Download 1 - DoCoMoMo : New York

DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
1.
IDENTITY OF BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS
current name of building: Chatham Towers
variant or former name:
number and name of street: 170 & 180 Park Row, between Pearl and Worth Streets
town:
New York
zip code: 10038
country: United States
CURRENT OWNER
name: Chatham Towers, Inc.
number and name of street:
196 Park Row
town:
zip code: 10038
New York
telephone: 212.682.7373
212.233.2410/ 2429-doorman
fax:
CONSERVATION PROTECTION
type:
date:
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSERVATION
name:
number and name of street:
2.
town:
zip code:
telephone:
fax:
HISTORY OF BUILDING
original owner: Association for Middle Income Housing, Inc. (AMIC)
commission brief:
In the early 1960s the city of New York had planned a re-development of
Lower Manhattan below Canal Street to create a new Civic Center in the Foley Square area.
Along with new civic buildings, there were three planned to provide middle-income housing in
proximity to City Hall and the new Center. The Association for Middle Income Housing,
representing sponsors the Municipal Credit Union and the New York State Credit Union League,
first created Chatham Green, finished in 1961. For the construction of Chatham Towers, the
second major housing project, 31 slum buildings were razed, the last remaining section of Five
Points, a notorious 19th-century slum. The city acquired the site in late summer of 1961. By late
fall of 1962 all former area residents had been relocated and the area was cleared. Foundation
work began in the spring of 1964.
Kelly & Gruzen, the same design firm for Chatham Green, originally conceived two twenty-five
story apartment buildings with a third building for parking and commercial facilities. Initially
construction was postponed. The architects had to revise the plan with several city agencies to
accommodate the new civic center layout. In addition, to accommodate a projected new exit from
the Brooklyn Bridge along the western boundary of the site, the project had to cede a 24,000
square-foot portion of the original 6 acres acquired for the development. Consequently the parking
garage was eliminated. Instead, parking space for the residents was provided by a two-story
underground garage for 125 cars. Total budget for clearance, relocation, and construction came to
$7,080.000.
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
design brief:
Many streets converge at the site, formerly known as Five Points. So the focal nature of the site
seemed to require a strong vertical, which was established early in the design stage. The structural
system was not firmly established until later; originally it was to be steel and glass. The budget of
$1.50 per cu. ft. (not including air conditioning and garage) allowed for a reinforced concrete
structure, cast in place, with exposed surface. At the time the result was somewhat more expensive
than conventional construction–about $1.00 per sq. ft. more. Advantages of the concrete system,
aside from its strong sculptural and architectural expression, were that the structural system
eliminated beam and column projections within the building and made possible a more flexible
layout.
Two 25-story towers were erected in the peculiar triangular site, with 5 apartments per floor with a
total of 240 cooperative units. The buildings occupy only 15 of the site, with 85 percent of the
land used for the plaza and playground. Peter Samton, of the original design team, described how
originally the two towers faced one another over the plaza. He came up with the idea of shifting
one tower to have them both face south together like two sentinels over lower Manhattan, their
Cyclopean heads hovering over Chinatown when viewed from the north.
building brief:
No information has been discovered relative to the construction process of the building.
names of architectural designers:
Kelly & Gruzen
names of other designers:
George G. Shimamoto, Raymond P. Tuccio, Salvatore
Caltabiano, Jordan Gruzen, Richard Kaplan, Edwin Paul,
Mario Romañach, Melvin Smith, Peter Samton, design team.
M. Paul Friedberg & Associates, landscape architect
names of consulting engineers:
Weingberger, Frieman, Leichtman & Quinn, structural
Herman Scherr, mechanical
names of contractors:
Joseph P. Bliss
CHRONOLOGY
Notify in the dates are exactly known (e) or approximately estimate (a) or (+/-)
conception date: 1960 (e)
commission or competition date:
design period:
preliminary design: 1961 (e)
1961-1963 (e)
official building permission:
duration of site work: start: 1964 (a)
inauguration:
November 14, 1965
completion: 1965(a)
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
PRESENT STATE OF THE BUILDING
current use:
cooperative apartments for middle income residents
current condition:
good
summary of restoration or other works carried out, with dates:
At 170 Park Place:
Iron fences enclose all green spaces around the tower. There is now an iron gate at the ramp leading to the
underground garage. Iron handrails on steps leading from open loggia to the plaza.
