The Skyscraper as an Element of Absence

Skyscrapers shaped our contemporary notion of the continent we call America. They started as a pursuit of sky supremacy but moderately acquired more layers of meaning. They were soon seen as not just structures, but as new building typologies, “destined to confront our creative architects with a challenge that is not only worthy of the mettle, but also appropriate to the age in which we live in.”[i] Progressing from the earlier stages of the Chicago frame, the skyscraper came to symbolize the epitome of a new world informed from the past, but at the same time, open to the future. Utilizing space as a tool that could be informed even during their ‘absence’.

If “architecture is the business of manufacturing adequate shelter for human activities”[ii], the skyscraper could be either seen as an ideal implementation of this dogma or the manifestation of its total excess. Thus, an answer cannot emerge from analyzing the dreams and aspirations behind the skyscraper without applying a layer of personal stimuli. The 20th century and Manhattan in particular could be seen as an ideal place in the process of unraveling the essence of the skyscraper. In Manhattan, the skyscraper was not anymore a race for sky supremacy, but rather, according to Roth, a condition of living in a higher proximity from the dust we are made of.[iii] These may sound like similar statements, however Roth’s analysis on the skyscraper could be interpreted as the formation strategy, the collective battle, to overcame each other under the unified place of Manhattan.

Raymond Hood described Manhattan as a place with “no time of consciousness.”[iv] Thus, it could be understood as a fast-moving agency with no time to develop critical skills towards the place we inhabit, as long as, our preliminary needs are fulfilled. Like doing so, the architect of the 20th century had the capacity and the “inner urge to conceive and erect buildings in which real people come and go, creations that will last, that belong not to the world of theoretical backdrop but to that in which real people live.”[v]

At first glance then, the skyscraper came to address the subject of a new urban mass, progressing and evolving in the limited space of the city. It offered a platform upon which, or rather within, dreams were contested and contrasted. However, that transatlantic crossing towards the familiarization with this new building typology, for a majority of people at least, was done through a rather new medium of the time. Photography.

If you think of New York City, the first picture that comes to mind is probably one where the skyscrapers will not be a part of, yet, the absence effect of the structures will be clearly seen. In simpler terms, a night view, as “the building’s nighttime façade is as a rule still more impressive, powerful, and substantial than its daytime appearance.”[vi] That for me holds a greater capacity than the utopic visions of Hood and other architects of the time to use the skyscraper as a unified agency, a new spatial cluster within which a new part of the city would function and evolve.

Photography acted as the blending agency in unifying the commonly understood ununified place of Manhattan. As the medium of hiding the very own structural entities of the city. It came to address “the highly intricate problem of designing a structure to be unified, complete and self-sufficient both by day and - in artificial lighting – at night.”[vii] Thus, a rather natural condition came to hide, or at least disguise, the rather division nature of the skyscraper and synthesize it under our perception of New York City as a unified entity.

New York City and the Skyscraper in particular during the 1920’s, if analyzed from the prism of today, “does not perfectly represent the kind of work for which they were built. On the other hand, they clearly set out to represent something.”[viii] Thus, they should not be conceived as finalized structures both conceptually and technically, as they were setting the agenda within which this building typology will develop and evolve in the future. Now one can deny the contribution of the skyscraper in our contemporary every day and the role it played in forming our present-day notion of the modern city. Personally however, “what is it that one seeks to achieve in putting up a “skyscraper” or a tower building”[ix], is still something that has not been answered.

[i] Siegfried Kracauer, “On Skyscrapers” (1921), “Rollercoaster Ride” (1928), and “Radio Station” (1931), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.326.

[ii] Rem Koolhaas, “The Talents of Raymond Hood,” from Delirious New York: A Retrospective Manifesto for Manhattan (Monacelli Press, 1994 [orig. 1978]), p.162.

[iii] Hugo Häring, “Illuminated Advertisements and Architecture” (1928), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.454.

[iv] Rem Koolhaas, “The Talents of Raymond Hood,” from Delirious New York: A Retrospective Manifesto for Manhattan (Monacelli Press, 1994 [orig. 1978]), p.162.

[v] Siegfried Kracauer, “On Skyscrapers” (1921), “Rollercoaster Ride” (1928), and “Radio Station” (1931), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.326.

[vi] Hugo Häring, “Illuminated Advertisements and Architecture” (1928), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.452.

[vii] Hugo Häring, “Illuminated Advertisements and Architecture” (1928), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.453.

[viii] Siegfried Kracauer, “On Skyscrapers” (1921), “Rollercoaster Ride” (1928), and “Radio Station” (1931), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.542.

[ix] Siegfried Kracauer, “On Skyscrapers” (1921), “Rollercoaster Ride” (1928), and “Radio Station” (1931), from Iain Boyd Whyte and David Frisby, eds., Metropolis Berlin, 1880–1940 (University of California, 2012), p.327.