|

Hello, Columbus
How did a traffic circle on the edge of the country’s most
beloved urban park become an amenity, even a destination?
By Linda McIntyre
Bruce Katz |
There’s a spiffy new place to hang out on New York’s West Side.
Its minimalist but functional design attracts both locals and tourists,
and the people watching is superb.
It’s a traffic circle.
Columbus Circle, on the southwest corner of Central Park, is in
a spot envisaged by the park’s designers, Frederick Law Olmsted
and Calvert Vaux, as a major entryway into the park. From the circle
the Merchant’s Gate into the park is clearly visible. The cool greenery
of the park beckons pedestrians baking on the pavement on a hot
day, and more than 60,000 cars whiz through the rotary every day.
But when Landscape Architecture spent a couple of warm hours
in the circle in early September, it was full of people. And the
people were not necessarily on their way to the park—they were eating
and drinking, reading books, chatting with friends, walking their
dogs, and playing with their children. That the circle was recently
redesigned by the Olin Partnership, known for its designs’ sensitivity
to context, does not make it less surprising that a traffic circle
has siphoned off so much attention from a landmark of landscape
architecture.
Before the traffic patterns at Columbus Circle were changed in
the late 1990s as part of a redevelopment of the area, the intersection,
one of the busiest in Manhattan, was a hazard for both drivers and
pedestrians. Before this change, Columbus Circle wasn’t actually
a circle; it was a set of concrete islands bisected by Broadway
and 8th Avenue, housing a column, standing in a small fountain,
topped with a statue of Christopher Columbus. Architecture critic
Paul Goldberger famously described the circle in 1979 as “a chaotic
jumble of streets that can be crossed in about 50 different ways—all
of them wrong.” When Donald Trump bought the Gulf & Western
Tower on the north side of the circle and reopened it in 1997 as
the Trump International Hotel and Tower, his feng shui consultant
put a shiny globe at the front of the building to deflect the bad
energy from Columbus Circle.
Some of that bad energy probably emanated not from the circle itself,
however unsatisfactory, but rather from the New York Coliseum, the
windowless, rectangular, white-brick convention center that used
to dominate the site. The building was never beloved; soon after
it was completed in the mid-1950s, Art News complained of
its “hybrid pseudomodern” style and “total lack of relation” to
Columbus Circle.
The city rezoned the site in the early 1980s, but plans to replace
the coliseum stalled in the face of community opposition. Later,
in 1989, landscape architect Laurie Olin, FASLA, worked with the
Central Park Conservancy on a study of Columbus Circle and the southwest
entry into the park; the study led the Conservancy to commission
a redesign of the Merchant’s Gate by another landscape architect,
Patricia McCobb, ASLA, but the circle itself remained a mess. Finally,
about a decade later, the administration of then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani
shuttered the coliseum as part of a push to redevelop the area at
a time of economic prosperity and soaring real estate values. Giuliani’s
planning commissioner, Joe Rose, wanted Columbus Circle redone as
well. The segments were cobbled together in a temporary fashion,
the first step toward making Columbus Circle a circle again.
Imagining a Great Civic Space
While redevelopment plans for the neighborhood were taking shape,
the Municipal Art Society (MAS), a nonprofit focused on urban design,
planning, and preservation, held a design competition to capitalize
on what it saw as a unique opportunity. The group, which had followed
the machinations over the coliseum site closely, even filing a lawsuit
to block an early redevelopment proposal, invited six prominent
design teams to submit “visionary proposals” for a new Columbus
Circle. “We felt it should have a special quality, given its historic
character, its position in relation to Central Park, and its status
as a transportation hub both aboveground and belowground,” says
MAS Senior Vice President Frank Sanchis. “It had the potential to
be a truly great public space for the city.”
The design teams, which were given $5,000 each and a little more
than a month to develop their designs, rose to the occasion, producing
a series of ambitious proposals.
