Hidden Cities: Reinventing the Non-Space Between Street and Subway

Home , Architectural icon, Central station (MTR), Chater Road, Fulton Center, GUM (department store), Hong Kong Tramways

University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons

Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations

2018

Hidden Cities: Reinventing The Non-Space Between Street And Subway

Jae Min Lee University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations

Part of the Architecture Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Lee, Jae Min, "Hidden Cities: Reinventing The Non-Space Between Street And Subway" (2018). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2984. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2984

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2984 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hidden Cities: Reinventing The Non-Space Between Street And Subway

Abstract The connections leading to underground transit lines have not received the attention given to public spaces above ground. Considered to be merely infrastructure, the design and planning of these underground passageways has been dominated by engineering and capital investment principles, with little attention to place-making. This underground transportation area, often dismissed as “non-space,” is a by-product of high-density transit-oriented development, and becomes increasingly valuable and complex as cities become larger and denser. This dissertation explores the design of five of these hidden cities where there has been a serious effort to make them into desirable public spaces. Over thirty-two million urbanites navigate these underground labyrinths in New York City, Hong Kong, London, Moscow, and Paris every day. These in-between spaces have evolved from simple stairwells to networked corridors, to transit concourses, to transit malls, and to the financial engines for affordable public transit.

The Oculus in New York City makes connections to the World Financial Center, the new buildings on the rebuilt World Trade Center site, and a new transit hub. The Jubilee Station in London brings people to the heart of the London Docklands, fast becoming a major new urban center. The Central Station in Hong Kong unites multiple levels of intense development which has also helped finance the transit. The Okhotny Ryad in Moscow, built in palatial style as a deliberate statement of the rights of the proletariat, has now been modernized by the addition of retail. The Les Halles station in Paris has made underground space a destination. This dissertation traces the historical development of each of these underground systems and documents them in detailed drawings so that their spatial structures can be compared. The way people use these places has been documented with photographs and maps using participant observation methodology.

By analyzing these cases, we can identify a generalizable theory for reinventing underused subterranean public spaces as effective places, realizing the potential for rich public life, so often obscured by the heavy foot traffic in ansittr hubs. Underground public spaces need not be gloomy and unsafe, and the vitality of public space is determined not only by its location, but by the design of its physical setting. These five hidden cities are success stories showing how designers and users have converted non- spaces into places through design and active civic engagement.

Degree Type Dissertation

Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Graduate Group City & Regional Planning

First Advisor Stefan Al

Second Advisor Jonathan Barnett

Keywords public transportation, social life, subway, transit concourse, underground public spaces, urban design Subject Categories Architecture | Urban Studies and Planning

This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2984 HIDDEN CITIES:

REINVENTING THE NON-SPACE BETWEEN STREET AND SUBWAY

Jae Min Lee

A DISSERTATION

City and Regional Planning

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2018

Supervisor of Dissertation Co-Supervisor of Dissertation

______Dr. Stefan Al Prof. Jonathan Barnett Associate Professor Professor of Practice City and Regional Planning City and Regional Planning

Graduate Group Chairperson

______Dr. Eugenie L. Birch Lawrence C. Nussdorf Professor of Urban Education & Research

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. William W. Braham Professor of Architecture, Director of MEBD Program

HIDDEN CITIES:

REINVENTING THE NON-SPACE BETWEEN STREET AND SUBWAY

2018

Jae Min Lee

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License

To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

To my son.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This project would not be possible without the help of many people. First, I wish to

express my sincere appreciation to my dissertation committee members, Professor

Stefan Al, Jonathan Barnett, and William Braham, for their constructive suggestions and

recommendations towards the completion of the dissertation. Dr. Stefan Al, the

chairperson of the committee, supervised my work and guided me to the right direction in developing the research. I am fortunate to have Prof. Jonathan Barnett on my committee for the feedback from his breadth of knowledge and experience. I thank Dr.

Braham for his support and insight on the research project.

I would like to extend my gratitude to those who allowed interviews investigating hidden cities around the world including Mr. Daniel Ringlestein from SOM London, Mr.

Philip Tweddle from Canary Wharf Group, Mr. Emmanuel de Lanversin from

SemPariSeine, Prof. Alain Chiaradia from Hong Kong University, Dr. Francesco Rossini from Chinese University of Hong Kong, Dr. Vitaly Stadnikov from the Higher School of

Economics in Moscow, and many patrons of underground concourse.

