The Ford Foundation Building is a 12 story building (with two subterranean floors) located in the heart of New York city. The design was conceived by Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates in 1964 on a commission by the Ford Foundation for its headquarters. The firm designed the building mainly comprising materials such as glass, controlled rusting steel and pink flecked Canadian Granite. The building was completed in 1967, and received its fair share of appreciation, as well as criticism. The interior design was basically intended to break down the isolation that cubicles offered, and yet maintain individual privacy at the same time. (Currey) The interior was designed in a manner that individual offices could view each other, but the cabins were sound proof. Thus, the design was revolutionary for its own time, and still continues to be.
This essay will seek to discuss various aspects of this building from a design perspective, including its relationship with the client, city and space. Further the essay will also talk about the role of this building design in inspiring other similar works in NY city, as well as draw comparisons to other similar buildings in the city. In addition, the essay will also talk about the urban ideas of different authors with relation to this building, as well as a brief note on the current status of the building.
The design of the building was especially done in a way so as to emphasize community and to blend in with other buildings at that time. The neighboring buildings at that time were the Tudor City and the UN Building. The Ford Foundation building was deliberately designed keeping in mind the unique architectural blend of the City’s landscape at that point in time (1963-64). A park located to the east of the site, and a tall building located to the west was incorporated into the whole design scheme by Roche so that no interruption would be seen in the entire flow of the design pattern, including the schematic of the street and the neighborhood. (Docomomo, 2012)
When Ford Foundation decided to erect itself a new building for its headquarters, they were advised by Henry Heald to house their offices in a building that was of the modern architectural type (like Van der Mies design in Chicago’s Illinois Tech campus). The Foundation gave this task to Roche, who also incidentally happened to be Van der Mies’ student. By Roche’s own admission, the land was able to accommodate a building almost two and half times larger, but the client insisted on sacrificing a sizeable area for a landscaped atrium, as a public gesture to the community and the city. Given the location, no other corporate entity or developer would commit such an act. (LPC, 1997) Thus, the local community also saw the magnanimity of the Foundation’s act, and since then the building’s relationship with the client had itself been underlined as an act of philantrophy towards the city. Thus, the building became synonymous with the client itself, in the view of Roche, who designed the building bearing this factor in mind.
One of the central ideas of Roche while designing this building must have been the integration of nature into modern architecture. The landscaping architect was Dan Kiley. The foundation building became one of the first green buildings of New York City, with plenty of natural light, and abundant green cover that had a refreshing effect. (Currey) The interaction between the green atrium and the building was highly integrated, since Kiley effectively produced a thick forest-like cover in the middle of the city, and thus made a space available for public access at a time when most other New York office buildings were off limits for the general public. The intricacy of the forest got reflected when one viewed the composite pictures of the building with the green cover, as well as when one reviewed the building architecture through different design angles. The impact of this nature in the middle of Manhattan was not realized by people until much later.
The building was ingeniously designed in a way so as to bring a high level of positivity in the space of work. Roche designed the building in such a way that every staff member had a cabin, and could see each other from their respective offices, but the cabins were virtually sound proof, thus striking a perfect balance between acoustical and visual privacy. The work spaces had the three most important design fundamentals namely light, color and form making. (Currey) Thus, Roche stuck a balance between creating a sense of community and restoration of privacy. The other intention of this unique design was a sense of positive reinforcement that would be provided by all the staff members on each other, since essentially everyone could see everyone else working or doing things in their office. The other feature as mentioned above was the presence of the atrium that greatly impacted the work space, and its effect on staff morale.
While most critics were in awe of the building, there were some detractors who did not view this perceived extravagance very favorably. Some of them were of the opinion that the Ford Foundation had spent $17 million (1963 value; present value at $115 million) in vain, since that money could have been put to better use for charitable purposes. Some conservatives like Vincent Scully labeled the building as ‘elitist’ and ‘fascist’ due to the use of modern architecture theme used in the building, and even resorted to personal verbal attacks on Roche for the building’s design. (Woods, 2011) Most of these critics probably felt it was better for a foundation to probably have a more populist outlook in the architecture of the building where it planned to house its headquarters. It should however be noted that a majority of the critics of that time including Ada Huxtable and Zinsser actually defended the Ford Foundation in its decision to construct this building in Manhattan. (Dunlap, 2012)
The Ford Foundation building changed the way New Yorkers viewed architecture. The very fact that the building had a green atrium space (the largest atrium space anywhere at that time) for the public itself made a lasting impression on the community, not to mention other architects. The idea also encouraged John Portman to incorporate the atrium in the Hyatt Hotel design plan. (Woods, 2011) This was then incorporated by many other architects for designing similar spaces both in New York as well as in the US.
