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 substance you use, you ought to use some other substance." 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 himself might be prepared to set down. Those buildings that used materials appropriately were good and those buildings and products that used materials in imitation of others were not acceptable. This passed the ability 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 issue. When Le Corbusier pronounced his famous definition of architecture as, "the masterly, 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 consciousness long after contemporary endeavours have become no more than streetscape and of interest only to those who have to use them daily. Whether the 'monument' is created because of its cultural and political significance, because of the fame or notoriety of those who designed or commissioned it or because, as Ruskin suggests above, the use of the material is such that all immediately recognise that the form and structure are the correct and only result of the proper choice and employment of the material for the purpose, is debatable. However, certain structures of iron and steel, for instance 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 possible to distinguish the events that have turned these structures of the past into monuments, then it may be possible 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 scale of the bridge and its memorable 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 use for railway traffic. His conclusion was that, "for spans above 700 feet (213 metres) the cantilever was the most efficient, using the least 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 material. The first major steel bridge structure was the 1874 Eads Bridge over the Mississippi 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 monument in their new bridge that was to symbolise that 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 impressive 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 site to the exact sizes required as the work proceeded. A large temporary village of workshops and housing 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 aspect of monumentality, as its scale 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.

Apart from scale the Forth Bridge possesses an instantly memorable image that is somehow recognisable as essential to its structural performance. The structure begins with simple lattice girders stretching out from the shore and resting on granite piers. Between these are situated 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 masonry. 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 memorability. 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 sixty years of life surprisingly little seems to have happened on the bridge: a parrot lived on it for a week at one time..." This last 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, "supremest 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 monument, 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 expression of the desire of the French to recapture the past glory of the eighteenth century. Linked to the idea of a monument possessing scale, a recognisable and understandable image, and survival, is the fact that a monument is also 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 accomplished 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 give them a view from the summit of the steep slope that has been climbed since the dark ages.' Not only was the Eiffel Tower to be climbed by every Parisian visitor, as Berger imagined, but to be built 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 symbolised 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 sister 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 structure 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 highest 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 buildings (the Eiffel Tower, the Chrysler

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 distinctive and memorable silhouette 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 have missed 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 built using a steel frame and also makes use of stainless steel cladding to form a distinctive and memorable silhouette, the Empire State Building is far less memorable 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. The building was made of virtually all standardised parts that were put together in a very short time. At the maximum speed of working, fourteen and a half stories were erected in ten working days. In response to the city zoning laws the building incorporates two column setbacks at the sixth 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 transmission 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 it 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 impressive; it is the chaotic, jagged, ever-changing, and preposterously beautiful outline of myriad tall buildings that catches the eye and fires the imagination." If the Empire State Building was not innovative, it did remain the tallest 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 with the unforgettable film image of King Kong climbing the tower whilst being strafed 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 similar to that of the Empire State Building. Designed by Strauss the Golden Gate Bridge has attained the status of monument not because it is structurally the most advanced suspension 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 suspension bridge was opened in New York), but because of its incomparable setting and constant daily use. The Golden Gate Bridge

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 possesses elegance and a setting across the flat estuary of the Humber that makes it visible for many miles but, because of its remote location, the Humber bridge has failed to make itself an essential element of communication and without constant public use it may not reach the status of a monument. A monument has certain characteristics that could be summarised as: visually memorable, extreme either in size or innovation, accessible and assimilable by the public and appropriate for a national symbol. Having these characteristics in mind 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 summarised as: visually memorable, extreme either in size or innovation, accessible and assimilable by the public and appropriate for a national symbol, is it possible to predict which present day structures and buildings 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 may be better. It was completed in 1974 and designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill with Fazlur Kahn as structural designer and engineer. This tower, along with the earlier Hancock Tower of 1970, also by SOM and Kahn, is innovative in its use of structural steel. The cross-bracing on the exterior of the Hancock Tower creates a rigid exterior structure making the building essentially 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 smaller 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 ingenuity, the Sears Tower remained less of a monument than its slightly 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 memorable 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 wish to build a monument in steel it, and as such perhaps it has no rival. It may be that Norman Foster's Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, which is neither the tallest, nor the largest, nor the most advanced steel structure may have better claim to monumental status. It was, nevertheless, the most expensive building in the world and it was architecturally innovative. As Foster himself said: "So much of the building was untried. Large spans combined with small floor-to-floor heights; the sunscoop idea; the combination of lifts and escalators that enabled us to use 23 lifts instead of 48...That concept generated the entire section." Although clad in aluminium, the steel frame structure is visually distinctive rising as pairs of towers from which hang the trusses that support the floors.

As with the Golden Gate Bridge, the building has a setting on the populous waterfront of Hong Kong that is guaranteed to keep it visible 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 wish 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."