The Connection between High- Rise buildings and

Public Urban Spaces

Case Study: Seagram building

By Azadeh Nikmanesh and Juan Felipe Manrique

1
Table of content

 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………3
,
 Searching the origins…………………………………………………………………………….4

 The Relationship between Grids and Seagram Building…………………………...6

 Plaza Site Characters…………………………………………………………………….……....7

 The plaza and the sense of community…………………………………..…….…………8

 Balance between private interest and public realm……………………….………..10

 The Seagram’s influence………………………………………………………………..……..12

 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………….…..14

 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………….…15

2
Introduction

Certainly the twentieth century was a period of great changes in the world urban
panorama, one of which was the rapid growth of many cities in the American continent.
A phenomenon that could happen, partly due to the advances and economic and
technological progress promoted by the society of the contemporary era.
During this time, the cities became important work centers and source of employment for
many of the people who decided to move in search of better living conditions ( better
transport infrastructure, communications, drinking water, health, better education
possibilities and renumeration for work).
New York was one of the cities with best representing of this phenomenon, an urban
center which quickly saw how it changed its skyline from small residential and institutional
buildings. It is hosted few people to one with large skyscrapers that represents the great
economic power of the cities in the U.S. (Ballon 2012)
In the same way, the perception of urban public spaces undergoes a radical change in this
period, from being distant places where separated the built from the natural to integrate
and expand within the urban fabric of the city not only with public health interests (fresh air,
lighting, environmental balance, etc.) but also with economic interests that would promote
the investment in real estate. (Ballon 2012)
It is in this context of great changes, so that we have decided to focus our study on the
relationship of High- Rise buildings and Urban Public Spaces. Using as a basis the
example of the Seagram building designed by Mies van der Rohe in 1958. A building that
can not be analyzed within the urban context of New York without first understanding the
singularity of its Plaza.
For this reason, we will propose to analyze the first projects developed by Mies who could
influence the creation of this space, and then understand its relationship with the urban
fabric of the city and especially with the community. Finally, we will study the possible
influences that this project could have in later urban developments not only in New York
but also in other cities of the U.S.

3
Searching the origins
Why is the Seagram building and particularly the Seagram Plaza such a unique work from
the architect Mies Van der Rohe, and where the ideas that inspired him to create this union
of a skyscraper with the landscape of Manhattan in New York City?
Maybe this would be a tough question to answer if we just consider the site in which the
edifice is placed, a location almost in the city center surrounded by high-rise buildings as a
result of the economic growing of a ‘new global prominence’1 after the war, or if we
consider the fact that the most efficient way (economically) to construct a building in the
50s was to take advantage of the entire available area and occupy it with storeys of
concrete, steel and glass destined for dwellings, offices or commerce.
For this reason, it is thought that it would be better going back to Mies’s previous works
and analyse the origins of this kind of relationship between the building and the
surrounding context in this case, gave as a result an important public space for the city: a
new landmark for the New Yorkers.
Ludwig Glaeser affirms: “There is no direct precedent for the configuration of the
Seagram plaza in the work of Mies van der Rohe. As an urban space it is more closely
related to the more intimate enclosed space of Mies’s courthouses than to the urban
spaces which Mies had either proposed or built.” (Lambert 2013, 1)
In fact, if we take a look to the very first Mies’s house project in 1907, the Riehl house2, we
should see an attempt of connection, both visually and physically, from the outdoor
gardens with the inner space of the house in just one compound element that allows the
transition. This form that Bergdoll calls as a “podium” actually bounds house and garden at
the same time. (Bergdoll 2002)
However, the interest of Mies for the relation between the building and the context was
increasing, and it was during his years in America (after having explored the advantages of
the steel and the glass as materials for his projects) when he expressed, talking about the
Farnsworth house3 his sensitive to the site: “We should attempt to bring nature, houses,
and human beings together in a higher unity. If you view nature through the glass walls
of the Farnsworth house, it gains a more profound significance than if viewed from
outside. This way more is asked from nature, because it is become a part of a larger
whole.” (Norberg-Schulz 1958, 615).
In this case the transition element, described before as the ‘podium’, has a notorious
change, this isn’t more linked to the house as a compound element. Mies decided for
having both elements independent, but connected by stairs as an attempt of creating