I must thank my mentors who directly and indirectly influenced my scholarship and informed this project in Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill LLP. Philip Enquist has been my long-time supporter from the University of Michigan. He, Elena Stevanato, and Douglas

Voigt trained me as a confident urban designer in Chicago. Mustafa Abadan and Brant

Coleta from New York City gave me opportunities to see the urban design practice from a global perspective.

I also thank my colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania. Daniel Suh, Dr.

Albert Han, Dr. Theodore Lim, Joshua Warner, Eliza Whiteman, Sa Min Han, Chaeri

Kim, Dr. Hwang Yi, Sang Pil Lee, Dr. William Fleming, Evan Oskierko-Jeznacki, Maryam

Khojasteh, Sirius Libeiro, David Stanek, Dr. Yu-Shou Su, and Naeem Shahrestani.

Nobody has been more supportive of me than the members of my family. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents and my son, Alex, for the tireless encouragement and inspiration.

ABSTRACT

HIDDEN CITIES:

REINVENTING THE NON-SPACE BETWEEN STREET AND SUBWAY

Jae Min Lee

Stefan Al

The connections leading to underground transit lines have not received the attention

given to public spaces above ground. Considered to be merely infrastructure, the design and planning of these underground passageways has been dominated by engineering and capital investment principles, with little attention to place-making. This underground transportation area, often dismissed as “non-space,” is a by-product of high-density

transit-oriented development, and becomes increasingly valuable and complex as cities

become larger and denser. This dissertation explores the design of five of these hidden

cities where there has been a serious effort to make them into desirable public spaces.

Over thirty-two million urbanites navigate these underground labyrinths in New York City,

Hong Kong, London, Moscow, and Paris every day. These in-between spaces have

evolved from simple stairwells to networked corridors, to transit concourses, to transit

malls, and to the financial engines for affordable public transit.

The Oculus in New York City makes connections to the World Financial Center, the

new buildings on the rebuilt World Trade Center site, and a new transit hub. The Jubilee

Station in London brings people to the heart of the London Docklands, fast becoming a

major new urban center. The Central Station in Hong Kong unites multiple levels of

intense development which has also helped finance the transit. The Okhotny Ryad in

Moscow, built in palatial style as a deliberate statement of the rights of the proletariat,

vi has now been modernized by the addition of retail. The Les Halles station in Paris has made underground space a destination. This dissertation traces the historical development of each of these underground systems and documents them in detailed drawings so that their spatial structures can be compared. The way people use these places has been documented with photographs and maps using participant observation methodology.

By analyzing these cases, we can identify a generalizable theory for reinventing

underused subterranean public spaces as effective places, realizing the potential for rich

public life, so often obscured by the heavy foot traffic in transit hubs. Underground public

spaces need not be gloomy and unsafe, and the vitality of public space is determined

not only by its location, but by the design of its physical setting. These five hidden cities

are success stories showing how designers and users have converted non-spaces into places through design and active civic engagement.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... IV ABSTRACT ...... VI LIST OF TABLES ...... XII LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... XIII

CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION: EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE PLACES ...... 1 Hidden Cities ...... 1 Rethink Efficiency ...... 4 Efficient and Effective Places ...... 5 Chapter Outlines: Hidden cities around the world ...... 7 Okhotny Ryad in Moskva ...... 7 Oculus in New York City ...... 8 Central Station and Hong Kong Station in Hong Kong ...... 8 Canary Wharf in London ...... 9 Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris ...... 9

CHAPTER 2-LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH METHOD ...... 11 Intellectual Survey on Hidden Cities ...... 11 Scientists’ View of Urban Underground Space ...... 12 Urban Designers’ View of Underground Concourses ...... 15 Hidden Cities: New Urban Reality ...... 17 Research Method ...... 18

