8 ms·

Eero Saarinen's Bell Labs, Now Devoid of Life

101 points by andyjohnson0 13y ago

larrydag 13y ago
Was this a direct result of the Alcatel and Lucent merger or did this start long before?
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  The merger happened in 2006, the same year that the building closed and was sold. Wikipedia says [1] that the closure was a result of post-merger R&D restructuring. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Holmdel_Complex#Post_Alcatel-Lucent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Holmdel_Complex#Post_...
brudgers 13y ago
I never cease to be amazed by how humane high modernist architecture often was. All the interior photos in the article are daylit, even the stairwell. I always have to remind myself not to misread such buildings based on all the poor quality knockoffs driven by the speculative development model. Bell Labs is not just another glass box in the burbs because Saarinan was not just another bullshitting architect.
- cal2 13y ago
  I've never considered myself to have a particularly special eye for architecture and design, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of recognizing good design when I see it (subjectively, of course). When I looked at these picture, I made most of the same observations that you made, but I think I made them subconsciously without "appreciating" them to their fullest extent. I went back and looked at the pictures again after reading your comment, and some subtle details in the pictures were much more apparent and pleasing to me. Thanks for helping me realize my daily lesson (i.e., notice and appreciate the small things more often)!
- psuter 13y ago
  As a counter-example, another modernist building by Saarinen is the IBM T.J. Watson Center [1], where "none of the offices have windows". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Cente...
  - brudgers 13y ago
    Here is a more descriptive interior shot: http://docomomo-nytri.org/event/30/ http://docomomo-nytri.org/event/30/ Chris Alexander is the feel good source for software design patterns and architectural design. But in the end there's something to be said for functional design in programming and in architecture.[1] If people sit in their office, they don't talk. Putting common spaces along the glass curtain wall also democratizes access to light. Finally, from a practical standpoint, the first thing people who spent all day in front of a CRT tended to do in a daylit office was draw the blinds and turn down the lights to reduce glare. [1] What makes Alexander useful in architecture is that a great deal of architectural function is related to habitation and architectural patterns double back on themselves in terms of users whereas software design patterns tend to be focused on the programmer's pleasures.
    - robin2 13y ago
      An odd thing about Alexander's work on pattern languages is that, despite people's enthusiasm, Alexander himself considered it to be a failure. There's a chapter in Richard Gabriel's "Patterns of Software" (http://dreamsongs.org/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf http://dreamsongs.org/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf) that has an interesting discussion on this.
      - dmm 13y ago
        Read Alexander's foreword to that book. He considers his earlier work to be a failure. In the sense that design patterns didn't work to allow people to make living buildings. However he seems to be very satisfied with his new Nature of Order series.
      - brudgers 13y ago
- jgon 13y ago
  I sent both the page and this discussion to my architect student sister and this was her reply: "You know, I would love for some people who say “bullshitting architects” to design a building. It’s hard to do. Super hard. You need to think about lighting, space, circulation, code, envelope, foundation, zoning, materials and material restrictions, HVAC and electrical, construction timelines, COST, fire exits, structure just to make ANY building. And you have to think of it all at once. And each of those things has many many possible choices available and every choice you make affects every other choice. And all of those choices contribute to the “design.” Now imagine that you are just a normal human being going to work and you’ve got some shit at home, or you are kind of tired or sick, and then make all the best architectural choices for all of those things. And do it on a timeline and sell it to a client who, more often than not, is just the person who is going to rent out the building, so the entire purpose of the structure is to make money for a client who is therefore, not going to be super into spending a lot of extra $ on design time to make it streamlined, beautiful and functional. I would say 90% of the time it’s not the bullshit that makes a bad building, it’s circumstance that makes your design goals bullshit. But you can’t say that, because it’s your job to deal with all that crap. Which is super hard to do." I told her I loved her comment and was going to post it, and then she sent an additional message (after she had become a bit less annoyed): "I do, to some extent understand the criticism… or at least, I have some personal criticism. Because the thing with architecture is that it is, to some extent, all within the public