1
After the II World War, New York City became a very important city, with a fast growing population and
economy that allowed to increase it’s recognition in the world panorama.
2
The Riehl house, was the first work of the architectural career of Mies van der Rohe. “He got the job
recommended by a fellow Bruno Paul study where he worked at the time” (Norberg-Schulz 1958)
3
This project built in 1951 synthesized a lot of Mies’s thoughts in relation with the materiality and the
connection with the context in his architecture.

4
different stages from the ‘garden’4 to the house. Therefore, as it happens with the Riehl
house, he tries to link both elements building and nature under a singular common space
that can allow the continuity of the user’s itineraries.

Image 1- The rielh house

“The interior and exterior of my buildings are one — you can’t divorce them. The outside
takes care of the inside” (Norberg-Schulz 1958, 617). This affirmation of his work could
have its more loyal representation in the Seagram Plaza, in which building and plaza
became a unique precinct for daily social activities. Here we can see the evolution of the
transition space we first described in the Riehl house, into a place where now it’s not
contemplating the silence of the nature, but the chaos of the metropolis. The podium
converted into a plaza evolved in such a way that could became the link between a
permeable ground floor of the high-rise b. uilding and the streets of a dynamic city. Thus
the Mies’s idea remained for the time: “the house unified with the garden, the tall building
and the city both separated and united by the podium, calm and contemplative, distanced
and made sacred, precincts set apart from the cacophony of the streets, inducing
observation of the play of light and transparency”. (Lambert 2013, 6)
The skyscraper itself may can be seen as a singular masterpiece of architecture for offices
in the Manhattan’s center, for the way it was designed and the huge structural and
technological development it was achieved5. But is the union with the ground floor in
which it takes it greatness and where it gives its contribution to the city.

4
The garden is referring actually to the green space area that was in front of the Riehl house.
5
This building in particular was a good opportunity for Mies to use steel, concrete and glass in high-rise
buildings, in this he demonstrated a great technical ability when combining different materials and detailing
them in the construction.

5
The Relationship between Grids and Seagram Building
Grids play an important role in Network’s urban design. “The street grid is a defining
element of Manhattan, the city’s first great civic enterprise, and a vision of brazen
ambition.” (Ballon 2012, 13)

In fact, these gridiron urbanism caused that street walls have been covered with towers.”
The grid is typically seen as standing in opposition to public space because it blanked the
city with development lots, providing few parks and squares.” (Ballon 2012, 14)

Although Mies discern these grids well, he broke the imposing zoning low to make a better
spatial satisfaction without fully constructed mass. Instead of maximizing the building
footprint by extending it to the edges of the lot, Mies had opted for a slender tower set back
from the street on a landscaped plaza.

“By preserving this open space at ground level, the Seagram Building broke with the
dominant typology of the bulky step-back buildings that line Park Avenue in an unbroken
street wall. Its site plan addressed the perception that streets and sidewalks of the 1811
grid had not provided the city with sufficient open space.” (Ballon 2012, 186,187)

“At the time it was designed, there was no comparable open urban space anywhere in the
grid of midtown New York, with the exception of Rockefeller Center mall.” (Franz Schulze
Nov 1, 2012, 239)By designing the plaza, he created new way for designing high-rise
buildings that considered thinking about people and architectural part with an astonishing
priority for him than economical part.

6
Plaza Site Characters
By locating the plaza in front of the tower, Mies characterized the site to a great extent and
reached some valuable advantageous points in the plaza site. It can be taken into account
in three sorts: Seagram Building as an urban mark by better visualization, separation from
the city and activating surrounding area.

