and county government complexes and Market Square, a significant urban space.

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

4.17 Governmental Axes (Commonwealth Avenue and Market Street)

107A City Divided

As the only significant publically-accessible structure south of Market Street, the Transportation Center directs all train and regional/city bus traffic, but feels isolated from the rest of the city due to a skewed orientation from the established city grid and that of the capitol complex (as seen in the third diagram). Perhaps due to this skewed orientation, the Transportation Center is lacking a clear promenade from the transit lines into the city, with the loosely-defined entry sequence ending abruptly at the periphery of the capitol complex or snaking around a series of state-owned buildings.

Because of this, the Transportation Center seems to be the ideal site for examining and reforming the capitol-capital relationship within the South of Market District. It has the potential to become a deliberate gateway into the city, mediating between the established state governmental and redevelopment axis (Commonwealth Ave) and the local governmental axis (Market Street) while remaining a significant civic monument.

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

4.19 Ideal Site


4.21 Elevation differences on site 4.22 Existing site circulation

The Transportation Center exists on a triangular site which also includes a church and a few low-rise commercial buildings. It includes a train station and bus station (non-local buses) within the main building, as well as taxi and local bus pick-up along the main drive. Several changes in elevation around the site make circulation difficult and confusing, the most significant being a 156 increase in elevation between ground level and entry level into the train station lobby. Due to this shift, a raised drive folds up from Commonwealth Ave to provide access to the train station and shelter parking underneath. This existing plaza is intended primarily for cars and buses, and pedestrian activity is kept to a minimum. The drive is one-way, except for buses, which makes the area difficult to navigate.

The current train and bus stations are severely lacking in public amenities, with inadequately sized and maintained waiting areas and a convenience store on the train station level serving as the only eatery. However, the station building itself and accompanying train shed are listed with the National Register of Historic places (due to a rare Fink roof truss), and cannot be easily renovated or redesigned.

Bus routes

Car and Taxi

Train tracks

1-way (except

for buses)

4.20 Transportation Center approach

0

+56

+156

0

0

-2

+18

109A City Divided

4.23 Station building

4.26 Raised drive above parking

4.24 Train sheds 4.25 Fink roof truss


The interior of the train station, accessed from 156 feet above ground level, was remodeled in 1986 by Karn Charuhas Chapman & Twohey to match the original 1887 interiors. These include a large lobby, with a free-standing wood paneled ticket booth, original fireplaces, and large wooden doors opening into a corridor that transitions into the long waiting area. The waiting area, which provides benchs and several sets of stairs leading directly to the tracks, is located in a bar perpendicular to the main station building. (The drawing set in the appendix provides further details.)

4.27 Train station lobby and ticket booth

4.28 Entry into waiting area 4.29 Original fi replace in lobby

4.30 Train station waiting room 4.31 Waiting room seating

111A City Divided

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

4.35 Market Street

4.33 Bus parking 4.34 Disconnect from plaza

4.32 Bus station at end of building

115

The chosen site has the potential to be designed as a true gateway into both the city of Harrisburg and the capitol complex, While the transportation center serves as an equalizer or balance point between capitol and capital, the current sequences of exit tend to lead directly to the periphery of the capitol complex or around a series of state building, causing the state to dominant entry into the city.

In order to allow the transportation center to truly function as an equalizer between capitol and capital, there must be a strong representation of the city within that initial exit sequence from the transportation center. An insertion of an overtly city-centered program would cause a shift in the current gateway dynamics and could allow for a detailed analysis through design of the capitol-capital, government-citizen relationships that are unique to capital cities. This would require a careful balancing act between the interests of each party and their roles in shaping the observers first impressions of the city.

The following spread illustrates the traditional role of the train station/train shed in establishing an entry sequence into the city. In Harrisburg, the role of train shed as orienting device is severely underdeveloped, due in large part to the removal of the station entry plane from ground level and the separation of the train station from the urban fabric.

A Joint Mission 5There is, in all probability, no building or building complex that can be considered public in as many different senses as a capitol...Ironically, many capitals may well fail to be public in the most important way of all, that is, by being under public control. 38


Role of the train station as LOBBY OF THE CITY

Shed

Station

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

directed, specific views borders grand public space can view hierarchy of

adjoining roads, buildings gateway, grand entry into

city different experience from

bus or plane

Purpose:Elements:

large scale perspective views shapshots postcards vignettes

way of reading the city as a system of many destinations

5.1 Traditional train station role in establishing entry into the city

117A Joint Mission

+ + +

VIGNETTES / STORYBOARD

ORIENTING DEVICE(or compass, map)

Operates as...

emphasizes the dominance of the capitol and its position as the largest scale open space and the most postcard-worthy view [current]

relates elements of the storyboard into an understandarble and navigatable reading of the city [ideal]

Result:


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

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

The Capitol: Acropolis

The Capital: Forum

Currently, the capitol complex is acting as the dominating center within the city, a kind of urban acropolis. The South of Market District has the ability to re-assume the role of city center, not as a dueling acropolis but as its opposite: the forum. As the terminus of both the state governmental axis (Commonwealth Avenue) and the city/county governmental axis (Market Street), the Transportation Center has the opportunity to serve as a support piece for both types of governmental function, as well as rediscovering its status as a key civic node.

