Clearing Out.

In response to the midterm review it has deemed fruitful to think over the commentary that took place from the critics. The main problematic focused in the linking between the final result and its predecessor.

This text aims to regain the linkage between these two phases and while doing that to strengthen the approach on the work of Mies van de Rohe. The main questions that will be answered here concern firstly the choice of the actual site (why the Seagram bldg, why Mies) and then will move forward through an in depth look in basic Miesian elements to (re) discover the linkage that seemed lost.

So why the Seagram’s bldg? What it could possibly have that would interest us so much, as to place it as the ground zero for our scheme?

In late 1999, just before the millennium entered our way, there was a major public vote in New York City. Those days, as in every other big or small settlement people got the millennium frenzy. That meant that everything around them had to be reevaluated in order to be accepted into the completely advanced and new era (or not so). So the frenzy included a mass public participation in all kinds of voting contests that all had in common the millennium reference. In those days everything had the denomination 2000’s or “of the millennium”, as if people in a massive scale were reevaluating their life’s work and surroundings.

Of course, not eluding this mania, in New York City there was a rather extensive competition organized by the New York Times in order to find out what was the millennium’s most important building. The result was rather (or not) surprising. The then 42 year old (now it is 52 years old) building surpassed every other major construction in NYC, and was voted first. What is impressive is that the bldg itself has been overly criticized through the years from almost everyone. Even Rem Koolhaas once stated his disappointment when he first came to the big apple, excited to see it but was left discouraged and strangely disaffected.

Still, even today it remains the most expensive piece of real estate in NYC and one of the ten in the western hemisphere. The name and the figure of the building is one of the most recognizable in the history of modern architecture whilst it has been copied more times than any other. This love to hate structure has defined the skyline of the modern cities more than any other man made element of construction.

In all honesty, no matter how subjective somebody is, there are other impressive projects around us that have existed the past 40 years, many of which were more radical, utopian, even more extravagant, but none had ever proven to be so successful. This success is a key point to understand why we wanted it to be a main figure in our transformation. When the game is changing nobody wants to deal with the losers because it doesn’t really matter. On the other hand, taking down the competition’s head may as well lead to a paradigm shift.



This is not the only reason. Furthermore, in the Seagram, people can witness one the most successful fusions of classic and gothic elements that have ever been erected. On the one hand, the classic elements easily spotted in the absolute symmetry, in the balanced massing, the raised plaza, even the triple division of the tower into the base, the shaft and the crown. In addition to that the same goes for the stable repetition of the columns and the beams. Some critics have also made the linkage with antiquity because of the presence of bronze.

On the other hand, the gothic elements can be traced to the materiality of the selected components, the pink marble, the travertine, the bronze. Even more in the relations of the working elements of the construction, the glass wall (reminding us the great gothic churches), and the steel frames…

Ultimately this means that messing with the Seagram means taking on thousands of years of western architectural taste being balanced between the classical and the gothic tracery.


So that is why the Seagram’s and no other.

In this second part we will have to analyze the Seagram’s in order to show the obvious and the not so obvious traces that link our end result to it.

.the grid

The first obvious thing that we want to discuss is the grid and the way it functions not only in the particular example but in most of Mies work. This is one of the most elemental components that the architect was basing his projects and subsequently, is the key in understanding our transformations later on.

In most of his mature work Mies van de Rohe was using the grid as a key ingredient not only for his programmatic manifestations but also for the final realization of his projects. The grid that was used obeyed most of the times to two rules. The first one was the span of the given structure and the actual length that could be accommodated according to the given materials, technical solutions or even desired effects on the ground (i.e. the Neue Stadtgallerie). The second rule was the configuration of the grid to be fitted into the site, or the necessary portion of the site that was linked to the project.

Those two main parameters, when combined, gave the architect the necessary base for the introduction of the final compositional grid. Based on that particular grid where all the rest steps of the procedure.

The clue here is not only to understand the significance of the above statements but also to trace this procedure into the course of time into Mies work. From the time that the grid was introduced as a design decision maker there has been practically no significant change until the Seagram’s. It didn’t matter if the project was a warehouse, an institution or a summer house; furthermore it made no difference the volume, height or even the placing of the construction.

So as we can see the Seagram’s obeyed the same rules the Farnsworth did. The only addition was the fact that the plan was repeated in height as many times as needed. In essence what we have in hand is an absolute two dimensional grid.

The two dimensional grid, so profoundly praised by Mies, for its ability to create such an agile environment (open plan), is only partly successful. All of the open space created and the consequent “functional mobility” in the operational plan, is heavily constrained in the X, Y plane. Even if we multiply this in the Z axis in order to create the skyscraper formation, then we still keep the design constrained to the same axis. That is the situation that occurs for every bldg Mies has ever made and is more that a floor in height.