CHAPTER 3-AN UNDERWORLD FOR “THE WELFARE OF MASSES,” MOSCOW .. 27 Introduction ...... 27 Moscow Metro: Pro-Urban Aspiration Against Anti-Urbanists ...... 32 “Palace of the Proletariat” ...... 36 Rise and Fall of Underground Palace ...... 40

viii

Hidden Ensemble ...... 42 Three Stations: Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, and Ploshchard Revolyutsii Station 42 Three Underground Plazas: Inefficient But Effective Places ...... 47 Connecting Tunnels for Efficient Movement ...... 53 Rediscovering Social Meaning of Escalators ...... 58 Corridors vs. Escalators ...... 62 Underground Shopping Mall ...... 63 Conclusions: What works and what does not? ...... 66

CHAPTER 4-FROM MEGASTRUCTURE TO “SYMBOL OF RECOVERY”, NEW YORK CITY ...... 70 Introduction ...... 70 A Megastructure for An Efficient and Effective City ...... 73 9/11 Recovery ...... 76 Birth of An Underworld in Lower Manhattan ...... 77 Urban Design and Social Life of Lower Manhattan Underground ...... 81 Winter Garden in Battery Park City ...... 82 Fulton Center ...... 86 The Oculus ...... 90 Sitting in Underground Concourse ...... 93 Corridors: West Concourse, Dey Street Passageway, and IND Transfer Mezzanine ...... 97 Soft Edge vs. Digital Edge ...... 101 Retailing in Underground ...... 105 Conclusions: What works and what does not? ...... 109

CHAPTER 5-“COSMOPOLITAN CANOPY” OF HONG KONG ...... 114 Introduction ...... 114 Growth of Hong Kong ...... 118 Search for An Efficient Public Transit System ...... 120 Subway in Hong Kong ...... 122 Under Financial Challenge: The Birth of “Rail-plus-Property” ...... 123

Central Station: A Vision for A Transit Hub ...... 125 Hong Kong Station: An Urban Connector and A Civic Room ...... 126 Filling the Gaps Between the Stations ...... 129 Social Life in Hong Kong and Central Station ...... 132 Busy Street Corner in Underground ...... 133 Flow of People ...... 135 Carrying Capacity of a Corridor ...... 138 Myth of Mechanized Sidewalks ...... 139 Price Tagging on Flow of People ...... 143 Mezzanine ...... 145 Conclusion: What works and what does not? ...... 147

CHAPTER 6-FROM THE NECROPOLIS TO THE CIVIC FORUM, PARIS ...... 152 Introduction ...... 152 “People of the sun” volunteered for a “necropolis” to save their city ...... 155 Les Halles ...... 160 L’urbanisme Souterrain: Design Democracy in Les Halles ...... 164 The Hidden City of Les Halles ...... 168 Effective Edges ...... 171 How does art enliven the underground maze of Chatelet-Les Halles? ...... 172 Efficient But Ineffective ...... 177 Comparing Three Plazas ...... 178 Conclusion: What works and what does not? ...... 183

CHAPTER 7-THE INVENTED UNDERGROUND IN CANARY WHARF ...... 187 Introduction ...... 187 Philanthropic Motive and “Fireless Locomotive”: The Birth of the Subway ...... 190 Invention of Public-Private Partnership: Revitalizing the Docklands ...... 193 Invented “Manhattan-on-Thames” ...... 197 Reinventing the Hub and the Grades ...... 200 Canary Wharf Concourse: Efficient and Effective ...... 205 Unexpected Outcome of the Reinvented Grades ...... 208 x

Effective Underground Intersections ...... 212 North-South Connecting Corridors: Design of Passageways ...... 216 Conclusions: What works and what does not? ...... 217

CHAPTER 8-LESSONS FROM HIDDEN CITIES ...... 222 What Can We Learn from Hidden Cities? ...... 222 Evolution of Hidden Cities ...... 222 Kit-of-Parts for Hidden Cities ...... 226 Entering the Underground ...... 226 Wayfinding ...... 230 Moving Around the Underworld ...... 231 Waiting for Trains and Meeting Friends ...... 236 Small and “Tactical” Design Intervention ...... 239 Edges in Hidden Cities ...... 239 Transit Mall to Business Incubator ...... 242 Art and Culture ...... 243 Funding and Place-making of Hidden Cities ...... 245 Conclusion ...... 247

CHAPTER 9-CONCLUSION: URBAN DESIGN IN HIDDEN CITIES ...... 248

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-Comparison of Five Hidden Cities ...... 246

xii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1-Hidden Cities of Moscow. Three stations and a shopping mall are connected creating an extensive network of underground transit hub...... 29