The first aspect is that, Mies helped to define not only the site of Seagram Building better,
but also the city to become more legible. “Mies van der Rohe walked along Park Avenue
and realized that one could not see any of its building from the pavement.” (Lambert
2013, 127)

By designing this plaza, he also noticed for creating places to see Seagram buildings in
different perspectives where the orthogonal grids and vertical structure have been
intersected. He also tells that: “When you visit New York, you really need to look at the
marquees to know where you are. You can’t even see the building, only from afar. It’s for
this reason that I set it back.” (Montañés,8) “He settled finally on a lofty rectangular
tower of 3-by-5 bay ratio, to be placed parallel to the street ... its side elevations thirty
feet from the side streets.” (Franz Schulze Nov 1, 2012, 239)

The second result could be seen in plaza in terms of tranquility and a quiet environment
for passing time where people can relief from the city’s density. “The plaza becomes
further detached from the noise and bustle of heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic.”
(Lambert 2013, 128)

As the third point of view, when Mies added the plaza for designing the site plan, he also
noticed surrounding area which was becoming more active than before. It was a productive
idea for urban landscape to add a new space among towers that help city become more
dynamic. “The restaurant and bar which are accommodated in this low wing over-look
plaza and in turn provide it with important element of visible human activity within the
building at plaza level.” (Lambert 2013, 127, 128)

Not only presence of people in the plaza, but also the elements in which were used
emphasize the quality of this space. “By requiring a variety of measures, including street
tree plantings, restricting curb cuts, promoting sidewalk cafes, and requiring ground-

7
floor transparency, we strive to improve the dynamic quality of the city’s street life for
today’s and generations.” (Ballon 2012, 193)

Because of Mies’s realization of urban capacity, the plaza’s site plan has obtained a
substantial role in the urban context.

The plaza and the sense of community

The plaza in front of the Seagram building in New York, was definitely a social experiment
of the impact of an open space in an urban center6. “Raised three steps above the sidewalk
along Park Avenue, the plaza is an oasis of calm, distant from the commotion and
turbulence of the street. The way, in which the plaza has been adopted by New Yorkers
shows the subtle quality of its design as a public space” (CCA 2013). A fact evidenced in
the way the citizens quickly converted it in the ideal gathering place in which they could
have a break from the their stressed and accelerated everydayness, but what was particular
on that plaza that allows those kinds of social interactions and that made it full of people
while most of the other plazas in the city remained empty? (Flowers 2009, 138).
Maybe we can assume that it was because of its proportions, it wasn’t such a big space so
people can interact with other people without getting lost with the immensity of the space,
as it happened with many huge public spaces in the middle of the city. In the Seagram
plaza, eye contacts with others were possible, people could easily perceive everything that
was happening around them. In fact it was like being in a theater balcony watching the
New York’s day-to-day.
Another possibility could be for the furniture and landscape elements that equipped the
plaza, both symmetrical water fountains accompanied by small trees and placed side by
side in front of the skyscraper represented metaphorically the ‘oasis’ for the people that
were walking around, It worked as a climate regulator and also as an attractive element to
see and interact with, capturing the attention of those who stopped to contemplate it for a
moment. These characteristics added to the fact that the edges of the plaza were lifted of
the ground forming a large and continuous bench for the visitors, could make it an ideal
place to seat and ‘pass the time’7.
On the other hand, it is believed that just the only presence of the big steel tower on this
plaza, that didn’t denote any limit between the inside and outside of the building, could
have ensured the constant presence of activity on it, the people who worked in the offices
in the upper floors could easily occupied the totality of the plaza, even more if we consider
the fact that it was a ‘privately owned public space’ of the complex in the ground floor. But
resaults showed another situation, in which most of the visitors of the plaza were not
people who worked at the Seagram but the people that were walking along the street or the
people that worked in other buildings from the surroundings or people just visiting the
city. (Whyte 1988)

6
It was also part of the work of William H. Whyte, who pretended to study the relation between the urban
spaces and the social life.
7
The New York society of the 50s was not exactly a culture dedicated to leisure. The hard work and the little
free time available was a common denominator.