At 180 Park Place:
Iron fences enclose all green spaces around the tower. There is now an iron gate at the ramp leading to the
underground garage. Iron handrails on steps leading from open loggia to the plaza. Concrete slab over
garage ramp removed. Cut-out of plaza concrete cheek wall.
Plaza:
In 2000-2001 the plaza level garden underwent redesign and alterations. Additional benches and concrete
planters were installed, along with two wood pergolas at the south (see enclosed photos). Colored glass at
concrete bulkheads removed. Iron gates at entrances installed.
Playground declared unsafe and closed in 1966 after a cave-in of the soil. The space was also
frequented by vagrants and the homeless. Today there is overgrown vegetation in this area and remnants of
a concrete and iron sculptural water fountain.
Garage:
Currently for tenants’ use and commercial operation for commuters. Iron fence installed around all green
areas. Two signs at the entrance installed. Exposed electrical conduit for one lantern atop the garage.
Discoloration and staining of concrete due to exposure to elements (pollution). Routine maintenance
includes waterproofing and patching of reinforced concrete due to water infiltration.
3.
DOCUMENTATION/ARCHIVES
written records, correspondence, etc.:
Gruzen Samton LLP
320 West 13th Street
New York, NY 10014
TEL 212.477.0900
FAX 212.477.1257
E-mail: [email protected]
drawings, photographs, etc.:
see above
other sources, film, video, etc.:
principal publications (chronological order):
“Co-Ops Planned Near Chinatown”, The New York Times, February 15, 1961. pg. 28.
“Plans Cleared for Second Co-Op In Civic Center Area at City Hall”, Charles G. Bennett, The
New York Times, July 7, 1963. pg. 43.
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
“Twin-Tower Co-op Development Rises in a Once-Seamy Section of Lower Manhattan”, The
New York Times, April 12, 1964. pp. R1, 8.
“Gypsum Gets Manhattan Test In The Chatham Towers Project”, Charles Friedman, The New
York Times, January 17, 1965. pp. R1, 7.
“Co-op Equipment Displayed At Chatham Towers Office”, The New York Times, March 7, 1965.
pg. R11
“Chatham Towers (New York City)” Empire State Architect 25 (1965): 27-28.
“Co-op Near City Hall Will Be Dedicated Today”, The New York Times, November 14, 1965.
pg. R12.
“Chatham Towers, New York” Deutsche Bauzeitung 100 (1966): 837-840.
“Tours D’Habitation a New York” Architecture d’Aujourd’ hui 36 (1966): 94-95.
Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In Lower Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966):
132-139.
“Tenant-Owners Helping to Sell Apartments at Chatham Co-op”, The New York Times,
May 15, 1966. pg. R1.
“Two Manhattan Apartment Complexes Given Awards”, The New York Times, May 14, 1967.
pg. R6.
“1967 Bard Awards Announced” Empire State Architect 27 (1967): 6-10.
Goldberger, Paul. Photography by David W. Dunlap. The City Observed: New York, A Guide to
the Architecture of Manhattan. New York: Vintage Books, 1979, ill.
Tauranac, John, Essential New York: A Guide to the History and Architecture of Manhattan’s
Important Buildings, Parks, and Bridges . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979, ill.
Stern, Robert A. M., Thomas Mellins, and David Fishman.New York 1960: Architecture and
Urbanism Between the Second World War and the Bicentennial. New York: Monacelli Press,
1995, ill.
White, Norvall, Elliot Willensky. AIA Guide To New York City New York:
Crown Publishers, 2000, fourth ed., ill.