If we compare the Ford Foundation design to other spaces in New York, we can get to see the genius of Roche’s design. We first consider the Winter Garden at the World Financial Center at Battery Park City designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli in 1988. The Winter Garden was built as an addition to already existing buildings, which meant that it lacked the harmony and the balance as seen in the Ford Foundation building. Further, the Winter Garden lacked the kind of forest-like appearance of its atrium that was seen in the Ford Foundation building. Secondly, we consider the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square designed by John Portman around 1980s. While the hotel has an award winning rotating restaurant and such other features, we restrict our comparison to the atrium design. The atrium of this hotel functions as a vertical arrangement of floors and hotel rooms, thus cutting off access for people of the community, unlike the Ford Foundation Building. Also, the building design is criticized as being cut off from the streetscape. (Kurutz, 2011) Comparatively, the Ford Foundation building is in fact highly visible, transparent and accessible from the street.
We now proceed to evaluate the relation of urban ideas as viewed by two specific authors namely Lewis Mumford and Rem Koolhaas. Mumford(1937) in his article stated his own idea of urban spaces, where he said that limitations on size, density and area must be considered when designing urban buildings and landscapes. He believed that this increased social interaction of the city with the building as well as ensured maintenance of control and harmony. (p. 95) The Ford Foundation building relates to most of these criteria, since the land was deliberately underutilized in favor of a public space (atrium). The decision to allow the public into the atrium was the factor that increased the building’s interaction with the community.
If we now refer to the urban ideas of Rem Koolhas, we see that his conception of the city space is almost similar to that of Mumford, with exceptions. Koolhaas (1997) refers to the issues of battle of quality with quantity in the urban landscape. Here he is talking about the craze to build larger structures than ever, and the declining role of urbanism and modernism in modern context. Due to the Ford Foundation buildings design is grounded in Modernism, it relates directly Koolhaas’ belief of quality over quantity as well as the need to build smaller, more efficient structures.
In the present day, the Ford Foundation building is viewed as an example of modernism and humanism in architectural design. The current condition of the building is close to its original due to the efforts by the Foundation to keep the whole building intact. The interiors are also quite similar to the past, with much of the interior furniture and lighting still maintained in the same condition. The building management still allows public access to the atrium, which is diligently maintained by the building management.
The current development in this case was the designation of the Ford Foundation building as a Landmark Site by the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of New York. (LPC, 1997) The Commission found that the building had special historical and aesthetic interest due to which the site was being designated in that manner. Further the building is also considered today amongst one of the most unique post World War 2 buildings signifying the Modern Architecture Movement. Recent coverage on the building by the Metropolis magazine, talked about how even present day architects find it extremely difficult to design and implement such a seemingly perfect design. (Currey, 2008)
Thus, the Ford Foundation Building is an example of architecture that was not only far ahead of its times, but also an anomaly on New York’s landscape that continues holding younger architects in awe.
Works Cited
Currey, Mason. “Rediscovered Masterpiece: The Ford Foundation.” Metropolis. Dec 2008. Web. 01 Jul. 2014
Dunlap, David. An Architect returns to his first triumph. The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 Jul. 2014
“Ford Foundation Building.” Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). Neighborhood Preservation Center, 1997. Web. 01 Jul. 2014.
International Committee for the documentation & conservation of buildings, sites & neighborhoods of the modern movement. Ford Foundation Headquarters (Docomomo). EPA Aug 17, 2012. Web. 01 Jul. 2014
Koolhaas, Rem & Mau, Bruce. S, M, L, XL. New York: The Monicelli Press, 1997. Print
Kurutz, Steven. John Portman, Symphonic Architect. The New York Times, 19 Oct, 2011. Web. 02 Jul 2014
Woods, Lebbeus. Rethinking Roche. EPA Feb 27, 2011. Web 02 Jul. 2014
Mumford, Lewis.”What is a City?” Architectural Record, (1937): 92-96. Web. n.d