- The team of Machado Silvetti, a Boston architecture and urban
design firm, and Philadelphia’s Olin Partnership proposed a European-style
piazza crowned by a tensile circular canopy, composed of rings,
cables, and struts, resting on a series of iconographic supports
marking the subway station, the park gate, and the converging
streets. The center of the circle would have been raised, making
the subway concourse visible and providing the structure for two
amphitheaters. Juror Albert Butzel, chairman of the Hudson River
Park Alliance, called the design a “grand gesture,” and noted
that its boldness could attract a developer. “The central space
is well thought out; it could be a public place of some importance.”
- The design submitted by Rafael Viñoly Architects featured a
dome-shaped trellis holding a series of ramps and elevated walkways
to offer pedestrians spectacular views into Central Park and entry
into the new building on the coliseum site. The Columbus monument
would sit on a pedestal in the center of a reflecting pool. Juror
Henry Cobb, of Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, expressed ambivalence
about the flamboyance of the dome, saying it “unambiguously takes
center stage.” Viñoly said the dome was a way of rationalizing
a space that was “a mess. Instead, you look at the dome, all of
a sudden you are up in space, and you don’t worry about these
other considerations.”
- Landscape architect Dan Kiley proposed a greener solution,
comprising concentric rings of clipped trees expanding out from
the center of the circle. A canal fitted with water jets would
run around the inner circle, providing a relatively quiet and
contemplative space at the center. Cobb said the center of the
circle was “the essence” of this design. “The fountain and the
trees could make it attractive enough for people to want to go
there,” he said. But fellow juror Stanford Anderson, chairman
of the MIT Department of Architecture, was doubtful. “Turning
the center into a quiet space, which at best can operate only
during a small part of the year, may not be successful, or even
appropriate.”
- Kennedy & Violich Architecture proposed making the circle
a transition zone between the park and the transit systems. Bosques
of trees would shelter benches, bus shelters and kiosks would
be built, and space and infrastructure for a market in the center
of the circle would be provided. Glass block would allow for the
exchange of light between the circle aboveground and the subway
station below. The plaza at the park entry would be extended into
the circle, and traffic would be reconfigured into a three-quarter
roundabout. Cobb expressed some disappointment with this design.
“Visually, it can’t be that significant at eye level for people
who are inevitably going to be preoccupied,” he said. “Yet it
is expensive and technically difficult.” “It’s modest, not heroic,”
said designer Sheila Kennedy, “but it has characteristics that
would contribute to a variety of activities.”
- The design by Weiss/Manfredi Architects would have created
an open pedestrian concourse, with a tourist information and ticketing
center, café, gallery, and performance spaces below ground level
at the center of the circle. Shade trees would line the sidewalks
around the circle’s outer perimeter. Juror Brendan Sexton, an
MAS trustee, liked the challenging nature of the design but expressed
doubt about the feasibility of the engineering. But Michael Manfredi
noted that “the city’s transportation department and Con Ed are
continually opening up and excavating streets.... Overcoming the
territorial and jurisdictional barriers between agencies,” he
said, would be more difficult than the engineering.
- The final design, by Michael Sorkin Studio, would have also
opened the center of the circle, covering it with a 12-foot-high
walkable oval glass dome. Ramps on the edge of the circle would
lead down to the subway. The design proposed reopening 59th Street,
west of the circle, through the coliseum site, leading to steps
that enter an extended Riverside Park. Cobb said the design challenged
the city to exhibit “one of the glories of New York, which is
what happens underground.”
Summing up the results of the competition, Cobb said it showed
that Columbus Circle had “the potential to be a great and emblematic
space...not just an embarrassing leftover.” Anderson agreed, saying
the competition convinced him that the circle could be fashioned
into a discrete civic space independent of the buildings around
it. And Sexton wondered what the city could achieve with “a real
design budget and a real schedule,” given what the designers had
done on a shoestring.
