Design Reserach Project
Page 18
Public Contribution in High-Rise Building Design
@ New York City
Rockefeller Center : The City within the City
The Modern Complex
Background
Overall

Every object in the world has a biography of itself. If we study in each biography we will see the common thing that there are normally 3 steps; the start, the story and the end. The issue that nothing can denied or avoid is changing. If we considered Rockefeller as a person who has a life or a success, it is very hard for this man to stay in the level of his own and say “I am enough for this” because he is living in the world of business. There are only 2 choices for him; up or down. Of course, he had to choose to grow.

The first extension of the Center Across 6th Ave. is one of the historic event. It is still under studying and researching by many people whether it is the milestone of the center’s Legacy which already stepped into the modern era of the architecture or it is the wall of shame that destroyed the character of the original complex between the 5th and the 6th Ave.
However, in my opinion, it is the reflection of New York in that particular age that we can see how modern style has dominated New York City skyline. Other people can also say how Mies Van de Rohe’s Seagram Building effects the principle of high-rise design.
The contribution
This building complex has contributed to the city:

1. The outdoor open space – the large set back area that was provided for the public located against the Avenue of the Americas. McGraw-Hill building has a special Water fall garden at the west side of the building.

2. Arts Exhibition – The inside of the building is also a public corridor which can be accessed at a particular time, there are lots of paintings from many famous artist being shown.

However, for these modern complex of Rockefeller, the interesting issue is about the outdoor open space
The complex of Four
These 4 buildings have some sort of connection together by the set back and enclosure elements. They are also relatively aligned together, created a common transitional and realative urban space. It can be sensed as one giant set back plaza. One of the reasons that created the unity to this place is because of the look of the triple twins; Celanese, McGraw-Hill and Exxon.
However, it can not be considered as a success in terms of continuation between the buildings because of the lack of relationship in the plaza design. Eventhough there is a street cut between the buildings, but the designer can always create the tension between all the areas that can tide them together.
I wonder why the complex that has the same building outlook have so different plaza and landscape design in front of their buildings. Each plaza did not have anything that was designed to link with other plaza at all.

1. Start from Time Life, which has a very different look of the building because it was built about 10 years before the other 3, has their own set back plaza style. And it was divided from Exxon building by the up-lifting walk way with a group of big trees.

2. Coming to McGraw-Hill, still it was divided from the Exxon near by because of the up-lifting space in Exxon side and in McGraw-Hill side. Plus, the Exxon has a water feature in the middle, but McGraw-Hill has a sunken plaza. Both design methods did not have anything in relation except the proportion of plan.

3. Between McGraw-Hill and Celanese – It was blocked by the uplifting walk way in McGraw Hill side.

It is such a lack of life and sense of relaxation in the space. I believe that some issues needed to be developed.

1. Natural Elements. Most of the facade that was seen by the visitors was the modern concrete or hardscape. The shrubs and water features were hardly found. There is a water feather but it is not treated naturally. Besides, it was placed in a big pond. It was treated so strong and so minimal. It can not be compared to the Rockefeller Center across the street, which has high-performance and detailing in landscape treatment. The more treatment they did, the closer to the human they have got.

2. Scale - This issue is also involved with the human scale. It is obvious that the outdoor open space in Rockefeller Center was designed more related to the human scale which make people feel comfortable to stay and relax in the space.

3. Context – There is no context to browse or bring people to explore. Rockefeller Center has a promenade and many ways to explore the open space of the center.

4. Climax – one important thing that cannot be missed is the “climax of the space”. For example, Rockefeller Plaza has a rink and Prometheus. This space has to have some icons that represent the power of the whole plaza. Because if they just have the track or the plants related to each other, it will not be enough to create the urban environment space that can bring the people together.

Potential
I believe that if these 4 large plaza set back was designed related to each other in terms of space, plants etc., it can be another one of the great spots of urban New York City. For example, it can be the walk way that links to each other (plan 1) or it can be the sculpture of Myth that represents the same story but placed in the different block. However, it still links wellto each other.
If this plan was proceeded there will be alternative design sketches
1. Subway station (sunken all)
2. Nature Gardens like Central Park
3. Water Features
Whatever the idea is, there is an obvious potential to make it better for this valuable urban space as a part of the legacy of Rockefeller.