In order to facilitate interaction between city and state governmental entities as well as encourage future city development, new office spaces will be inserted in the Transportation Center site for the Harristown Redevelopment Corporation and Harrisburgs GIS Resource Center, as well as informal meeting areas for collaboration between various city organizations. The Transportation Center and these types of governmental support programs (as defined in Fig. 5.3) could operate in tandem to provide a clear, deliberate entry sequence or gateway into Harrisburg, as well as provide the type of small-scale public spaces and amenities that both the transportation center and the city currently lack. This would re-establish the Transportation Center as a functioning civic node, helping to mitigate the dominance of the capitol complex by reducing it to one civic node in a string of many (illustrated on following spread).

5.2 Role of the capitol versus the role of the capital

119A Joint Mission

SF

GovernmentLobby/Reception Area 1,500

Council/Meeting Chamber 7,000

Interdisciplinary working rooms 1,000

Office Suites

Harristown Development Corporatio 8,000

Harrisburg GIS Resource Center 8,000

Archives 10,000

Sub Total 35,500

Support Spaces (15%) 5,325

Circulation (30%) 10,650

Total Government 51,475

CommunityExhibition Area 1,000

Flexible meeting space (s) 2,000

Office Suites (short or long term let) 10,000

Grassroots Organizations

Food/retail 5,000

Sub Total 18,000

Support Spaces (15%) 2,700

Circulation (30%) 5,400

Total Community 26,100

TransportationTicketing 500

Regional Bus Terminal 6,000

Local Bus terminal 4,000

Taxi Stand 150

Sub Total 10,650

Support/Circulation (30%) 3,195

Total Transportation 13,845

Add-on Program

Partially-enclosed public space

Outdoor public space

Short-term living space (hotel/apartment?)

Addition food/retail or commercial

Total Project 91,420

5.3 Proposed program


Node 1:Proposed Federal Court-

Node 2:Capitol Complex

Node 3:Former City Hall Building

1

2

5.4 Intersection of governmental axes and chain of established civic nodes

121A Joint Mission

3

Node 4:State Government Buildings

Node 5:City Government Complex

Node 6:County Government Complex

4

5

6

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

123

Part III

Restoring Identity: A Capital Strategy

125

For the past two years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken an initiative named Greening Americas Capitals, which provides funding to current or proposed urban redevelopment in capital cities which can incorporate innovative green building and infrastructure strategies.40 Five capital cities are selected for project funding each year, with the end goal of aiding in redevelopment of all fifty capital cities. The EPA funds a team of designers to produce schematic designs for each city, which can then be implemented by the city.

This results of this initiative could be very telling, as it is the only current urban redevelopment project that directly targets capital cities as a type. The following five short case studies examine the schematic designs for the cities selected in 2010, the first year of the iniative: Boston, Massachusetts; Hartford, Connecticut; Little Rock, Arkansas; Charleston, West Virginia; and Jefferson City, Missouri. While the EPAs goal is to encourage smart growth strategies within the city as a whole, many of the design proposals focus on areas near or adjacent to the capitol complex, reinforcing the capitol-capital relationship as a still-present urban issue within the capital city. Several of these proposals, although schematic, attempt to resolve urban issues that are present in many capital cities, including Harrisburg.

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

The Ideal Capital? 6


Greening Americas Capitals Matrix

DistrictPlaza Corridor

Boston,

Massachusetts

Hartford,

Connecticut

Charleston,

West Virginia

Jefferson City,

Missouri

Little Rock,

Arkansas

6.1 Matrix comparing improvements to fi ve capital cities

127Introduction

Type

GlobalPop. 617,594

Multi-FunctionPop. 124,775

RegionalPop. 51,400

RegionalPop. 193,524

Mono-FunctionPop. 43,079

often devoir of visitors, windswept, and barren

disconnected from immediate surroundings

must balance between public and private stakeholders

poor physical and visual connections to Faneuil Hall and surrounding city

City hall plaza, a 7-acre brick expanse in the center of downtown Boston, surrounded by federal government buildings and private businesses. It op

thesis book

Documents

capital complex

ma385672contents3the

capital strategypart

state capitol complex

host city

capitol complexs

city fabric

role of identity