The easy way to witness this is by tilting the Miesian high structure on the side and evaluating the result. The tilted construction resembles a completely different ideal than its previous state. Here we have a weird analogy between the height and the width of the floors; some kind of traditional Dutch housing extravaganza.

This exaggeration helps us define the element of our research. When the slab met the two dimensional grid the result is deceiving. The supposedly open space falls victim to the constraints of the plane. That is why we say that the two dimensional grid that Mies operated on is only the bearer of the signal to the road of open and fully functional space. Still in the project plans that were made for most of the constructions we can sense a secluded will to break free. We are mostly referring to the plants and supporting elements that were drawn on them. Many other architects at the time, as they still do today, present the surroundings rather minimally. Mies on the other hand did not. The trees elude in the grid invading it and making them distinctively obvious for the observer in most of his finished plans (take a closer look at the plans for the Farnsworth house, the Toronto bank, the Lake Shore drive, the Bacardi bldg etc.)

In our design the slabs give their place to another grid in order to form a completely three dimensional spatial realm. As arbitrary as it might sound, the element that bounds all of it together is that of the Soil. It is the form in which the grid lives and operates. In order for the grid to fully progress in the three dimensional environment and because antigravity machine remains fictional, materiality is needed. Every grain of sand is in its own relative position a point in a vast extent of gridirons. Furthermore this gets even better when the Soil itself can be continuously re-appropriated, allowing the unending construction and destruction of unending grid patterns.

The Z axis is now free to intermix with the rest of the parameters set by the given functions and demands. The only constraint here is in reality the human imagination and its consequent drives. Paraphrasing Mies we can surely agree with his trademark quote “Less is more”, if only less is all it can actually become.

.the frame

The second element of the upmost importance for the definition of our work is the frame and its use in Mies work. Most of the bldg structures he created in his mature stage were containing a given hierarchy. This given hierarchy firstly placed the grid, then the functions and then concluded with the skin of the enclosed environment.

This skin was used mostly to segregate the interior from the exterior but also to visually connect it. This connection came in the form of transparency of the frame. Starting from the first glass skyscraper that he presented as the future of the urban settlement, right to the end (his last built work the Neue Stadtgallerie in Berlin), the glass (transparency) has always been a key element.



In the same degree what also mattered was the way he was making the frame part of the façade and consequently relating it to the built volume.

The exterior façade always comprised of a multiplication of similar elements masterfully resolved to create a unity. This multiplication is especially obvious in the Seagram bldg and is what constitutes a great deal of its character. He called the frame as a “reflexive architectural ornament” but in real terms we do not see this happening.

One of the rare moments that something like this takes place has been infamously called “the bank joke”.

“…building the Toronto Dominion Bank he had to model specific partitions in order to block his transparent windows, or else everything would become seeable (sic).[…] So he made a display of everything and nothing and vice versa.”

What we have here is a case when instead of making the frame and the façade react to the needs he evades the action. Instead he creates a supplementary move to counteract with his unwanted transparency. The same move has been done in the Seagram bldg when we take a look at the sides of the construction that host the main circulation core.




Transparency here in not needed but instead of giving away the uniformity of the façade system he prefers to enclose an opaque element (in this case the marble) to counter it.
We really are interested in this activity, but we want to take it a step further. As with the grid (passing from a 2d grid to a 3d one) we would like to transform a non reactive façade to one that can really participate into the creation or host the volume it confines.

In order to do so, we also will follow Mies first steps by taking as a façade base a simple element that would create our unity via multiplicity. In our case, this element is the most agile in terms of spatial mobility in the 3 dimensions, the triangle.
By using the triangle we succeed into creating the diagrid. The diagrid is a planar formation that can (depending on the resolution of it) recreate any geometric shape or condition. Following the conditions that we set, this diagrid is going to be created by a light, waterproof material that also has the ability to stretch. This material is called elastic polymer and it has an added benefit to it, it is translucent.

The translucency will give us the lighting conditionality that we want because it would be able to allow light in but obstruct the eyesight. When vision is needed then the material is removed as a whole. In addition to that the structural system we have created to host our surface, is capable of doing that.

In this way the flexibility of the plan and the section is not being followed by the façade.

.the sculptures

Continuing on the analysis of Mies work on Seagram we come into a very interesting point, the sketches. While Mies was working on the bldg, he created a series of sketches in order to think about things that he was interested in.



What is fascinating about his sketches is that he did only 2 documented sketches of the Seagram and the Plaza. On the other hand, there are more than 15 pages of documented sketches that deal with the sculptures that would be hosted on the plaza. That is an indication of the importance that the architect gave to the specific element.

Maybe the elements that act as depots for the surplus soil can be the sculptures of Mies. His ideal of a plaza able to host a vast variety of sculptures will be revised and revived.