realm. Everyone HAS to look at it. Most people have to occupy it. The decisions that architects and clients make dictate what takes up space in your world – visual space at the very least, and in some cases those decisions will actually force you to alter your behavior every single day. So I get it, but instead of calling out “design” as the issue, take steps to alter your world in a way that is meaningful. Attend public forums on zoning meetings, learn how to do graffiti and make ugly walls beautiful, buy your own buildings and participate in the design process, plant more flowers, sponsor public art, etc. etc. Some architecture firms have open-forum presentations on their upcoming projects where the public is welcome and criticism and ideas are discussed, but the only people I have ever seen in attendance are other architects (and students) and while they all want our cities to be more functional and visually pleasing they probably have a different perspective than some people (which naturally comes from being in on all of those zoning and permit discussions, and having your livelihood depend on the oft-volatile construction industry.) In conclusion, cool it, dudes. And “be the change..” or something like that." I thought it was fascinating to read what could have basically been a developer complaining about the rigors of developing software for clients or bad managers, but instead it was an someone talking about what goes into building a structure. And it was refreshing to get a bit of outside perspective and break some of that "programmer's myopia" I find myself succumbing to from time to time.
bradleyland 13y ago
What a beautiful example of the international style of architecture. Unfortunately, the internal layout seems rigidly adapted for office use. I'm not sure how they'll adapt a five-story office building to mall use without gutting the place. Maybe they'll do some sort of hybrid and convert the first two floors to a mall layout, knocking out walls and putting up glass storefronts, preserving the top three floors for office space. Fun fact: The architect who designed this building also designed the Gateway Arch in St Louis and the iconic Tulip Chair.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  There's a collection of Wikipedia pages of Saarinen's buildings and structures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eero_Saarinen_structures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eero_Saarinen_structur...
- dionidium 13y ago
  These architectural connections are fun. Another interesting St. Louis one: the guy who designed the World Trade Center towers also designed the most notorious public housing project in the U.S. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
hkmurakami 13y ago
I noticed that the third photo has a couple of people sitting in the hall. Is the photo from back when the building was still inhabited?
jessaustin 13y ago
I'm a fan of Saarinen's work on the Arch, and I know that great things were accomplished in this building, but it seems to me to indulge in the worst excesses of the International Style. Awe is a nice emotion to experience occasionally, but it eventually becomes oppressive. The "stacks" motif here evokes nothing so much as an early 20th-century prison. We don't see any of the actual office space here, but I expect it's entirely the same cramped warrens I've suffered in other buildings of this style. It's not surprising that the merged company decided to sell this building.
jskonhovd 13y ago
There are so many cool building in the States that just get abandoned. I hope they find a anchor tenant and save this place. It reminds me of the Sterick Building in Memphis, not architecturally but I just feel sad to see a beautiful place go to waste.
Pxtl 13y ago
I'll never understand how it makes good economic sense to keep buildings barren. Somebody is paying carrying costs for this thing and extracting zero value.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  Losing money on property is a great way to make money. There are all sorts of tax schemes that let big real estate developers pool and distribute losses to offset taxes in profitable investments. Often times, the exits for forlorn property make a bunch of money for the people speculating on them as well.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    So in other words, the tax code incentivizes destroying great architecture? Fantastic.
    - pavel_lishin 13y ago
      One could argue that tax code incentivizes preserving it.
    - angersock 13y ago
      Just wait until you hear about how patents work!
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      Tax code incentivizes all sorts of bad behavior. Stuff like abandoned urban residential property that destroys neighborhoods, empty office towers in midsize cities, etc.
- bane 13y ago
  One idea, at the scale of large companies, a single building isn't really that big of a deal. Most medium size and even smallish-large companies have empty offices, empty floors and more. I can think of half a dozen companies I've been to in the last few years with whole floors in their buildings that sat unused. At a large scale there's no reason an entire building wouldn't sit idle. It only seems weird because this building has obviously sat this way for a long time. Look at it this way, suppose they decided to lease the space to another tenant - say for 5 years. Market forces could change a year after the lease is signed and they'd suddenly need the building again. But now they don't have the space anymore and need to get yet another building.