Full Circle
At about the same time the design competition was held, a new proposal
to develop the coliseum site got some traction. Time Warner and
the Related Companies paid about $345 million for the site, on which
they built a large mixed-use complex including condominiums, a Mandarin
Oriental hotel, a Whole Foods supermarket and other shops, and a
clutch of expensive restaurants operated by star chefs such as Thomas
Keller and Gray Kunz. The glass-fronted building, designed by David
Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, is curved at its base
to echo the shape of Columbus Circle.
Unfortunately, says Sanchis, the developers took little interest
in most of the ideas arising from the design competition. “We tried
to interest the powers that be—Related Companies, the planning commission—in
looking at the more ambitious ideas from the competition, but it
didn’t work,” says Sanchis. “We were disappointed that the budget
for the circle was so low, when so much was being spent on the building.”
The budget for the circle was about $15 million; infrastructure
upgrades added millions more to the total cost.
One of the designs, however, did strike a chord with city planners—the
relatively simple and green design by Kiley. The city tried to develop
a design with McCobb, but the ensuing tug-of-war among municipal
agencies and neighborhood groups ended in a compromise with which
nobody was happy.
With the construction under way at the Time Warner site and the
clock ticking on the Giuliani era, Rose summoned Olin to New York
in 2001 and asked him to produce a new design before Giuliani left
office. Olin also met with Steve Ross of the Related Companies,
who agreed to kick in a portion of the design and construction fees.
Olin’s history with the site allowed him to move quickly on a new
design. “We already had some good ideas,” he says. “Everyone, including
us, liked the Kiley design from the MAS competition. We wanted good
pavement, good access. Everyone loves water! We had to get the statue
out of that bathtub it had been standing in and use water in a better
way. We wanted to do a skylight. But we had a fairly good idea of
the limitations we were working under.”
The exact parameters of those limitations quickly became apparent,
says Olin. While he was able to produce design documents before
the Giuliani administration left office in January 2002, the process
of approving the design and building the project took considerably
longer. The Metropolitan Transport Authority put the kibosh on the
skylight. The city Department of Transportation refused to allow
unit pavers in the roadway. Disagreements about lighting and paving
slowed work on the project, and the designers were not allowed to
use as many trees as they had wanted to. Underneath the site, two
subway tunnels and a maze of phone and electric wires and sewers
complicated construction. But construction began in July 2003, and
in autumn 2005, a new Columbus Circle made its public appearance.
The Columbus monument remains at the center of the circle, now
framed in views looking west by the two towers of the Time Warner
building. The small fountain on which it had sat was removed, allowing
visitors to study it closely and read the inscriptions at its base.
The steps around the base are a popular place to sit, even on a
hot summer’s day.
Water still provides visual respite, white noise, and relief from
the heat (technically nobody is allowed in the fountains, but small
children and dogs broke the rule with impunity during Landscape
Architecture’s visit). Three new dark granite basins fitted
with fountain jets surround the paved area around the monument.
“We had wanted to do something similar in Bryant Park, but the Parks
Department didn’t allow it,” says Olin. “We liked the idea of crossing
planes of flat water and being in the center of a place. It makes
people feel special; they can look around at other people or look
at the water and feel more alone.” Curved wooden benches, designed
with enough depth to comfortably allow back-to-back seating, follow
the fountain’s edge. In colder months, when the fountains are turned
off, the steps into the basins are accessible to visitors and can
be used as bleacher seating.
The berms formed by the fountains and the planting beds are bisected
by broad pedestrian walkways at 8th Avenue, Broadway, and 59th Street/Central
Park South that provide safe, easy, and clearly marked access to
the circle from the surrounding busy streets. “It’s not a pure rotary;
it has lights,” says Olin. “But it works very well.” Olin credits
Philip Habib, a traffic engineer formerly with the city government
and now in private practice, for his thoughtful reworking of roads
around the circle.
The landscape architects, working with a platoon of city agencies
and engineers, also streamlined the cluttered collection of lights
and signs that had long confused people walking and driving through
the area. There are no streetlights inside the circle; instead,
the lighting showcases the monument, the trees, and the fountain
jets, and lights underneath the benches and along the planting beds
emphasize the strong, simple lines of the design.
