The New Academic Building for the Cooper Union, or better known as 41 Cooper Square, can be described as one of the most impressive, recent structures in all of New York City, or as one dark grey block. The building has gotten high praise for environmental consciousness aesthetic choices reflecting school values. However, it has also been critiqued for a disconnect between the exterior and interior architecture, a design that creates unintentional private property disturbance, and its spaces that inhibit people with disabilities, the elderly, and the infirm to participate. In its defense, no building has been perfect in all these aspects, but it’s no excuse to not strive for it. With great advancements in technology, there can be a way to keep the positive aspects of the building without having to sacrifice a celebration of diversity. This essay will answer the importance of accessibility and why architects must continue to use technological advancements to not only help the environment, but also the urban setting we live in. 41 Cooper Square demonstrates architectural advancements through environmental and aesthetic design choices, but fails to include people with disabilities through the same architectural decisions designed to support learning, cooperation, and discovery.
As mentioned before, the architectural decisions in efforts to cut down on the building’s carbon footprint were, and still are, impressive assets. The nine story building from the outside appears jagged, dark, and constructed with seemingly random, angled panels. However, these dark panels reduce heat radiation while admitting more sunlight and were carefully placed as to not obstruct the surroundings. While the panels may reduce temperature, there still remains some unused heat in the building, until the cogeneration plant takes the heat to “… provide power and save energy” (Merkel, 2010:113). Another aspect of the structure that saves energy is the dramatic skylighted central staircase which improves the building’s airflow, as well as vertical circulation, allowing for cut down on AC/heating units to save energy. If a student wishes not to use the staircase, there are skip stop elevators at the ground, 4th, and 7th floor, that once again save energy by not using power to run the elevators. While there is a second elevator to stop at every floor, the skip stop system encourages people to use the stairs. Once at the top of the building there lies a living green roof insulated terrace where collected stormwater gets reused to help cut down on water consumption. This building has been revered as 40% more energy efficient than buildings similar to it. It was successful in its goal to assimilate new technological advancements, and in the process gained an LEED platinum rating, while also being the first academic building in New York City to do so. The structure was not designed simply to use new technology, but rather for endless possibilities to be presented to and enacted with human authority.
Designated informal gathering spaces encourage creativity, exploration, and advertize the facilitation of learning, discovery, and collaboration. The company that created the architectural plan for 41 Cooper Square, Morphosis, find that, “…issues of urban context are particularly important in the idea generating processes of a project” (Doscher 2009:29). So keeping in mind that the school is placed in an urban setting, the structure strives to facilitate the flow of information and collaboration, because what better place to do that than one of the most diverse cities in the world. The informal gathering areas are the “V” shaped columns outside the entrance doors, the central staircase starting at the ground floor acting as its centerpiece, “sky bridges” that are narrow concrete staircases linking many floor levels and facilities, and a few other locations around the school near windows providing natural lighting. With spaces created for students and faculty to collaborate, it becomes not only comfortable but visually pleasing. To complement the massive staircase there is a contorted form with steel framing. A pristine white “spider web” or “mega mesh” surrounds the frame. However, to each of these aesthetic advantages, there are also drawbacks.
Aesthetic design choices, such as the “V” shaped columns and dark exterior panels, present controversy to the acclaimed academic structure. The “V” shaped columns outside have attracted skateboarders to rail and scale the columns causing disturbance for the institute. It interrupts the desired gathering location for students, faculty, and the public. One of the goals the architects hoped to achieve was the exterior to welcome the interior ,encouraging those who pass by to enter. This sudden obstacle prohibits the school from displaying itself. Another obstacle that has caused controversy is the external architecture. Despite the panels being meticulously placed to not disrupt the surroundings, Thom Mayne’s, “…decision to compete [with surrounding buildings] by creating the most dramatic structure… (and one that does not take cues from its surroundings in an obvious way) is the least well-conceived aspect of the project” (Merkel, 2010:111) The darkness and starkness of the outside heavily contrasts with the inside, and despite its cleverness in doing this, it does not compliment the environment. The exterior poses controversy, but the interior conflicts with not only the institute’s values of learning and discovery, but the intention of the architects.