tlb 13y ago
I've been there. It was beautifully designed and perfectly suited to its job as headquarters for a telecom monopoly. With everything good and bad that implies. It's sad to see it fall into the hands of suburban mall developers.
- iammaxus 13y ago
  Actually, it wasn't the headquarters of AT&T and not even the headquarters of Bell Labs (a part of AT&T). The headquarters of Bell Labs was at another massive (though less beautiful) complex in Murray Hill, NJ http://newprovidencedailyphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/83_mh_belllabs.jpg http://newprovidencedailyphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/8...
  - stox 13y ago
    I always preferred Murry Hill to Holmdel. I found the architecture more interesting, and the copper roof to provide continuity in the history of the Labs.
- brudgers 13y ago
  The alternative is to knock it down and build something banal. At least the developers are trying to preserve it and preserving this type of building is really really tough. It's not a house, and it wasn't built with hand tools. These buildings are vast. Every $1 per square foot of renovation is a lot of money. It is further complicated because the historic features tend to include long since discontinued manufactured items. Often these components were custom designed because the products were cutting edge, needed in large quantities, and the client's were such as to see the benefit and to afford them [e.g. Pyrex tubes at Wright's Johnson Building and the ceiling tiles in Bunshaft's Cigna Hedquarters]. Finally preservation is tough because these buildings were designed at a time when energy was cheap. Van der Rohe' Segram Building ran all the lights all night for architectural effect. All that glass which allows daylight in also creates a greenhouse. Technology can mitigate some of the effect but until we get a thermostat on the sun, the physics will remain the same. Developers come in all stripes. Any neighborhood or district you love and enjoy was built by one [or more]. Sure, they might be lying scumbags and just paying lip service as a precursor to a Power Center in a sea of asphalt. But probably not. That this developer is trying to preserve the building means that they are valuing history and aesthetics over the bottom line. They may not be successful. They may walk away. But to me, it sounds like they are instead dreaming unreasonable dreams, and that's the fabric of amazing places.
mathattack 13y ago
I recall another telecom building (owned by AT&T, formerly Ameritech, formerly Illinois Bell) that was designed with resale in mind. It was set up for an easy conversion to a mall, in case they had to sell it.
housel 13y ago
I consulted for Bell Labs as my first job out of grad school, and spent a year (1990-1991) working in this building. I always loved the environment, especially the library and dining area in the atrium. Sad to see it all vacant.
chiph 13y ago
The Burroughs-Wellcome building in RTP is another Modernist design under threat of being significantly changed by a new owner. It was featured in the 1980's movie "Brainstorm", starring Natalie Wood and Christopher Walken. http://paulrudolph.blogspot.com/2013/03/burroughs-wellcome-under-threat.html http://paulrudolph.blogspot.com/2013/03/burroughs-wellcome-u...
- allochthon 13y ago
  The building plan is kind of neat, but the carpet has got to be a little sketch by now. Better to go with marble, wood, brick or tile floors for the main thoroughfares.
  - brudgers 13y ago
    If you don't care about achieving a particular set of acoustic properties, that might be a reasonable solution.
- bane 13y ago
  Interesting, I just watched brainstorm and noted how interesting all of the locations were architecturally. There seemed to be a real sense when making the movie that the locations should look futuristic and interesting.
- gibsonf1 13y ago
  I worked for Rudolph in New York and can say without hesitation that he was very passionate about design and human perception of the spaces he designed.
  - brudgers 13y ago
    His Sarasota School works are amazing. Amazing enough that they are the only American "architectural school". The way in which he was able to translate that same understanding of human habitation into massive buildings is a remarkable feat. It hit me when I visited the Massachusetts State Building in Boston - his corduroy concrete's ribs are sized to the human grasp and hit us in our subconscious in a way that makes the scale at which we experience the building change.
eternalban 13y ago
The original: http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luf7d6TKj01qzvxbko1_1280.jpg http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luf7d6TKj01qzvxbko1_1280.j... (Isn't it a shame Larkin is no more?)
- ChickeNES 13y ago
  :( Now there is a building I wish was sitting abandoned, instead of being torn down and the space not used. I put it up there with the destruction of Penn Station and the Chicago Stock Exchange as one of the greatest losses of American architecture.

