Monuments in Iron and Steel

8/13/2019 Monuments in Iron and Steel

1/5

Monuments in iron and steel

"...if you don't want the qualities of the substance you use, you ought to use some other substance."

Ruskin suggested that buildings could be judged as 'right' or 'wrong' and Le Corbusier defines architecture as "the masterly

correct and magnificent play of masses brought together in light". Both failed to explain who defines the 'correctness ' and

why some steel buildings and structures are more memorable than others.

"...if you don't want the qualities of the subs tance you use, you ought to use some other subs tance."

When Ruskin popularised the concept of a morality in architecture, the situation arose that buildings could be judged 'right'

or 'wrong' according to such laws as critics like Ruskin hims elf might be prepared to set down. Those buildings that used

materials appropriately were good and those buildings and products that used materials in im itation of others were not

acceptable.

This passed the abili ty to decide what was good architecture from the general public to the selected few who were

sufficiently educated to establish a proper system of judgement. From this point on who is to determine what is good in

architecture, the public or the expert, becomes a clouded is sue.

When Le Corbus ier pronounced his famous definition of architecture as, "the mas terly, correct and magnificent play of

masses brought together in light", he failed to define who exactly was to determine the correctness of any particular building

or structure. Certain structures and buildings , however, appear to remain in the public consciousnes s long after

contemporary endeavours have become no more than streetscape and of interest only to those who have to use them dai ly.

Whether the 'monum ent' is created because of its cultural and political s ignificance, because of the fame or notoriety of

those who designed or commiss ioned it or because, as Rus kin sugges ts above, the use of the material is such that all

immediately recognise that the form and s tructure are the correct and only resul t of the proper choice and employment of the

material for the purpose, is debatable. However, certain s tructures of iron and s teel, for ins tance the Eiffel Tower and the

Empire State building, have been judged by the public to have some quality that makes them recognisable throughout the

world. If it is pos sible to distinguish the events that have turned these structures of the past into monuments, then it may be

poss ible to look at the present use of steel in architecture and civil engineering and attempt to determine the monuments of

the future.

The steel railway cantilever bridge over the Firth of Forth in Scotland designed by

Benjamin Baker was constructed in the period 1883-1890. Although Baker did not

invent the cantilever bridge truss principle used on the Forth Bridge the s cale of the

bridge and its m emorable image makes it a monument in steel.

Construction of the steel railway cantilever bridge over the Firth of Forth in Scotland

began in 1883 and was finished seven years later in 1890.

Its designer, Benjamin Baker, part of the firm of Fowler and Baker, had attempted to

analyse systematically all the metal bridges , their forms and their loadings , that were in us e for railway traffic. His conclus ion

was that, "for spans above 700 feet (213 metres) the cantilever was the mos t efficient, using the leas t metal in its

superstructure". Baker had not, therefore, invented the cantilever bridge truss and unlike Pritchard, Wilkinson and Derby at

Iron Bridge, he was not the first to build in his chosen m aterial. The first major s teel bridge structure was the 1874 Eads

Bridge over the Miss iss ippi River at St. Louis whose central 510 foot (156 metre) spans were the longest arches in the

world. However, whereas the citizens of St Louis had set out to build a m onument in their new bridge that was to symbolisethat St. Louis was as good as the boom city, Chicago, it is the image of Baker's Forth Bridge that has achieved monumental

character even though it was not the first:

"When completed it staggered the world and it remains an extraordinarily impress ive spectacle - a national symbol for

Scotland and the only great bridge which, in spite of sixty years' (1954) continuous service can still carry trains travelling at

express speeds."

The bridge is constructed of open-hearth steel which was fabricated on s ite to the exact sizes required as the work

proceeded. A large temporary village of workshops and hous ing for the men who were to build the bridge had to be

constructed on the south shore to enable the process to take place. Because this settlement has long since disappeared

the bridge itself has lost one as pect of monumentality, as its s cale relative to the people who constructed it is no longer

readily discernible. Only when close enough to see the individual rivets is the scale returned.