Some of the environmental decisions made in the interior architecture prohibits those with disabilities and other physical conditions from participating in the space and community. The features within the academic building such as, “step stairs in combination with the skip-stop elevator system will preclude full participation by the disabled, the elderly, the weak, and the infirm” (Trotter, 2009). Not to mention the star attraction of the building, the enormous entrance staircase, only allows for the able bodied to fully engage as those with disabilities are not able to climb them and participate in the community. According to a primary source linked on the Cooper Union’s website, “Secondary elevators stop at each floor, both for ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliance and for the practical tasks of moving materials, artworks, and equipment” (ArchDaily, 2009). While many must use this elevator as for the practical tasks mentioned, it was clear in all the sources stated in this essay that the skip-stop elevators were the most valuable and seemingly noticeable. However, elevators are not even the desired way to travel floor to floor, as stairs were designed to be some of the best aspects of the structure. From the entrance staircase to “sky bridges”, the building was designed for the able bodied.
The fact that this structure was crafted for the able bodied, conflicts with the school values along with the architects’ intent. As prior mentioned, the secondary elevator was made in part for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, and as an institute that prides itself on learning and discovery through connections and teamwork, there presents an issue. To fully flourish and use one’s potential, there must be the proper resources and accessibility in place. If the architects designed all the casual spaces to be inaccessible, then all the connections and exchange of knowledge cannot be made. The architecture firm that conducted this project, Morphosis, even prides itself on the urban context, especially in a city like New York, diversity reveals to be most prevalent in our urban settings. So a structure that “complies” with diversity rather than celebrates it, demonstrates conflict with not only the building, but the institute itself.
The entire blame cannot be placed on Morphosis, as architects have had a history in difficulties including people with disabilities. ADA was passed in 1990 and, “…even in the late 1990s… architectural designers, nevertheless, continued to overlook the needs of persons with disabilities…” (Mazumdar, Geis, 2003:201). One lawsuit filed against Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers by the Paralyzed Veterans of America over the MCI Center exemplifies the issues with overlooking the community’s needs. The lawsuit was filed due to a lack of variety and viewpoints for accessible seating as well as obstructed lines of sight. The argument presented by the firm claimed that the ADA states that those who design and construct the project are fully responsible, but that the company was not entirely responsible as it was not explicitly stated in their contract. The ruling from Judge Thomas F. Hogan was that the architects acted in good faith and even commended them for their design, despite requiring a change to meet ADA requirements. He also concluded that a project cannot fully pursue integration, enhanced sight lines, and the desired design. This presents the main issue with “compliance” of ADA. To not believe that a fully accessible building can celebrate diversity and still offer its valuable features is an unacceptable mindset for today’s architects. To brush off the needs of others for the sake of an LEED platinum rating does not deserve to be rewarded. Architect designers must break from analyzing ADA and using loopholes to get around the act. Everyone must push forward into including everyone for an endless series of possibilities.
While the new academic building for the Cooper Union offers many exciting features, the sacrifices it makes neglects those with disabilities. This, along with other negative aspects, conflicts with what the institute and the architects stand for. Although all the criteria the structure met to earn the LEED platinum rating was well deserved of its praised, it sadly contributed to the problems faced by people with disabilities. The design itself was critiqued for its exterior aesthetic conflicting with the interior, as well as the exterior presenting issues of being a proper gathering area. It also received many compliments on the natural lighting and clean, crisp white interior being pleasing to the eye and aesthetically compelling. To fully enjoy these features and participate in the space to share and explore, one must be able bodied. Until major architecture firms such as Morphosis address these issues and take initiative to celebrate the diverse urban setting of New York City, there will always be issues that arise for the community.
References Cited
The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art / Morphosis Architects
2009
ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/40471/the-cooper-union-for-the-advancement-of-science-and-art-morphosis-architects/, accessed December 14, 2017
Doscher, Martin
2009
New Academic Building for the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art – Morphosis. Architectural Design 79(2): 28–31
Mazumdar, Sanjoy, and Gilbert Geis
2003
Architects, the Law, and Accessibility: Architects’ Approaches to the ADA in Arenas. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 20. 3: 199–220. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030660?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, accessed December 14, 2017
Merkel, Jayne
2010
Morphosis Architects Cooper Union Academic Building, New York. Architectural Design 80(2): 110–113
Trotter, Marrikka
2009
Get Fit: Morphosis’s New Academic Building for the Cooper Union. Harvard Design Magazine