101 points by andyjohnson0 13y ago

larrydag 13y ago

Was this a direct result of the Alcatel and Lucent merger or did this start long before?

andyjohnson0 13y ago
The merger happened in 2006, the same year that the building closed and was sold. Wikipedia says [1] that the closure was a result of post-merger R&D restructuring. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Holmdel_Complex#Post_Alcatel-Lucent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Holmdel_Complex#Post_...

brudgers 13y ago

I never cease to be amazed by how humane high modernist architecture often was. All the interior photos in the article are daylit, even the stairwell. I always have to remind myself not to misread such buildings based on all the poor quality knockoffs driven by the speculative development model. Bell Labs is not just another glass box in the burbs because Saarinan was not just another bullshitting architect.

cal2 13y ago
I've never considered myself to have a particularly special eye for architecture and design, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of recognizing good design when I see it (subjectively, of course). When I looked at these picture, I made most of the same observations that you made, but I think I made them subconsciously without "appreciating" them to their fullest extent. I went back and looked at the pictures again after reading your comment, and some subtle details in the pictures were much more apparent and pleasing to me. Thanks for helping me realize my daily lesson (i.e., notice and appreciate the small things more often)!
psuter 13y ago
As a counter-example, another modernist building by Saarinen is the IBM T.J. Watson Center [1], where "none of the offices have windows". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Cente...
- brudgers 13y ago
  Here is a more descriptive interior shot: http://docomomo-nytri.org/event/30/ http://docomomo-nytri.org/event/30/ Chris Alexander is the feel good source for software design patterns and architectural design. But in the end there's something to be said for functional design in programming and in architecture.[1] If people sit in their office, they don't talk. Putting common spaces along the glass curtain wall also democratizes access to light. Finally, from a practical standpoint, the first thing people who spent all day in front of a CRT tended to do in a daylit office was draw the blinds and turn down the lights to reduce glare. [1] What makes Alexander useful in architecture is that a great deal of architectural function is related to habitation and architectural patterns double back on themselves in terms of users whereas software design patterns tend to be focused on the programmer's pleasures.
  - robin2 13y ago
    An odd thing about Alexander's work on pattern languages is that, despite people's enthusiasm, Alexander himself considered it to be a failure. There's a chapter in Richard Gabriel's "Patterns of Software" (http://dreamsongs.org/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf http://dreamsongs.org/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf) that has an interesting discussion on this.
    - dmm 13y ago
      Read Alexander's foreword to that book. He considers his earlier work to be a failure. In the sense that design patterns didn't work to allow people to make living buildings. However he seems to be very satisfied with his new Nature of Order series.
    - brudgers 13y ago
jgon 13y ago
I sent both the page and this discussion to my architect student sister and this was her reply: "You know, I would love for some people who say “bullshitting architects” to design a building. It’s hard to do. Super hard. You need to think about lighting, space, circulation, code, envelope, foundation, zoning, materials and material restrictions, HVAC and electrical, construction timelines, COST, fire exits, structure just to make ANY building. And you have to think of it all at once. And each of those things has many many possible choices available and every choice you make affects every other choice. And all of those choices contribute to the “design.” Now imagine that you are just a normal human being going to work and you’ve got some shit at home, or you are kind of tired or sick, and then make all the best architectural choices for all of those things. And do it on a timeline and sell it to a client who, more often than not, is just the person who is going to rent out the building, so the entire purpose of the structure is to make money for a client who is therefore, not going to be super into spending a lot of extra $ on design time to make it streamlined, beautiful and functional. I would say 90% of the time it’s not the bullshit that makes a bad building, it’s circumstance that makes your design goals bullshit. But you can’t say that, because it’s your job to deal with all that crap. Which is super hard to do." I told her I loved her comment and was going to post it, and then she sent an additional message (after she had become a bit less annoyed): "I do, to some extent understand the criticism… or at least, I have some personal criticism. Because the thing with architecture is that it is, to some extent, all within the public realm. Everyone HAS to look at it. Most people have to occupy it. The decisions that architects and clients make dictate what takes up space in your world – visual space at the very least, and in some cases those decisions will actually force you to alter your behavior every single day. So I get it, but instead of calling out “design” as the issue, take steps to alter your world in a way that is meaningful. Attend public forums on zoning meetings, learn how to do graffiti and make ugly walls beautiful, buy your own buildings and participate in the design process, plant more flowers, sponsor public art, etc. etc. Some architecture firms have open-forum presentations on their upcoming projects where the public is welcome and criticism and ideas are discussed, but the only people I have ever seen in attendance are other architects (and students) and while they all want our cities to be more functional and visually pleasing they probably have a different perspective than some people (which naturally comes from being in on all of those zoning and permit discussions, and having your livelihood depend on the oft-volatile construction industry.) In conclusion, cool it, dudes. And “be the change..” or something like that." I thought it was fascinating to read what could have basically been a developer complaining about the rigors of developing software for clients or bad managers, but instead it was an someone talking about what goes into building a structure. And it was refreshing to get a bit of outside perspective and break some of that "programmer's myopia" I find myself succumbing to from time to time.