Figure 2-Hidden City of Moscow, Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, and Ploshchard Revolyutsii stations are located a few blocks from Red Square and Kremlin Palace...... 41

Figure 3-Teatralnaya Station Central Hall in 2017. Muscovites use these subway central hall as a social place for conversation, waiting, and meeting...... 45

Figure 4-Teatralnaya Station Central Hall in 2017. A couple stay still in the middle of waves of commuter traffic...... 46

Figure 5-Sculptures in Ploschad Revolyutssi Station. The sculptures depict pioneers, peasants, children, students, border guards, and paratroopers in a chronological order of Soviet revolution from 1917 to 1937...... 48

Figure 6-HVAC Diffusers in Ploschad Revolyutssi Station. Dushkin even integrated the simple technical element as the center piece of pylons achieving the highest level of aesthetic...... 49

Figure 7-Teatralnaya Station Central Hall in 2017. It is the favored place for Muscovites to wait for their friends...... 50

Figure 8-"Triangulation prop” in Ploschad Revolyutssi Station. Muscovites touch statue on the way to work or home...... 51

Figure 9-Central hall of Okhotny Ryad Station in 2017. People lean against the pylon while they wait...... 53

Figure 10-Circulation Strategy in Hidden City of Moscow. One-way corridor...... 54

Figure 11-Transfer Corridor from Ploschad Revolyutssi Station to Teatralnaya Station is furnished with plaster and ceramic tiles embossed with art pieces in Neo-Classical Style ...... 56

Figure 12-Transfer Corridor from Teatralnaya to Okhotny Ryad Station ...... 56

Figure 13-Busking in Transfer Corridor. The arch of the tunnel provides perfect acoustic for the Spanish classic guitarist. The music turned the endless tunnel into more pleasant place to be. Unfortunately, however, he was not so successful attracting Muscovistes...... 57

Figure 14-Lovers on Escalators in Moscow Metro. Time is gold. The passionate Muscovites couple do not waste any second...... 58

xiii

Figure 15-Activities on Escalators. More social activities are observed in evening rush hour...... 60

Figure 16-A Range of Social Activities Take Place in Moscow Metro Escalators ...... 61

Figure 17-Privatized Public Space in Okhotny Ryad Shopping Center ...... 64

Figure 18-Laminating or Blocking Public Space with Retail ...... 64

Figure 19-The Oculus Grand Hall. Stunning arrival to the Empire City. Calatrava revealed his public square underneath the symbol of recovery in the heart of WTC district...... 80

Figure 20-The plan of the underground concourse in Lower Manhattan. EEK’s master plan was extended connecting major transit nodes including Hudson Ferry Terminal, Winter Garden, PATH Oculus, Fulton Center, and MTA stations...... 82

Figure 21-Winter Garden in Brookfield Place (previously known as World Finance Center) ...... 84

Figure 22-Fulton Center. The design concept of the hub follows a whirlpool of people’s movements at the intersection of Broadway and many subways. It is a funnel of movement connecting subway to street and of light from sky to dark underground.85

Figure 23-The Hidden Plazas in Fulton Center. New Yorkers wait and meet their friends at the bottom of Sky-Reflector Net...... 90

Figure 24-Sitting Is Prohibited in Oculus ...... 94

Figure 25-Improvised Sitting ...... 95

Figure 26-Philanthropic Sitting in Apple Store ...... 95

Figure 27-IND Mezzanine ...... 96

Figure 28-Dey Passageway ...... 96

Figure 29-West Concourse. "Soft" vs. Digital Edge ...... 100

Figure 30-Active Edge vs. Digital Facade. Real retail frontage attracts pedestrian's eyes 4 times more than the digital display advertisement ...... 103

Figure 31-Retail Frontage of Westfield Mall. Luxury and flagship shops are located around the central hall ...... 105

Figure 32-Vending Shack in Dey Passageway. Street vendors to increase economic diversity in the city center ...... 107

Figure 33-Sennheiser Soundscape. Carefully designed and programmed retail stand can help activating underground public space...... 109

Figure 34- A Concourse Network Connecting Hong Kong Station and Central Station. Over 250,000 passengers travel through the underground transit hub in a day. ... 116 xiv