8
 “…It also provided the city
with a small pleasant square
of open space which every
lunch hour in good weather is
crowded with New Yorkers
hungry for a bit of open space
in which to sun themselves”.
(Lynes 1963, 147) Perhaps
another crucial factor for this
success of social activities was
the conscious solar orientation
of the building in such a way
that throughout the year this
public space could receive both
a good dose of sunlight and
shade and with it the influx of
people seeking a bit of comfort
during the changing
temperatures of the seasons
each year.

“This plaza is open without being formidable; the absence of any kind of ornament,
except the tall bronze flagpole...and the fountains and rectangular pools of water on
either side, only emphasizes the quality of the space itself”. (Mumford 1958). All these
possibilities described before could make us think that both the quality of the design and
the location of the plaza are responsible for its success in the social life of the city. But for
being sure of the real effects of this space in the everydayness of New York’s society we
should refer to the study led by William H. Whyte in the “social life of small urban
spaces”8:
“The first thing we discovered was the extraordinary diversity of activities, people
reading, eating, talking and playing games. The sociability was really an important
factor” (Whyte 1988). This was undoubtedly the main characteristic of this place, it wasn’t
just for certain kind of people and for a specific activity. Instead of that, Seagram plaza was
a point where the paths of a great variety of people converged (over 180 at midday), and
where the space was adapted to bring them all together and allowed them to interact as a
single community.
Seagram Plaza had in Whyte’s words, “a sense of genial permissiveness” (Flowers 2009).
The “lovers, the girl’s watchers, the readers, the traveling talkers, the hot dog sellers…”
(Whyte 1988) everyone could be found in this place, the variety of people and activities was
huge, a fact that surely reaffirms what Whyte described as a “hallmark of a great urban

8
William H. Whyte analyzes the success and failures of urban spaces. He observes the behavior of the
people in the public spaces and the relationship with the way they were designed, for later providing a
critique of the way some spaces can be improved.

9
space” (Whyte 1988) A well-known place in the middle of the city that surrounded a small
sample of what was the New York City community9.

Balance between private and public realm

The plaza has a connecting function between city and building. So that, the definitions of
two words (private and public) for it are mostly crucial in one point of view. It was an
example of a new type of urban form inspiring the development of privately owned public
places. Relationship between a building and the city that was unique in New York at the
time of its construction.

For physical arrangement, it has to say that Mies did not completely use specific shapes
and elements to separate plaza from the city for designing the plaza. Otherwise, he used
just some furniture to confine the plaza in the two orientations. “At these north and south
boundaries of the plaza are defined by wide marble benches which also act as protective
elements at the plaza’s edge.” (Lambert 2013, 127)

This separation can be interpreted with three steps (a low podium) to somehow segregate
the plaza from the tower and also other near open spaces.

“Once the viewer turned away from the avenue and faced the Seagram Building itself, he
noted a further close harmony between the tower and its immediate space envelope.
Since 52d and 53d streets sloped downward to the east, Mies elevated the plaza on a low
podium to which frontal access was gained by three steps.” (schulz,239)

“The fact that is set back from 375 Park Avenue some ninety feet not merely makes it
visible but makes it approachable, and the open plaza in front, plus the bored green
rectangles at the sides, gives the same satisfaction that the building itself does.” (Lambert
2013, 127)

Additionally, a transparent entrance was constructed to mix the interior and exterior
together without any opaque surfaces. “The building was raised off the ground with
square columns that looks like an entrance of a Greek Temple. Building had classical
proportions with an axial approach, symmetry and a big entrance that contributed the
monumentality to the building. The entrance hall was a glass box covered with
continuous exterior pavement on the ground, which blurred the difference between
indoor and outdoor spaces.” (Savaskan 1960, 7)
“On the other hand, elevating the Seagram tower above a first-story glazed exterior wall,
Mies united the plaza to the lobby.
This unity is enhanced through continuous travertine paving and a slab marquee which
is, in effect, an exterior extension of the lobby ceiling. The "outside and inside are simply
the same.” (Mumford 1958, 21)

9
New York community is itself a mix between many cultures that has migrated to the United States in the
previous years, unique so there will never be a single way to characterize and simplify it.