2/5

Apart from scale the Forth Bridge pos sess es an instantly memorable image that is somehow recognisable as essential to

its s tructural performance. The structure begins with simple lattice girders stretching out from the shore and resting on

granite piers. Between these are si tuated the three huge cantilever trusses which in turn are linked by short truss spans .

Each cantilever truss has a central tower element made of steel tubes each 12 feet (3.5 metres) in diameter and each

resting on a separate pier of mas onry. From these central towers the cantilevered arms extend to produce an image that is

immediately anthropomorphically recognisable as three people with extended arms holding hands . The structure can thus

be reduced to an ordinary experience that enhances its mem orability. It is as if Michaelangelo's Adam had firmly grasped the

hand of God in the Sistine Chapel rather than limply touching the offered fore finger.

The continuing recognition of the monumentality of the Forth Bridge can also be linked to the legend of its perpetual

maintenance programme, so that the phrase, "like painting the Forth Bridge" is as recognisable as the image:

"Painting is continuous; the surface area to be painted is 145 acres (59 hectares) and it takes three years to cover. As soon

as the painting is done it is begun again - a deep red without and white within the tubes. In its s ixty years of life surprisingly

little seems to have happened on the bridge: a parrot lived on it for a week at one time..."

This las t comment, the fact that the bridge has remained unaltered represents another characteristic of monumentality, the

ability for the initial idea to remain unchanged, seemingly for ever. Everybody might not like the structure, William Morris

referred to it as the, "supremes t specimen of all ugliness " but once built it becomes hard to imagine the scene without it.

The Eiffel Tower built for the Paris exhibition of 1889 is another monum ent, although in this case of iron construction, which

has been recognised as a national symbol. The tower was seen not only as a symbol of the exhibition but as an express ion

of the desire of the French to recapture the pas t glory of the eighteenth century.

Linked to the idea of a monument possess ing scale, a recognisable and understandable image, and survival, is the fact

that a monument is als o recognised as a national symbol. The Forth Bridge has been referred to as the symbol of Scotland

and, in the same way, the Eiffel Tower is a symbol of France. Built for the Paris exhibition of 1889, the tower was seen not

only as a symbol of the exhibition but as an expression of the desire of the French to recapture the past glory of the

eighteenth century:

"Georges Berger, general manager of the 1889 exposition, expressed this sense of France's desire to recapture its past

glory: 'We will show our sons what their fathers have accomplis hed in the space of a century through progress in

knowledge, love of work and respect for liberty.' Together, science, technology, and politics had, in Berger's view, led society

to new heights. As he put it, 'We will g ive them a view from the summit of the steep slope that has been climbed s ince the

dark ages.' Not only was the Eiffel Tower to be climbed by every Parisian visi tor, as Berger imagined, but to be bui lt it also

had to climb up on itself. It was to be the perfect symbol of the new world view, its lightness of form a contrast to the dark

ages."

The three hundred metre high iron tower that Eiffel designed for Paris therefore

symbolis ed not only the triumph of France over its own economic and military troubles

but the triumph of the new engineering in metaphorically overcoming the force of

gravity. The height of the new structure took those who ascended the tower to a level

above the ground that was virtually comparable with that achieved by the small

aeroplanes of the day. As Gideon commented, "it is the terrestrial s ister of the

aeroplane."

The iron tower is based upon Eiffel's experience of building the lofty iron bridges such

as that over the Douro River in northern Portugal and the Garabit Viaduct. These and

previous structures benefited from Eiffel's interest in wind loadings and detailed

calculations. The Tower derives its s tructure from the pylon supports for the earlier

bridges but at a much greater scale. The four pylons curve up from their separate

bases in three stages to meet at the top at the point where they are about to become

straight. At each stage the pylons are joined horizontally to provide intermediate

platforms . Decorative arches which are not structurally required are used at the first

stage to temper the heavy horizontality of the girders that connect the four pylons

together. Lifts run in the interior of the supports as far as the second platform and from this point they rise within the core of

the structure. When completed it was the highes t man made structure in the world.