Kimbro Frutiger. “Chatham Towers: Modernism and the Middle Class” DOCOMOMO/US
Newsletter (Spring 2001): 1 & 9.
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
4.
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
One page only, except for groups of buildings, continuous text.
Completely poured-in-place reinforced concrete with exposed exterior walls form the structural
support for the buildings. A system adapted in lieu of normal column and curtain wall construction
in order to eliminate column projections within rooms– and to impart a strong sculptural and
architectural expression to the project. Instead of conventional face brick, the exposed concrete
exteriors retain the random-plank, wood grained surface of the specially designed forms used in
pouring the concrete. The use of the concrete succeeds, to some extent, in visually linking the
buildings to the limestone and granite buildings of the nearby civic center and at the same time
sets them apart, not only from the typical tenements of Chinatown, but also from the more
mundane red brick of nearby housing projects to the east.
On the two-acre site, each 25-story tower fronts Worth Street at an angle, with a rising curved
driveway ramp connecting the two. Under the ramp is the entrance, also fronting Worth Street, to
the underground garage for 125 vehicles. From the ramp concrete steps descend to the ground
floor which is made up of a northern and southern open loggia which lead to the lobby area. The
lobby level houses two offices units and a community room running on the east-west axis.
The slender tower parti made it possible to have only five apartments per floor. All apartments
are designed with off-foyer layouts, larger than average size rooms, and generous closets space
enclosed by folding doors. With exception of studio units in the center, all living rooms have
corner exposures, and half of these corner apartments have terraces. Mechanical equipment on the
roof is enclosed by a concrete cube with a trapezoidal opening simulating a giant “eye” on the
head of each tower, recalling similar treatments of roof equipment by Le Corbusier in his housing
projects (Unité d’Habitation, Marseilles).
The link between underground and above-ground are shed-roofed concrete bulkheads with colored
multi-light glazing. They bring light into the garage, and at the same time, the colored glass
provides almost the only touch of color to the monochromatic architecture.
In the plaza development, visual considerations were very important to the landscape architects:
the strong pattern of the fish-scale paving, visible from above, or the illusion of the bottomless
created by lining the shallow reflecting pool with black coal. Structural considerations made it
necessary to maintain a differential of only one step. A playground, originally located south of the
plaza, was closed in 1966 because of a cave-in of the soil and declared unsafe.
5.
EVALUATION
Reasons for selection as a building of outstanding universal or local value
1.
technical appraisal
Despite a strict budget usually associated with public housing projects, Kelly & Gruzen gave
the development a high degree of built-in luxury. For their investment, residents got several
firsts in New York City housing. Chatham Towers were the first in the use of entirely
exposed poured-in-place concrete, which gives them that distinct and dynamic look.
The project was also the first gypsum wallboard high rise project in Manhattan for interior
partitions, as opposed to more labor-intensive plaster. In fact, a heated controversy between
wallboard manufacturers and plastering contractors and plasterers’ unions ensued. For the 240
unit towers 800,000 square feet of gypsum were installed, a difference that amounted to
$30,000 in favor of dry-wall construction. Sheets measuring 4 by 8 feet and manufactured by
Allied Chemical Corporation were used for partitions. A double layer of half-inch-thick
gypsum was attached to steel runners at the floor and ceiling of the apartments. For the stair
wells, elevator shafts, air ducts and the like, the wallboard was attached directly to the
concrete surface with an adhesive.
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
Chatham Towers also was the first project in the city to use urethane insulation on its exterior
walls; the closed-cell urethane foam was not previously permitted by the building code.
Another first for Manhattan was the use for an apartment building of a Swedish-designed
window. The problem of noise was particularly studied because of the traffic and circulation
factor in this particular neighborhood. The window has a double thickness of glass with a
Venetian blind between, and the whole unit can be opened for ventilation and pivoted for
cleaning. The unit reduces noise levels and brings protection from the sun in the summer.