bradleyland 13y ago

What a beautiful example of the international style of architecture. Unfortunately, the internal layout seems rigidly adapted for office use. I'm not sure how they'll adapt a five-story office building to mall use without gutting the place. Maybe they'll do some sort of hybrid and convert the first two floors to a mall layout, knocking out walls and putting up glass storefronts, preserving the top three floors for office space. Fun fact: The architect who designed this building also designed the Gateway Arch in St Louis and the iconic Tulip Chair.

andyjohnson0 13y ago
There's a collection of Wikipedia pages of Saarinen's buildings and structures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eero_Saarinen_structures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eero_Saarinen_structur...
dionidium 13y ago
These architectural connections are fun. Another interesting St. Louis one: the guy who designed the World Trade Center towers also designed the most notorious public housing project in the U.S. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe

hkmurakami 13y ago

I noticed that the third photo has a couple of people sitting in the hall. Is the photo from back when the building was still inhabited?

jessaustin 13y ago

I'm a fan of Saarinen's work on the Arch, and I know that great things were accomplished in this building, but it seems to me to indulge in the worst excesses of the International Style. Awe is a nice emotion to experience occasionally, but it eventually becomes oppressive. The "stacks" motif here evokes nothing so much as an early 20th-century prison. We don't see any of the actual office space here, but I expect it's entirely the same cramped warrens I've suffered in other buildings of this style. It's not surprising that the merged company decided to sell this building.

jskonhovd 13y ago

There are so many cool building in the States that just get abandoned. I hope they find a anchor tenant and save this place. It reminds me of the Sterick Building in Memphis, not architecturally but I just feel sad to see a beautiful place go to waste.

Pxtl 13y ago

I'll never understand how it makes good economic sense to keep buildings barren. Somebody is paying carrying costs for this thing and extracting zero value.

Spooky23 13y ago
Losing money on property is a great way to make money. There are all sorts of tax schemes that let big real estate developers pool and distribute losses to offset taxes in profitable investments. Often times, the exits for forlorn property make a bunch of money for the people speculating on them as well.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  So in other words, the tax code incentivizes destroying great architecture? Fantastic.
  - pavel_lishin 13y ago
    One could argue that tax code incentivizes preserving it.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Just wait until you hear about how patents work!
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    Tax code incentivizes all sorts of bad behavior. Stuff like abandoned urban residential property that destroys neighborhoods, empty office towers in midsize cities, etc.
bane 13y ago
One idea, at the scale of large companies, a single building isn't really that big of a deal. Most medium size and even smallish-large companies have empty offices, empty floors and more. I can think of half a dozen companies I've been to in the last few years with whole floors in their buildings that sat unused. At a large scale there's no reason an entire building wouldn't sit idle. It only seems weird because this building has obviously sat this way for a long time. Look at it this way, suppose they decided to lease the space to another tenant - say for 5 years. Market forces could change a year after the lease is signed and they'd suddenly need the building again. But now they don't have the space anymore and need to get yet another building.