The tapering structural form of the Eiffel tower recognises and reflects the importance that the horizontal loadings from the

wind have on tall buildings. Billington suggests that of the world's seven tallest build ings (the Eiffel Tower, the Chrysler


3/5

Building, the Empire State Building, the Standard Oil Building in Chicago, the Hancock Tower, the World Trade Centre and

the Sears Tower in Chicago) only the Eiffel Tower, and the Hancock Tower and Sears Tower, "reflect structural ideas in their

creation of form". However, of all the seven, it is the Empire State Building that stands out as the monument and for many

years epitomised what a sky scraper building should look like.

Both the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building were the tallest buildings at the time when they were built. Although

the stainless steel clad Chrysler Building has a dis tinctive and memorable s ilhouette it has never gained the international

fame achieved by the Empire State Building.

At the time of its building in 1931 the Empire State Building in being the highest structure in the world symbolised the

domination of New York as both a financial and trading centre. Its near neighbour, the Chrysler Building appears to havemissed the status of an international monument.

When built, the Chrysler Building which was designed by Van Alen and completed in

1930 remained the tallest building only until the completion of the Empire State

Building early in 1931. Whereas the Chrysler Building is bui lt using a s teel frame and

also makes use of stainless steel cladding to form a distinctive and memorable

silhouette, the Empire State Building is far less mem orable in its outline despite its

international fame.

Nor was the structural framing of the building particularly revolutionary despite the fact

that the building was the highest. Designed by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon with the

engineer H.G.Balcom, the building has a riveted steel frame with portal bracing. Thebuilding was made of virtually all s tandardised parts that were put together in a very

short time. At the maximum speed of working, fourteen and a half s tories were erected

in ten working days. In response to the city zoning laws the building incorporates two

column setbacks at the s ixth and seventy-second floors, neither of which perhaps add

to the memorability of the building outline. The building's only slight oddity was a mast

for mooring airships at the top which was never used but which has since served as a

transmiss ion tower for radio and television. Indeed, since the building was only finished during the Depression, it remained

mostly empty for a while after it was completed, though it continued to serve sightseers who would take the express lifts to

the viewing platforms at the top of the tower.

The presence of the public viewing platform gives the key to the transformation of the Empire State Building from oddity into

monument. Because people had easy access to the highest building in the world it was only natural that they should

consider i t as belonging to them in the same way that the French thought of the Eiffel Tower as belonging to the French

nation. The public access also gave the public a view of what, perhaps is the memorable image of New York, the skyline of

lower Manhattan:

"But it is not the isolated tower that makes New York's skyline so impress ive; it is the chaotic, jagged, ever-changing, and

preposterously beautiful outline of myriad tall build ings that catches the eye and fires the imagination."

If the Empire State Building was not innovative, it did remain the talles t in the world for

forty two years, "which is a long time for a record in the twentieth century". This and the

public access served to make it a popular monument, combined perhaps wi th the

unforgettable film image of King Kong climbing the tower whilst being s trafed by

insignificantly small aeroplanes.

The Golden Gate Bridge has attained the status of monument not because it is

structurally the most advanced suspension bridge in the world, but because of its

incomparable setting and constant daily use.

The rise to monumentality of the Golden Gate Bridge is sim ilar to that of the Empire

State Building.

Designed by Strauss the Golden Gate Bridge has attained the status of monument no

because i t is s tructurally the mos t advanced sus pension bridge in the world, or even

now the longest (it remained the longest from 1937 when it was completed until 1964

when the Verrazano Narrows sus pension bridge was opened in New York), but

because of its incomparable setting and constant daily use. The Golden Gate Bridge


4/5

never had sufficient deck stiffness and even though remedial work has been

undertaken it still has problems . Despite this, however, the bridge has a fame that

appears to have eluded the present day Humber Bridge which now holds the claim of

the longest single span.