Because of its high insulation value, the window prevents heat loss in the winter months.
Consequently, both heating and central air conditioning equipment are reduced.
2.
social appraisal
“Housing has been both a first and a final difficulty for Modernism. Its beginnings in villas
for the wealthy and apartment blocks for the workers took decades to gel into anything that
could be “sold” to the middle classes. Chatham Towers offers an architecturally and socially
informative example of the moment in America when it looked like the sale could finally be
made.”1
Targeted to a more affluent group of residents than those in Chatham Green next door, the
new project was built by the Committee for Middle Income Housing under Title 1, and it
conveyed a sense of luxury and decisively broke with the prevailing institutional look of
subsidized housing. It is the attention to proportion and detail that gives the complex a
humane quality, which served to advance the aim of the developers: “to demonstrate that
decent middle-income urban housing could still be built.”2 At the time the towers were
finished in 1965, “middle income” was a category which included those incomes ranging
from $5,000 to $15,000. The apartments required an equity investment ranging from $3,980
for a studio to $7,280 for two bedrooms to $8,930 for three bedrooms with terrace, and
monthly carrying charges ranging from $105 to $252 to $270 respectively.
Six months after the towers opened, 64 of the 240 apartments were yet to be sold, a situation
that could have put the co-op corporation into a shaky financial condition. A New York Times
article published in May of 1966 reported tenant-owners doubling as salespeople to help sell
the remaining apartments. Volunteering on weekends the residents had sold 50 additional
units and were hoping to have the remaining 14 sold by June.
Among early tenants were an oil company executive, a senior editor for a professional
homebuilding magazine, an attorney, a Wall Street securities analyst, and a television and
electronics engineer.
3.
artistic and aesthetic appraisal
Unquestionably it is the appearance of these two concrete giants rising on the corner site
which makes them stand out; it is their form and texture which makes them so exciting.
Instead of conventional face brick, the exposed concrete exteriors retain the random-plank,
wood grained surface of specially designed forms used in pouring the concrete. At four
corners of each building, two terraced floors alternate with two unterraced ones, producing a
serrated silhouette, in contrast to the sheer vertical lines of the tower themselves, which is
emphasized by the spacing of alternate panels of glass and textured concrete.
Kimbro Frutiger. “Chatham Towers: Modernisn and the Middle Class” DoCoMoMo/US Newletter New
York/Tri-State Spring 2001 p 1
1
2
Frutiger
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
Nothing like them had ever been seen in New York, a pair of towers that seem carved out of
gritty cliffs of concrete wall, making vertical grooves that create light and shadow, solids and
voids. The same effect that is created vertically in microcosm in the walls is created
horizontally in macrocosm in the massing by balconies and the lack of them. This effect is
further extended within the balconies themselves by the solid walls and the voids that are the
open and shadowed places. These great jagged forms, topped by Cyclopean heads at the
rooftops, seemingly hover over Chinatown when seen from the north.
Strong architectural statements as were the towers also drew their share of criticism. Right
away passersby and tenants alike expected the buildings to be painted. When viewed up
close, the entrances are hard to find, because the buildings are set on an awkward site.
Besides possessing successful composition and a bold sculptural presence it has been said that
the buildings turn their backs on everything and everyone, that they are insular, that they
focus on themselves. The fact that it lacked some crucial linkage to the overall neighborhood
made some circles in the city label the towers as just “another housing project.”
4.
canonic status (local, national, international)
The New York State Association of Architects bestowed the tower complex an award of merit
in the residential category at its 1964 convention. After it was completed the towers received
the Bard Award for Excellence in Architecture and Urban Design. The award was given in
1967 by the City Club of New York Albert S. Bard Civic Award Trust Fund “for outstanding
achievement in projects owned, financed or aided by government agencies and built withing
the five boroughs of the City of New York.” The critique by the Award Jury stated, “Kelly
and Gruzen have broken new ground with their housing project, Chatham Towers. Semipublic building in New York City is inherently and traditionally nearly impossible.