tlb 13y ago

I've been there. It was beautifully designed and perfectly suited to its job as headquarters for a telecom monopoly. With everything good and bad that implies. It's sad to see it fall into the hands of suburban mall developers.

iammaxus 13y ago
Actually, it wasn't the headquarters of AT&T and not even the headquarters of Bell Labs (a part of AT&T). The headquarters of Bell Labs was at another massive (though less beautiful) complex in Murray Hill, NJ http://newprovidencedailyphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/83_mh_belllabs.jpg http://newprovidencedailyphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/8...
- stox 13y ago
  I always preferred Murry Hill to Holmdel. I found the architecture more interesting, and the copper roof to provide continuity in the history of the Labs.
brudgers 13y ago
The alternative is to knock it down and build something banal. At least the developers are trying to preserve it and preserving this type of building is really really tough. It's not a house, and it wasn't built with hand tools. These buildings are vast. Every $1 per square foot of renovation is a lot of money. It is further complicated because the historic features tend to include long since discontinued manufactured items. Often these components were custom designed because the products were cutting edge, needed in large quantities, and the client's were such as to see the benefit and to afford them [e.g. Pyrex tubes at Wright's Johnson Building and the ceiling tiles in Bunshaft's Cigna Hedquarters]. Finally preservation is tough because these buildings were designed at a time when energy was cheap. Van der Rohe' Segram Building ran all the lights all night for architectural effect. All that glass which allows daylight in also creates a greenhouse. Technology can mitigate some of the effect but until we get a thermostat on the sun, the physics will remain the same. Developers come in all stripes. Any neighborhood or district you love and enjoy was built by one [or more]. Sure, they might be lying scumbags and just paying lip service as a precursor to a Power Center in a sea of asphalt. But probably not. That this developer is trying to preserve the building means that they are valuing history and aesthetics over the bottom line. They may not be successful. They may walk away. But to me, it sounds like they are instead dreaming unreasonable dreams, and that's the fabric of amazing places.

mathattack 13y ago

I recall another telecom building (owned by AT&T, formerly Ameritech, formerly Illinois Bell) that was designed with resale in mind. It was set up for an easy conversion to a mall, in case they had to sell it.

housel 13y ago

I consulted for Bell Labs as my first job out of grad school, and spent a year (1990-1991) working in this building. I always loved the environment, especially the library and dining area in the atrium. Sad to see it all vacant.

chiph 13y ago

The Burroughs-Wellcome building in RTP is another Modernist design under threat of being significantly changed by a new owner. It was featured in the 1980's movie "Brainstorm", starring Natalie Wood and Christopher Walken. http://paulrudolph.blogspot.com/2013/03/burroughs-wellcome-under-threat.html http://paulrudolph.blogspot.com/2013/03/burroughs-wellcome-u...

allochthon 13y ago
The building plan is kind of neat, but the carpet has got to be a little sketch by now. Better to go with marble, wood, brick or tile floors for the main thoroughfares.
- brudgers 13y ago
  If you don't care about achieving a particular set of acoustic properties, that might be a reasonable solution.
bane 13y ago
Interesting, I just watched brainstorm and noted how interesting all of the locations were architecturally. There seemed to be a real sense when making the movie that the locations should look futuristic and interesting.
gibsonf1 13y ago
I worked for Rudolph in New York and can say without hesitation that he was very passionate about design and human perception of the spaces he designed.
- brudgers 13y ago
  His Sarasota School works are amazing. Amazing enough that they are the only American "architectural school". The way in which he was able to translate that same understanding of human habitation into massive buildings is a remarkable feat. It hit me when I visited the Massachusetts State Building in Boston - his corduroy concrete's ribs are sized to the human grasp and hit us in our subconscious in a way that makes the scale at which we experience the building change.

eternalban 13y ago

The original: http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luf7d6TKj01qzvxbko1_1280.jpg http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luf7d6TKj01qzvxbko1_1280.j... (Isn't it a shame Larkin is no more?)

ChickeNES 13y ago
:( Now there is a building I wish was sitting abandoned, instead of being torn down and the space not used. I put it up there with the destruction of Penn Station and the Chicago Stock Exchange as one of the greatest losses of American architecture.