Even prior to its official opening in September 2005, people were
flocking in before trees were planted and benches were installed.
The new Columbus Circle, taken out of its context, is an extremely
simple, some might say dull, place. Would Columbus Circle be a better
place if one of the more visionary designs, by Olin or others, had
been built?
“It would not be better; it would be different,” says Olin. “It
would have been nice to be able to add a little more to the design.
But the simplicity is attractive.” A higher concept design, he says,
might not be as inviting.
The MAS’s Sanchis is more wistful. “It’s a pleasant place to be
on a nice day,” he says, but he regrets that the city’s and developer’s
investment in redesigning the circle was not more on a par with
that in the Time Warner building. “It was not designed to be a major
public space in the city. The subway is still disconnected from
street-level activity.” He says that while a design emphasizing
the connection between the above- and below-grade levels at the
site could not be easily done, the challenge was certainly surmountable
with the necessary commitment of time, money, and will.
But this design, at a busy and potentially dangerous intersection
in the heart of a great city, links the historic and pastoral Central
Park with the shiny new Time Warner Center, with its posh restaurants
and mundane but convenient shops. It’s a way to move seamlessly
from one version of New York to another, or to move quickly and
easily between midtown and uptown, or between the east and west
sides of the city. It’s a place to pause and reflect, or to meet
a friend before lunch or a stroll through the park. Such a place
might not be a great work of art, but it’s a gift to people who
walk through that intersection every day, or wander through during
a rare visit to New York. “It’s the sort of urban space that people
don’t need an owner’s manual to use,” says Olin. For most of us,
who vote on such things with our feet, that qualifies as great urban
design.
Project Credits Landscape architecture: Olin Partnership, Philadelphia
(Laurie Olin, FASLA, principal in charge; E. Allan Spulecki, ASLA,
associate, project manager; Matt Chu, Richard Roark, Xiaodi Zheng,
landscape architects; Pi-Chu Li, landscape designer). Client: New
York City Departments of Design and Construction, City Planning,
and Parks and Recreation; Central Park Conservancy. Fountain design:
WET Design, Sun Valley, California. Lighting designers and consultants:
L’Observatoire International, New York. Irrigation consultants:
Lynch & Associates, Beltsville, Maryland. Civil, structural,
transportation engineer of record: Vollmer Associates LLP, New York.
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineer: Cosentini Associates,
New York.
Sidebar:
Opinions about the new Columbus Circle reflect a full spectrum
of views, not only about the circle itself, but about the character
of any great public space.
“A surprisingly generous sanctuary at the heart of a busy traffic
rotary, cocooned inside a wraparound fountain with 99 jets whose
arcs suggest the circle itself and whose changing sound masks the
surrounding hubbub.”
—The New York Times, August 2005
“A pathetic little disc of greenery and granite floating in a soup
of car exhaust. Awkward to approach across four lanes of traffic,
inhospitably exposed and shadeless for decades to come—until its
scrawny young yellow buckeye trees mature—it begs to be ignored
by lunching office workers and neglected by the city’s maintenance
staff.”
—Newsday, August 2005
“Finally, a traffic island worth the effort! This project makes
a real difference; it animates the urban design of that area.”
—ASLA jury, 2006
“It’s a vast improvement over what was there; it just doesn’t live
up to the potential of the space.”
—Frank Sanchis, Municipal Art Society, to Landscape Architecture
“It’s jammed with people. That’s a real plus for the city. It’s
a mecca.”
—New York Construction jury, 2005 (the Columbus Circle reconstruction
won that magazine’s 2005 award for Project of the Year)
“Not an insensitive design, but there’s not much to do there.”
—Fred Kent, Project for Public Spaces, to Landscape Architecture
Subscribe
to LAM!
What's New |
LAND | Annual
Meeting
Product Profiles & Directory
ASLA Online
|
|