Figure 35-Hong Kong Station. Multiple underground floors serve Tung Chung Line and Airport Express Line atop of IFC Mall ...... 127

Figure 36-Central Station and Hong Kong Station Plan. Multiple exits connect the underground concourse to the street and the adjacent developments ...... 129

Figure 37-Hong Kong residents wait for their company at the corner of Central Station ...... 133

Figure 38-Central Station. Visitors stop by the wall of the lost...... 134

Figure 39-Central Station Corridor Friday Evening on 21st of July 2018. People gather around the busy corners rather than mid-section of corridors (blue: standing, red: conversation) ...... 135

Figure 40-Transfer Corridor from Hong Kong Station Towards Central Station ...... 141

Figure 41-Activities On Walkways vs. Travellators. People tend to talk to their company twice as much while they are on walkways ...... 142

Figure 42-Pedestrian Traffic Volume Both Direction To and From Hong Kong Station and Central Station. Walkways are used more during morning and afternoon rush hour...... 143

Figure 43-Airport Express Mezzanine Floor. It is crowded to serve dim sum to office workers and tourists in lunch hour...... 146

Figure 44-Hidden City of Chatelet-Les Halles. Les Halles has transformed itself from a historic market, transit center, and a civic forum. It also preserve the part and full history of every page of the transformation in underground...... 153

Figure 45- Hector Guimard’s Entrance to the Porte Dauphine Station...... 159

Figure 46-Chatelet-Les Halle Underground Network. Subway stations and the Forum are built incrementally creating contrasting underground experience...... 166

Figure 47- Rue de Cinema. Underground street with soft and active building edge ..... 167

Figure 48-Typical Experience in Underground Les-Halles through long corridors...... 168

Figure 49-Pedestrian Traffic Volume and Social Activities in Rue de Cinema. Much more social activities are observed compare to other effective corridors...... 169

Figure 50-Edge Expression in Underground Concourse. View to the underground swimming pool and steps are the place for the tourists and Parisians waiting for movie...... 172

Figure 51-Concerto in Tunnels of Chatelet-Les Halles. Commuters and tourists often stop by and have a break from their long journey through the underground maze...... 175

Figure 52-Fruit Stand in the Tunnel. It is an landmark to orient oneself in the underground labyrinth...... 176

Figure 53-The Fountain of Innocent. The quintessential example of urban plaza in Paris ...... 179

Figure 54-Place de Carree. An underground square fronting RER stations...... 180

Figure 55-Map of Three Plazas. People’s activities follow the features of each plaza. . 181

Figure 56-Cross-section Through Les-Halles Mall. Hidden plazas and streets are tucked in underneath Jardin Nelson-Mandela ...... 182

Figure 57-Smoking is the predominant activities in Patio Pina Bausch...... 183

Figure 58-Canary Wharf Concourse. Master planners and architects together invented “underground” concourse above the ground. It is the main street of social and every day activities for the employees and residents...... 189

Figure 59-Canary Wharf Concourse Plan. The extensive network of indoor and outdoor provides efficient circulation system...... 204

Figure 60-Canary Wharf Concourse in Morning. It is activated by commuters in the morning...... 205

Figure 61-Social activities in Canary Concourse (orange: sitting, pink: standing). Social activities are concentrated around the nodes except the central cross (section c) 206

Figure 62-Canary Mall is filled with office workers for lunch...... 207

Figure 63-Location of Smoking in Canary Wharf. The space with both indoor and outdoor characteristics is favored place for smokers to get together...... 210

Figure 64-Smoking-prone environment: street arcade, under canopy, and blurred space ...... 211

Figure 65-Jubilee Walk During Lunch Hour. The blank wall can be activated with a simple design intervention, a small indent space to sit in the wall...... 213

Figure 66-Pedestrian Corridor Traffic Volume. Corridors are activated during lunch hour for meeting and greeting while more traffic can be observed during rush hours. .. 214

Figure 67-Five Hidden Cities ...... 223

Figure 68-Different Experience of Entering Underground Transit ...... 228

Figure 69-Types of Spatial Quality When Entering Underworld ...... 229

Figure 70-Corridor Width and Pedestrian Traffic Volume...... 231

Figure 71- Corridor Width vs. Conversation Rate. Narrower corridors show higher rate of conversation...... 232

xvi

Figure 72- Conversation vs Count per Meter of Corridor Width. Smaller corridors with fewer traffic show higher rate of conversation ...... 233