“Projectitis” is endemic in our cities. This project is an astounding exception. Kelly and
Gruzen’s rough Expressionist towers, represent a new Romantic reaction from International
style simplicity. The resulting design is strong, rough, but carefully detailed, excellently
executed.”
For Norval White and Elliot Willensky, editors of the AIA Guide to New York City, the
complex immediately joined the ranks of “distinguished housing architecture”, along with the
Dakota, Butterfield House, 131-135 East 66th Street and Williamsburg Houses. Paul
Goldberger, in his book “The City Observed”, said that Chatham Towers, in contrast to its
neighbor, Chatham Green, “has aged well, and even though it could be called heavy-handed
Corbusier, it is well-scaled, comfortable, and visually attractive, qualities which help any
building survive the passage of time.
5.
3
Frutiger
reference value
“With its raw concrete and late Corbusian flourishes at the base and penthouse, the Towers
are often described as Brutalist. However, their monumental geometry seems just as inflected
by Louis Kahn, and their mannered details by the refined late Modernism then being practiced
in Boston (TAC, Benjamin Thompson).’’3
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
6.
VISUAL MATERIAL
List of documents assembled in supplementary dossier
original visual records:
1. Black & white copy of a architectural color rendering by Kelly & Gruzen
(Not released for publication. Source: “Chatham Towers (New York City)” Empire
State Architect 25 (1965): 27-28).
2.
Chatham Towers, looking west
(Not released for publication. Source: “Tours D’Habitation a New York”
Architecture d’Aujourd’ hui 36 (1966): 94-95).
3.
Chatham Towers, interior
(Not released for publication. Source: “Tours D’Habitation a New York
Architecture d’Aujourd’ hui 36 (1966): 94-95).
4.
Chatham Towers, photo-montage
(Not released for publication. Source: “Chatham Towers, New York” Deutsche
Bauzeitung 100 (1966): 837-840).
5.
Chatham Towers, photo-montage
(Not released for publication. Source: “Chatham Towers, New York” Deutsche
Bauzeitung 100 (1966): 837-840).
6. Chatham Towers, site plan and typical floor plan
(Not released for publication. Source: Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In
Lower Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966): 132-139).
7. Chatham Towers, photo-montage
(Not released for publication. Source: Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In Lower
Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966): 132-139).
8.
Chatham Towers, looking southeast from Mott Street, Chinatown
(Not released for publication. Source: Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In Lower
Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966): 132-139).
9.
Chatham Towers, looking southeast from Mott Street, Chinatown
(Not released for publication. Source: Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In
Lower Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966): 132-139).
10. Chatham Towers, looking north
(Not released for publication. Source: Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In
Lower Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966): 132-139).
11. Chatham Towers, bird’s eye view of plaza and playground
(Not released for publication. Source: Ellen Perry. “Middle Income Project In
Lower Manhattan” Progressive Architecture 47 (1966): 132-139).
DO-CO MO-MO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
recent photographs and survey drawings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chatham Towers, looking north. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
Chatham Towers, 170 Park Row, looking west. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
Chatham Towers, 180 Park Row, looking east. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
Chatham Towers, 170 Park Row, looking west. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
Chatham Towers, underground garage entrance on Park Row, looking southeast. Photo by
Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
6. Chatham Towers, 180 Park Row, looking northeast. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro,
2002
7. Chatham Towers, 180 Park Row, looking northeast. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro,
2002
8. Chatham Towers, looking south. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
9. Chatham Towers, 180 Park Row, detail of concrete. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro,
2002
10. Chatham Towers, altered plaza, looking south. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
11. Chatham Towers, altered plaza, looking south. Photo by Hänsel Hernández-Navarro, 2002
RAPPORTEUR Hänsel A. Hernández-Navarro
telephone:
212.678.4466
E-mail:
[email protected]
date: September 25, 2002
fax: