Edit this article

Last edited 19 Feb 2024

Main author

Archiblog Architect Website

The Commons: Manhattan

• Header from an article illustrating Cedric Price's entry to the IFCCA Prize Competition for the Design of Cities, 1999

“I think that a clear and beautiful idea becomes politically stronger and stronger with time."
(Mike Nichols, Letter to Cedric Price dated 19 October 1999)

[edit] INTRODUCTION

The first thing is the title — 'The Commons: Manhattan'.

The 'commons' is a term in political economy. It may be defined as:—

"...the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth."
(Wikipedia)

'Manhattan' is an island where the commons is becoming increasingly depleted.

Thus this article is about replenishing the commons in Manhattan. For example:—

(1) Cedric Price's IFPRI project identified a critical need for replenished commons in Midtown Manhattan, namely:—

the four essential things humans need in order to survive — i.e. air, water, food and shelter.
(Cedric Price, after International Food Policy Research Institute) [1]

(2) Cedric Price also focused on air as the most essential resource and proposed a solution, namely:—

'A Lung for Midtown Manhattan'
(Cedric Price, 1999) [2]

(3) Cedric Price concluded:—

"...this was the only way, in a crowded area of Manhattan, that you could guarantee the future use or under-use of a large area of land."
(Cedric Price, 2000, in Re:CP) [3]

Thus the purpose of this article is:—

to take the IFPRI project out of the archive in order to enable others to pick up the argument and propose new testing grounds.

[edit] (1) IFPRI

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) researches the essential things humans need in order to survive, namely:—

air, water, food and shelter - see 'Search IFPRI Web'.

According to Wikipedia:—

"The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is an international agricultural research center founded in 1975 to improve the understanding of national agricultural and food policies to promote the adoption of innovations in agricultural technology. Additionally, IFPRI was meant to shed more light on the role of agricultural and rural development in the broader development pathway of a country. The mission of IFPRI is to provide research-based policy solutions that sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition." Wikipedia

However, as noted above, the IFPRI does not study food in isolation from the other essential things humans need in order to survive.

• World Map showing where IFPRI HQ and offices are located.

The IFPRI Headquarters (green) are located in Washington DC and its 8 offices (yellow) are all located in Africa part of Asia. IFPRI

According to the CCA, the location of the IFPRI project by Cedric Price was "Manhattan New York (City) New York United States". CCA

According to the IFPRI File in the Cedric Price fonds held by the Canadian Centre for Architecture:—

"Material in this file was produced between 1987 and 1988, and between 1999 and 2001, but predominantly in 1999." [1]

• Location of the competition site (red) on the edge of western Manhattan

• Location of Midtown Manhatten (grey)

nb According to Wikipedia:—

"Midtown spans the entire island of Manhattan along an east–west axis, bounded by the East River on its east and the Hudson River to its west." Wikipedia

• Statistics related to the top ten American cities in homeless population and statistics related to hungry families in U.S. cities (document from the IFPRI project records)

Statistics related to U.S. cities whose food-assistance programs turned people away due to insufficient resources and statistics related to the makeup of the homeless population (document from the IFPRI project records)

• Table 1: Statistics on food and shelter sourced by the U.S. Conference of Mayors

The digitized items from the IFPRI file shown in Table 1 are evidence of Cedric Price's interest in replenishing the commons.

Thus the major premise affirms some relation between the critical need for replenished commons and Midtown Manhattan.

[edit] (2) 'A Lung for Midtown Manhattan'

In 1998, the International Foundation of the Canadian Centre for Architecture (IFCCA) Prize, proposed by Phyllis Lambert, was initiated as an ideas competition to re-design a site on the edge of western Manhattan, New York City, New York. Following the call for submission to the competition on 13 November 1998 (Stage 1), Cedric Price Architects submitted a proposal, namely:—

'A Lung for Midtown Manhattan'

On 10 February 1999, Cedric Price Architects were one of the five finalists selected to progress to the final stage. See Appendix 2.

[edit] • Conceptual sketch

Cities have a future dependent on growth and change, together with the quality of their occupancy.
New York City has a particular nature, which is “Pride in the New.” The unique bears no comparison.
New York City is ideally suited to the opportunity of establishing a new quality of the 21st century which must be shared by all its citizens and enjoyed by its visitors. Such quality should be recognized to be beneficial to all. New York City is strong and generous enough to achieve this.
The quality is comprehensive and continuous improvement of its citizens’ health.
Mental, physical and sensory well-being is required.
Such a quality may well constitute the future definition of the 21st-century city.

(Cedric Price, 'A Lung for Midtown Manhattan')

• conceptual sketch incorporating a panoramic view of the site in Western Manhattan, New York, New York

[edit] • Map of Manhattan

The site chosen for the first IFCCA competition is ideal for such a crucial working, living test. The timing is critical—the opportunity is unique and will occur once only. A strategy for cities will be established.
A lung for Midtown is provided
The Hudson River is the primary intake.
The island of Manhattan is recognizable-
The “open-air” quality of the site must be realized.
The present fallow element of the site should be exploited.
Railway lines should remain uncovered and a geotechnical survey be undertaken to determine surface drainage patterns and future land movements.
Redundant high-level tracks should be demolished with immediacy.
Both weeds and planners’ “inedible greenery” should be excluded.
The hard nature of Manhattan’s man-made surfaces should be recognized and maintained.
Fortuitously, the nature of the current land owners is beneficial to the successful execution of this proposal.
This moment in time will not last.

(ib.)

• Map of Manhattan with site for the IFCCA Prize for the Design of Cities competition and other landmarks highlighted

[edit] • Bird's eye perspective

Moving fresh air over the entire site of 100 acres which include:
The area of the Hudson river, approximately 16 acres
The unenclosed open spaces-railways, rail yards, associated railway properties.
Streets and avenues, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.
Structures, including buildings.
Six steel laser transmission towers. These laser beams encompass the entire site at a height of 85 feet from ground level, which will give a rough visual reminder to all, of the former zoning requirements for this area. The laser beams will be obviously affected by the atmospheric conditions-moisture content etc.
Visually, the penumbral interference of the lasers will provide varying definition of the giant, “virtual” volume.
(ib)

• bird's eye perspective sketch of the site looking east from the Hudson River

[edit] • Sketches

Sketch plan of competition site highlighting its position in relation to Grand Central Station, the New School and New York University

• Sketch section illustrating “Rail-caused turbulence.”

• Sketches of project sections.

[edit] • The Hudson Sleeve

A continuous enclosed public promenade fronting the Hudson bank. The Sleeve extends across the entire site, providing a high-level view for the pedestrian at a height of approximately 20 feet above the river bank. The sleeve’s horizontal section acts as a continuous aerofoil, while providing partial shelter to the ground-based pedestrian. Access to and from the Sleeve will be at each end, appropriate to the overall design of the Hudson River Park.
(ib.)

• view of site from south with proposed Hudson Sleeve, laser transmission tower, southern extension to Javits Convention Center and City Sleeve

[edit] • The City Sleeve

This sleeve is initially sited along the east side of 10th Avenue. It enables two-way sheltered pedestrian movement between 31st and 33rd streets. The City Sleeve thresholds occur at the crossing lights. The double-helical spring structure allows the sleeve to adapt to a varied siting and to be re-positioned on an equivalent sidewalk.
(ib.)

• view of the Hudson Sleeve near the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center

[edit] • The Wind Blinkers

The 40-foot-wide wind blinkers, or sails, are sited in the Hudson, standing 70 feet high. The stainless-steel structures are supported on stiff, vertical pivots, responding to the prevailing wind.
(ib.)

• perspective view looking east from the Hudson River

[edit] • The Westyard Building

Two whole floors are to be removed—floors 9 and 10. This will form an opening in the block creating, at high level, a wind gap in the final tall wall to the rail cutting, and facing the Penn III bulk. This in turn will reinforce the effect of the proposed baffle to the new station. Internally, the multi-purpose Westyard Building should provide altered floor plans to reflect the need for studio/workshop/office amalgams. Access through this new gap will be confined to elevators and escape stairs only.
(ib.)

• presentation sketch for modification to the Westyard Building

[edit] • Javits Convention Center South Extension

This assembly and storage building is sited to the south of the existing building. The steel structure contains a system of hydraulically powered adjustable floors. Storage capacity is combined with mobile display facilities. Together with an extension to the north, this enlarged Javits Center recognizes the changing demands for conference and display.
(ib.)

• view of site with proposed structures (laser transmission tower, Hudson Sleeve, Javits Convention Center South Extension and City Sleeve)

• Table 2: Images from the online article illustrating Cedric Price's entry to the IFCCA Prize Competition - see also the header at the top of this article

Learn More

Thus this premise links the solution — i.e. "A Lung" — to the site — i.e. "Midtown Manhattan".

[edit] (3) CONCLUSION

In September 2000, Hans Ulrich Obrist interviewed Cedric Price:—

"You recently worked on a new urban project for New York. Five architects and urbanists were invited to rethink an area of the West Side of Manhattan."
(Hans Ulrich Obrist)

"I wasn't the winner. I'm not surprised, because mine required commitment for a very long time. It was suggesting that this area of the West Side was the last vacant area allowing fresh air to come off the river, and therefore they should do very little with it; the last thing they should do was cover the railway and build over it. But all the other schemes did just that; they built a stadium, a thirty-thousand-seater centre for something - always something unspecified for architects. I would have been delighted to win, but knowing the jury and knowing New York, the short-term advantage took preference over anything else. The jury, Frank Gehry, Philip Johnson, Phyllis Lambert and various other people, awarded the prize to another man [Peter Eisenman] who did the normal, predictable thing."
(Cedric Price)

"Your project for New York is about being fluid, not to be stuck in an identity overkill, the city becoming more and more a museum. Your proposal was more about life than about dead masses of buildings. What role did the river play in your ideas?
(Hans Ulrich Obrist)

"Well, the Hudson River is cleaning up all the time in any case. It's a fresh water river, and therefore I was aware of the vast amount of water running down the Hudson and into the ocean. And the winds are from the south-west and west, so the conditions were ideal without anything. The last thing I wanted to do was to increase the foul static nature of the air by producing more buildings. New York suffers from over-development. They had a recent history of schemes that failed or weren't developed, but they see an advantage in short-terms. This competition is being held every two years, so next year it will be another city. It's about the future of cities, but the key word was the "future" of cities, not the past or the present of cities, and this was the only way, in a crowded area of Manhattan, that you could guarantee the future use or under-use of a large area of land."
(Cedric Price)

Thus this article concludes:—

... that it is time for IFPRI 2. [4]

[edit] Notes

[1] Price, C. (1987-2001) 'IFPRI', Canadian Centre for Architecture. See also IFPRI (2023) 'International Food Policy Research Institute' — use the search bar for further information.

[2] Price, C. (1999) 'A Lung for Midtown Manhattan', Canadian Centre for Architecture.

[3] Price, C., ed. Obrich, H. U. (2003) 'Re:CP', Birkhäuser.

[4] Fellows, N. (2024) 'IFPRI 2', wordpress.com

[edit] References

'International Food Policy Research Institute' (2023) 'Search IFPRI Web', ifpri.org

Canadian Centre for Architecture (2004) 'A Lung for Midtown Manhattan: Cedric Price's entry to the IFCCA Prize Competition for the Design of Cities, 1999'.

Morris, S. (2018) 'Cedric Price's Fun Palace comes to life in a moveable exhibit at Prelude to The Shed', The Architect's Newspaper.

Unattributed (2023) 'Commons', Wikipedia.

Unattributed (2023) 'Hudson Yards', Wikipedia.

Unattributed (2023) 'Midtown Manhatten', Wikipedia.

Vickers, G. ed. (1968) 'Value Systems and Social Process', Tavistock Press - copy in the Internet Archive at archive.org

[edit] Further Reading

Arup (2024) 'Tall buildings: rising to the net zero challenge', arup.com

DLD Conference (2018) 'Space On Demand: Designing The Shed (Elizabeth Diller & Hans Ulrich Obrist) | DLD New York 18', YouTube.

Hardingham, S., ed. (2003) 'Cedric Price Opera', Wiley.

Hardingham, S., ed. (2016) 'Cedric Price Works 1952-2003: A Forward-Minded Retrospective - Projects', pp.844-851, Architectural Association, London and Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal.

Hayward, P. (2015) 'The Aquapelago and the Estuarine City: Reflections on Manhattan', researchgate.net

Muschamp, H. (1999) 'CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Design Fantasies for a strip of the West Side', The New York Times. Also on extremelyprovocative.wordpress.com

Price, C. (1999) 'Message (fax) from Cedric Price addressed to the IFCCA Prize Coordinator (document from the IFPRI project records)', Cedric Price fonds, CCA.

reSITE (2017) 'James Corner on Why Public Spaces Need Creativity and Design', YouTube.

Sypher, F. J. (2015) 'The Schagen Letter', New Amsterdam History Center.

TED (2021) 'A stealthy reimagining of urban public space | Elizabeth Diller', YouTube.

Unattributed (2023) '1626: Purchase of the Island of Mannahatta', History101.nyc.

Zhang, M. (2018) 'The New York City Evolution Animation', YouTube.

Zhang, M. (2021) 'The Privatization of Public Space in Lower Manhattan', myleszhang.org

[edit] Appendix 1 - IFPRI in CP OPERA

• Table 3: IFPRI spread in 'Cedric Price Opera' - nb A request to the Publisher to use these extracts has been emailed to [email protected]

nb This spread includes the letter to Cedric Price from Mike Nichols.

[edit] Appendix 2 - IFCCA Prize Competition

Secondly, on 13 November 1998, the International Foundation of the Canadian Centre for Architecture (IFCCA) put out the call for submission to the Canadian Centre for Architecture (IFCCA) Prize Competition, also known as the CCA Competition for the Design of Cities. The Prize was initiated as an ideas competition to re-design a site on the edge of western Manhattan, New York City, New York.

Learn More

• Axonometric of Manhattan for IFPRI by Cedric Price

• The IFCCA Prize Competion site, West Side. Source: The New York Times

THE FIVE FINALISTS IN THE IFCCA PRIZE COMPETITION

According to CCA:—

"Over 100 proposals from architectural firms around the world were received following the call from submission 13 November 1998 (Stage 1). On 10 February 1999, five finalists were selected to continue to the final stage: Peter Eisenman, Peter Eisenman Architects, New York City; Thom Mayne, Morphosis, Santa Monica, California; Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, UN Studio Van Berkel & Bos, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cedric Price, Cedric Price Architects, London, England; Jesse Reiser and Nanako Umemoto, Reiser + Umemoto RUR Architecture, New York City."

In October 1999, an exhibition of new designs for the redevelopment of the far West Side of mid-Manhattan was held in Vanderbilt Hall, the former waiting room at Grand Central Terminal - see Table 3 below.

• Peter Eisenman

Learn More

• Thom Mayne, Morphosis

Learn More

• UN Studio Van Berkel & Bos

Learn More

• Cedric Price

Learn More

• Reiser & Umemoto

Learn More

• Table 3: Selected images illustrating schemes entered by the finalists

The IFCCA Prize Jury was made up of well known figures in both the architecture and city planning fields, namely:—:

Elizabeth Diller, of the cross-disciplinary studio Diller + Scofidio;
Phyllis Lambert, Founding Director of the CCA;
Frank Gehry, design principal for Frank O. Gehry and Associates, Inc.;
Charles A. Gargano, Chairman and Commissioner of Empire State Development and now U.S. Ambassador to Austria;
Gary Hack, Professor of City and Urban Planning and Dean of the Graduate school of Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania;
Arata Isozaki, Arata Isozaki and Associates;
Philip Johnson, architect;
José Rafael Moneo, architect and Josep Lluis Sert Professor of Architecture, Harvard University Graduate School of Design;
Joseph B. Rose, Chairman of New York City Planning Commission and Director of the Department of City Planning, now partner in Georgetown Group.

The jury awarded the prize to Peter Eisenman's entry.

According to Susan Morris:—

"(Elizabeth) Diller voted for Price’s entry, which proposed leaving the space open with “wind-blinkers” to encourage breezes from the river to waft over Manhattan."

Learn More

[edit] Appendix 3 - Herbert Muschamp's Notebook

On October 18 1999, the New York Times published an article by Herbert Muschamp. It included the following comments:—[+]

"The site for the competition is a 20-block strip of Manhattan that stretches from Eighth Avenue west to the Hudson River and is bound on the south by 30th Street and on the north by 34th. Included in the area is the General Post Office, formally known as the James A. Farley Building, which is scheduled to become the new Pennsylvania Station. Much of the site is occupied by a tangle of transportation infrastructure: train tracks, highway overpasses, tunnel entrances and bus parking.
The choice of these architects was clearly polemic. At a time when New York is stuck in the formulaic belief that the only way to attract people is by creating ersatz versions of the past, the competition’s organizers hoped to stimulate innovative ideas for structuring social space.
Unfortunately Rem Koolhaas, the Dutch architect, chose not to compete. But most of the projects on view display Mr. Koolhaas’s influence, if not in form then in scale. His concept of bigness, advocated in his 1995 book ”S, M, L, XL,” is the ruling principle that enables these architects to justify what are, in essence, megastructures: oversize buildings that contain an urban array of functions. Too, Mr. Koolhaas’s firm, the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, established in 1975, has long advocated the expansion of architecture’s sphere of influence over urban planning.
With the exception of Mr. Price, the finalists share some common traits. All use curves or waves to set the site area off from the surrounding regularity of the Manhattan grid. With varying degrees of looseness, they adopt the megastructural approach: bringing together urban activities within a large, comprehensive architectural framework.
The dense mix of functions — offices, apartments, parks, indoor recreation, sports stadiums, shops — corresponds to what Mr. Koolhaas has called New York’s ”culture of congestion.” But it also holds appeal for developers eager to squeeze the last economic drop out of the city’s limited land.
[...]
Mr. Price, however, has taken a very different route here. Playing a game of one-upmanship, his plan is as mortifying as only an Englishman knows how to be. In the Grand Central exhibition, allegedly avant-garde architects are falling all over themselves trying to show that they can outdo the developers on the developers’ terms, and Mr. Price just strolls casually onto the site as if he were hiking across a moor, takes a few deep breaths and says: ”Oh, no. It would be best if we didn’t build here at all. Instead of building, we ought to be thinking about taking things down.” Another deep breath. ”We’ll call it ‘A Lung for Midtown Manhattan.’ ”
Mr. Price’s ”lung” essentially treats the site as a rectangular nature preserve. Train tracks would remain uncovered. New development would be banned. Over time some existing buildings would be eliminated. The site would be marked with a sparkling covering composed of small glass spheres.
The east and west boundaries would be fitted with tunnel-like structures that Mr. Price calls sleeves. These would be places people could go in any weather to contemplate views of the city and the river. They would also channel air from the river into the heart of the city. A third observation post would be created by excising two floors from an existing building that straddles the tracks.
Mr. Price’s one-upmanship style extends to his mode of presentation. Instead of the glamorous computer renderings used by the other contestants, he offers rough pencil sketches that look as if they could have been dashed off on napkins between sips of claret. Even the term sleeves evokes drop-dead informality: custom tailoring of such exquisite refinement that a jacket turns out looking utterly shapeless."

• Table 4: Extracts from 'CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Design Fantasies for a strip of the West Side' by Herbert Muschamp

Learn More

[edit] Footnote

“If Mannahatta existed today as it did then, it would be a national park – it would be the crowning glory of American national parks."
(Dr. Eric Sanderson, Mannahatta: The Natural History of New York)

Learn More

--Archiblog 06:15, 15 Dec 2023 (BST)