10
 “In that way, Mies characteristically relied on the inherent quality of space and detailing
rather than the application of ornament to achieve elegance.” (Landmarks Preservation
Commission, 1989; 6)
The plaza has also been empowered by some elements to conjunct with the city more. “The
Seagram Plaza is provided with effective foreground elements by two groups of
fountains: these help to establish the scale of the space which expands from the street to
the building and also give a moment of relief for people by walking from street to street.”
(Lambert 2013, 128)The glass-enclosed lobby, and a slab marquee and continuous
pavement make a unity between indoor and outdoor spaces.
The Seagram Plaza, in fact, have been caused by the intersection between horizontal high-
rise building and vertical grids. In conclusion, He firstly tried to mix the building to plaza
by using the glass entrance and a continuous pavement, and then the plaza to city by using
slabs and a few stairs. In addition, although this kind of plaza is a privately-owned place, it
is open to city and spaces with extraordinary qualities.

11
The Seagram’s influence
The Seagram Plaza became such an important gathering area and famous place for the
New Yorkers. It was a space worth replicating throughout the city, due to its impact on the
improvement of the quality of people’s life. Now, it seemed that the immense green area of
the Central Park wasn’t enough public space for people needs, it was probably that they
needed something closer to their daily routine, a space to pause and interact with others
without crossing the city and spend a lot of time. It was possibly these motives that led the
city government “In 1961 to enact a major revision of its 1916 Zoning Resolution. Now it
will offer incentives for developers to install ‘privately owned public spaces’ that were
meant to emulate that of the Seagram Building”. (Breiner 1989) . The impact of these
resolution can be seen clearly in the buildings on sixth avenue in New York, where the
buildings (XYZ buildings) set back for providing open spaces in the ground level. (Ballon
2012)
This incentives probably would have represented a ‘greater use’ of the available land in the
city and a big economic benefit for the owners of the buildings that now can develop even
more storeys of offices, dwellings and commerce just with giving some area of public space
in exchange. But unfortunately, the good intentions of the planners quickly fell down when
the economic desire became more important than the well-being of the people.
The reality was that the other ‘privately owned public spaces’ created in the city didn’t
reach the Seagram’s achievement, they were built with the interest of obtaining more
benefits for the building developers (Whyte 1988) so they just adapted the remaining space
without taking care of the design based in the people and social activities, for what they
were meant to be simple empty spaces within the urban fabric of the metropolis.
However, “the work of Mies van der Rohe in general and the Seagram Building in
particular had an extraordinary impact on office-building design during the 1960s”.
(Breiner 1989). And an example of that, could be the Civic Center in Chicago built in 1965
by SOM architects, this building also arranged in front of a public space (Daley Plaza) can
evidence the Mies’s idea of the strong connection between the interior and the exterior
spaces, the transparency of the ground floor provide as well a constant communication
between the public activities carried out and the privacy of the tower’s ground floor. The
plaza is also a success in Chicago society, it has become almost an open-air museum with
continuous exhibitions that brings people together and allows their interaction.
Additionally, we could say that the influence of the building has reached even until more
contemporary times and architecture. That could be the case of the Freedom Tower 10
(2014) and the National September 11 Memorial (2011), both commemorate what
happened with the attacks in New York some time ago. But it is the connection between
them that should call our attention, because now isn’t a small urban space just in front of a
big tower, it’s a big square all the time crowded of people contemplating the memory of
what was the symbol of the economic power of the city.