Figure 73-Collection of Corridors ...... 234

Figure 74-Pedestrian Traffic Count for Underground Thoroughfares. Higher volume of traffic has less to do with conversation rate ...... 235

Figure 75-Gathering Places in Underground Concourse ...... 238

Figure 76-Different Edge Conditions ...... 241

Figure 77-Art and Culture in Hidden Cities. Art of any kinds will help improve user experience in underground concourse ...... 244

xvii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION: EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE PLACES

Hidden Cities

Hundreds of people rush out to the platform, liberated from the cramped subway cabins. Legions of commuters march down the labyrinth of dark and soggy tunnels to find their way to the bright morning sun. Few put on a smile as they prepare for a sprint or advance step-by-step toward the exits. If you hesitate, someone might step past or step on you. This is how New Yorkers, Parisians, Muscovites, Hong Kongers, and

Londoners sacrifice their commute in exchange for the vibrant cosmopolitan lifestyle.

However, if you pay a little attention, you’ll soon notice that the white financiers are not the only users of the underground concourse, nor is commuting the sole activity in it.

Young professionals, immigrants, minorities, tourists, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and

Asians alike use these underground spaces every day. It is a rare but not impossible to find soliciting homeless people or busking musicians. People shop, walk, talk, play, and love in this underworld. Believe it or not, people use the underground concourse in the

same ways as the aboveground sidewalk and plaza.

This dissertation explores the space between street and subway train. It is the

connecting tissue between the vibrant social place for people and the transport mode for

the sustainable future. The non-space under the ground, a by-product of high-density

transit-oriented development, is increasingly utilized as cities become intensified. Over

thirty-two million urbanites navigate through these underground labyrinths in New York

City, London, Paris, Hong Kong, and Moscow every day. This in-between space has

evolved from simple stairwells, to networked corridors, to transit concourses, to transit

1 malls, and to the financial engines for affordable public transit. By its nature as infrastructure, planning of underground space is dominated by engineering and capital investment principals. Therefore, place-making in underground public space has received little attention.

The rich social life in the underground concourse is not always obvious to people above-ground. Yet, the corridors and waiting areas are just like streets and squares, but in an underground setting. The rich social scene in underworld is often masked by the much heavier foot traffic from the transit system. The busy public spaces in the transit hub present opportunities for casual contacts and personal interactions among different social groups. We must capitalize on the intense crossing of peoples to transform underground corridors and courts into meaningful places for social integration.

This book crudely reveals the hidden public life in and the social potential of underground public spaces, and investigates how we can reinvent underground public spaces as effective places. Why and how did these underground concourses appear in city centers? What are the resulting public spaces? How do people use these spaces?

Under what conditions can underground concourses as engineered infrastructures turn into meaningful places in the city center? I will address these questions by exploring the historic debates regarding the development of subways and underground concourses, the spatial configurations and the designs of associated public spaces, and people’s behavior in and reaction to the resulting spaces.

I argue that underground public spaces are not anti-urban by nature. Underground spaces have been widely criticized by urban designers as “surrogate streets”,

“analogous cities,” and places for “spatial apartheid” with intrinsic design flaws.1&2

However, the history of subways and underground spaces proved that the underground

structure did not undermine urbanity; instead, the hidden cities have been the outcome

of pro-urbanists’ relentless endeavor to rescue the city center from brutal urban renewal

and suburbanization. Moscow’s subway system was built to revitalize the center with

public transit rather than moving out to suburbs or their planned settlement of

Microrayon. In Paris, subways and underground concourses were used to preserve the urban vibrancy at the grade. However, the pro-urban motivation of early hidden cities was lost in the labyrinth of the underground tunnels when underground concourse planners were committed to improving the speed of pedestrian movement.

Hidden cities are the untold success stories of how designers and underground

users have converted non-space into a place through active civic engagement and

management of the underworld. For example, in Moscow, beautiful subway platforms

are places for people to meet and greet. The tunnels in Chatellet-Les Halles come alive with the help of the musicians. A small indentation in the walls turned transfer corridors into social places in Canary Wharf. The following chapters provide proof of how hidden cities have been the connective tissue of the underground transit infrastructure to the aboveground public realm.