The latter possess es elegance and a setting across the flat estuary of the Humber tha

makes it visible for many mi les but, because of its remote location, the Humber bridge

has failed to make itself an essential element of comm unication and without constant

public use it may not reach the status of a monument.

A monument has certain characteristics that could be summarised as: visuallymemorable, extreme ei ther in size or innovation, access ible and as sim ilable by the

public and appropriate for a national symbol. Having these characteristics in m ind one

could predict which present day structures and buildings may in the future be regarded

as monuments.

If, therefore, a monument has certain characteristics that might be summaris ed as:

visually mem orable, extreme either in size or innovation, access ible and assim ilable

by the public and appropriate for a national symbol, is it possible to predict which

present day structures and bui ldings may in the future be regarded as monuments?

Despite the fact that the Humber Bridge is an elegant steel engineering structure it seems unlikely that it will be viewed as a

monument for the reasons given above and the fact that it looks like so many other modern day suspension bridges. The

likelihood of the Sears Tower in Chicago, at present the highest building in the world, being regarded as a monument maybe better.

It was completed in 1974 and des igned by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill with Fazlur Kahn as structural designer and

engineer. This tower, along with the earlier Hancock Tower of 1970, als o by SOM and Kahn, is innovative in its us e of

structural s teel. The cross -bracing on the exterior of the Hancock Tower creates a rigid exterior structure making the building

ess entially an open tapering tube.

No longer is the interior full of columns as with the Empire State building. The Sears Tower takes this idea further. It is

formed of nine tubes, each structurally complete and each being 75 foot (23 metres) square in plan. The tubes are tied

together but can be truncated independently so that the building can become sm aller towards the top without tapering:

"Two tubes stop at the 50th floor, two more at the 66th floor, and three more at the 90th. The last two go all the way to the

110th floor. In this way each tube retains its integrity and hence its rigidity. Moreover, the building shows a different profile

from each side."

The Sears Tower can, therefore, be likened to a bundle of reeds, tied together, and bending with the wind. Whether this

imagery is strong enough to come through in the actual form of the glass and metal office block is questionable. With this

imagery its claim to be a monument might be as strong as that of the Forth bridge but without it, for all its height and

structural ingenui ty, the Sears Tower remained less of a monument than its sl ightly shorter rival, the ill-fated World Trade

Centre.

Without the external form of the World Trade Centre expressing the structure in the way of the Sears Tower, the image of the

two identical slabs as part of the New York skyline produced a more mem orable image, and hence monumentality, than the

taller building. Of course the events of September 11 2001 created a very different and everlasting memory, and the World

Trade Centre has now become a very different type of monument.

Sir Norman Foster's Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank has all the characteristics of a monument. As such it could be used as

a recipe for those who wis h to build a monum ent in steel it, and as s uch perhaps it has no rival.

It may be that Norman Foster's Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, which is neither the talles t, nor the largest, nor the most

advanced steel s tructure may have better claim to monumental status. It was, nevertheless, the most expensive building in

the world and it was architecturally innovative.

As Foster hims elf said: "So much of the building was untried. Large spans combined with sm all floor-to-floor heights; the

suns coop idea; the combination of lifts and escalators that enabled us to use 23 lifts ins tead of 48...That concept generated

the entire section."

Although clad in alum inium, the steel frame s tructure is visually dis tinctive rising as pairs of towers from which hang the

trusses that support the floors.


5/5

As wi th the Golden Gate Bridge, the building has a setting on the populous waterfront of

Hong Kong that is guaranteed to keep it vis ible to the public. It contains the ingredients

of a monumental steel building in its setting, image and the publicity under which it was

constructed. As a recipe for those who wis h to build a monument in steel it, perhaps,

has no rival.

As Peter Davey summarised: "The Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank is one of the key

buildings of the twentieth century. It displays invention; technical innovation and

architectural ability of a high order."

Documents

Monuments in Iron and Steel