10
This was a very controversial project and criticized by the community in general, since the first proposals
were known until the presentation of the winning proposal by Daniel Libeskind, which would then be led by
SOM architects for a disagreement with the owner of the land.

12
Furthermore, the public space that should be the anteroom of the tower is so huge that the
presence of the building is relieved to a large sculpture which stands out from the city
landscape. Nevertheless, we could dare to say that Mies’s influence it’s present in this
complex but maybe in a larger scale, in which the ‘garden’ and the ‘house’ are always linked
to each other. In this way we can emphasize the great impact of the Seagram building and
its plaza in the history of architecture, a singular building that really understood the city
and the people’s needs.

13
Conclusion
For knowing Seagram Building, it is highly important that to analyse the plaza
which was shaped among the gridions context. Since this public space was
created, numerous adaption of it can be found, not only in New York, but
also among the worlds. So, this space can be considered as the most
complete articulation of new urban landscape.
“The Seagram building was a critique solution that avoided keeping on
growing the myth of the “skyscapers” as an architectural type: this attitude
involved his enormous accuracy in formal designing, the public, urban use of
void space.” (Canseco 2014, 1)
For achieveing this quality, different elements both in plaza and Seagram
building were used to contribute a dialogue between city and tower. On the
othe hands, “Seagram Building was one of the few new buildingsto breathe
whole new shapes into our lives and creates around itself a feeling of space
and light that it is rare in Manhattan (Flowers 2009, 100)
The outcome of this plaza, has been a unity between highrise building and
city which has never been through the architectural historyof Newyork’ city
in which is caused an inherent space that broke only solidity in high-rise
buidings.

14
References
1989. Landmarks preservation comission.

Ballon, Hilary. 2012. THE GREATEST GRID: The Master Plan of Manhattan 1811-2011. New York:
Columbian University Press.

Bergdoll, Barry. 2002. Mies in Berlin. New York: MOMA.

Breiner, David M. 1989. Seagram Building, Including The Plaza. New York: New York City
Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Canseco, Almonacid. 2014. "Mies Van der Rohe and the Seagram Building: inverting the myth in
Mnahattan."

CCA. 2013. "Seagram Plaza." Canadian Center for Architecture. May 1. Accessed December 20,
2017. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/events/3355/seagram-plaza.

Flowers, Benjamin. 2009. Skyscraper: The Politics and Power of Building New York City in the
Twentieht Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Franz Schulze, Edward Windhorst. Nov 1, 2012. Mies van der Rohe: A Critical Biography. University
of Chicago Press.

Lambert, Phyllis. 2013. "Seagram: Union of Building and Landscape." Places journal. April.
Accessed December 16, 2017. https://doi.org/10.22269/130408.

Lynes, Russell. 1963. "Space No Land Waste; Added Tax on Seagram Building for Providing Square
Assailed." New York Times, May 21: 13-16.

Mumford, Lewis. 1958. "The Lessons of the Master." New Yorker 147.

15
Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 1958. "A Talk with Mies van der Rohe." Baukunst und werkform 11 615-
618.

Savaskan, Dincer. 1960. "Seagram Building: Mediator to Universal Design, Real Estate and
corporate monumentality."

1988. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Directed by William H. Whyte.

Plaza image url http://www.metropolismag.com/wp-content/uploads/data-

import/cb/cba028f073bec3f69323b22a7000b974-seagram.jpg

Civic Center url https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4b/11/ac/4b11aca617dd51b03c41edd0a4739e88.jpg

Freddom tower url https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/one-world-trade-center-

reflecting-pools-susan-candelario.jpg

Riehl house url https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4477393/riehl_20house-thumb.0.jpg

Farnsworth house url https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2017/02/farnsworth-house-movie-news-

architecture-mies-van-der-rohe_credit-flickr-user-david-wilson_dezeen_hero.jpg

16