1 Whyte (1988) referred to the racial scene of the Overstreet Mall in Dallas as “a spatial apartheid, with middle-class whites above, and blacks and poor people below.” Whyte argued that “the biggest problem posed by surrogate streets is not that they fail to function but that they function too well. … A downtown can support just so many stores and restaurants, and it is a lively downtown if there are enough of them on its streets.” 2 Trevor Boddy (1992) was doubtful that the new privatized public spaces were inclusive. He called these multi-level circulation systems “analogous cities,” where people can experience “a simulation of urbanity,” an edited version of rich urban culture. He asserted that “analogous city” was built with a specific social and class agenda, which aimed to accelerate “a stratification of race and class” (p.124). 3

Rethink Efficiency

The design philosophy of underground concourse is based on improving “the efficiency of handling passengers arriving and departing at stations.”3 Public spaces in

underground concourses are planned as race circuits for maximum travel speed and as

electric circuits for minimum friction. Benches and street furniture in underground public

spaces are avoided because they are obstacles to free flow and fire safety; they cause

unnecessary resistance and friction in terms of pedestrian movement. The width of

corridors is determined by rigorous computer simulations to avoid such congestion. The

design goal of underground hall has been “easy maintenance” and “unity” of architecture

for cost-efficient construction and maintenance.4 The design of underground concourses

is considered as a mere ornament that is non-essential in circuit planning. Thus, many

underground halls are over-capacity infrastructures, wide tunnels with blank walls.

The focus of underground concourse design should not be on the success or failure of efficiency. Efficiency has been misunderstood as higher speed or larger capacity in subterranean planning practice. A more accurate conception of efficiency is doing more work with fewer resources, not maximizing the rate or speed of work. Counterintuitively, efficiency decreases with faster rate or speed because more energy is required to do the same amount of work. Per the theory of thermodynamics, Odum and Pinkerton found that most meaningful work can be done at medium efficiency based on evidence from natural and technological phenomena.5 However, this lesson has been forgotten because we conflate higher efficiency with success.6

3 Freeman Fox and Partners. (1970). Hong Kong Mass Transport Further Study. Hong Kong. para. 8.2. 4 Ibid., para. 8.3. 5 Odum, H. T., & Pinkerton, R. C. (1955). Times’s Speed Regulator: the Optimum Efficiency for Maximum Power Output in Physical and Biological Systems. American Scientist, 43(2), p. 331. 6 Braham, W. W. (2016). Architecture and systems ecology : thermodynamic principles of environmental building design, in three parts, pp. 41. 4

In the context of underground concourse design, the speed of pedestrians through a corridor will increase efficiency up to a certain point. However, it requires much more resources and energy to exceed a certain level of speed and capacity. To increase capacity, a wider tunnel is necessary; more costs are associated with a bigger infrastructure. To increase speed, more energy is required to run the travellator and other mechanized devices. The speed cannot be the governing principle in designing hidden cities. The focus should shift to balancing both facilitating efficient movement and making safe and pleasant places for the users.

A growing number of transportation and urban design scholars reached a similar sentiment rethinking efficiency; that is, mobility, or “moving people from A to B as quickly and safely as possible,” cannot be the utmost priority in designing urban places.7 They regret that place-making in the twentieth century has been dominated by an emphasis on mobility. Streets, highways, turning radii, and parking lots are designed to facilitate efficient movement of cars. Increasingly, transportation engineers and urban designers have demanded the “recalibration” of priorities in designing cities from movement to social and economic interaction among people.8 If this is the direction of the future of aboveground places, we need a similar recalibration for underground places as well.

Efficient and Effective Places

Underground concourses are the by-products of hyper-density transit-oriented

developments in city centers. Subways is one of the most efficient transportation modes

to move people around cities without incurring traffic congestion on surface. It is an

effective transit system to serve high density urban district. Thus, subway systems in

7 Cervero, R., Guerra, E., & Al, S. (2017). Beyond mobility : planning cities for people and places. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 2. 8 Ibid., pp.1. 5

metropolitan cities as well as their associated underground public spaces are inevitable for sustainable cities reducing fuel consumptions and negative externality from automobiles.

The primary goal of urban design in underground space must be balancing the two values; making both an efficient and effective place. The corridors in underground concourse are already efficient thoroughfares by aboveground standards. The underground promenades are capable of handling thousands or tens of thousands of pedestrians per hour, which are only observable in the streets with the highest intensity of use, including Seventh Avenue in New York City, Oxford Street in London, and

Strøget Street in Copenhagen.9 However, the underground promenades are not considered as effective social places as their counterparts in aboveground.

Hidden Cities around the world showed that underground spaces can be both efficient and effective places. Below-grade public spaces can serve multiple purposes; they do not have to be single-purposed spaces or moving corridors. These underground spaces are pathways to stations, indoor courts to meet and congregate, shops for everyday convenient items and high-end luxuries, and financial vehicles to support an expensive public transit system. Ichiban Gai, or First Avenue in Japanese, is one of the busiest subway station as well as a cultural landmark for famous restaurants and museums located on the underground level in Tokyo Station. Les-Halles in Paris is a transit hub, shopping center, cultural center, and civic forum with a cost of 1 billion dollars. Calatrava’s birdlike structure, World Trade Center Port Authority Trans-Hudson

(PATH) Station, symbolizes the rebirth of Lower Manhattan after the 9/11 attack at the controversial cost of 4 billion dollars. Billions of public dollars have been spent to create

9 NYC DOT, 2008. “World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm”, pp.8. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/World_Class_Streets_Gehl_08.pdf 6

underground concourses and subways; therefore, it is a missed opportunity to leave them as single-purposed infrastructures.

Chapter Outlines: Hidden cities around the world

Among many underground concourses around the world, I selected the hidden cities in major metropolitan cities around the world. The cities and projects for study include the Oculus in Lower Manhattan of New York City, Jubilee Station in Canary Wharf of

London, Central Station in Hong Kong, Okhotny Ryad in Moscow, and La Canopee des

Les Halles in Paris. These selected cities represent milestones in the history of modern subway and underground concourse development and considered as the most successful cases. In addition, the selected cities and projects cover a wide spectrum of design concepts, space programming strategies, ownership, management practices, and government systems to determine which factors are important contributors to the success of underground public spaces. The variety allows for analyzing and synthesizing the similarities, differences, and patterns across all cases.

Okhotny Ryad in Moskva

Moskva is known for having the most beautiful subway station architecture in the world. Moscow’s metro stations are the “palaces for the working class” and the symbol of

“national pride.” Under a strong authoritarian government, planners built the underground spaces as a way of glorifying the proletarian class and to attest to the state power of planning. Besides the artistic and historic value of these stations, social life in these stations is less known and hidden beneath the surface. The central halls of

Moscow Metro are the quintessential example of vibrant urban plazas in the hidden cities.

Oculus in New York City

The Phoenix, PATH WTC Station, is the result of domestic and international interest in rebuilding the WTC area after 9/11. The city and the world demanded a symbol of recovery in the new WTC district. Calatrava responded with a birdlike structure half- buried underground with an extensive network of subsurface corridors and shopping malls. The underground concourse in Lower Manhattan evolved from an architectural

idea of “social condenser” to a network of pedestrian corridors to an extensive

underground concourse. Despite their aesthetic and architectural value, the underground

spaces were not designed to facilitate social activities. However, New Yorkers and store

managers compensated for this defect with their own wits. It is the destination for 9/11

memorial and architectural aesthetics with a global reputation.

Central Station and Hong Kong Station in Hong Kong

Hong Kong-Central Station is an example of the most efficient corridor as well as of

the effective public space for casual contacts. Tens of thousands of passengers pass

through the corridors per hour. It is the only place for passive contact among different

social classes in the layered city. Given the limitations of space in Hong Kong, the

subway is the only viable option for public transit to support high-volume traffic without

burdening the surface infrastructure for cars, buses, taxis, and other modes of

transportation. With the financial constraints, subway planners have devised a clever

way to finance this expensive infrastructure. Hong Kong’s subway stations and adjacent

developments are the financial model for funding a public transit system.

Canary Wharf in London

Canary Wharf in London is the outcome of technological, political, and architectural innovations. The new idea of a public-private partnership was successful in converting a declining industrial harbor into a new financial center. Technically, Canary Wharf’s underground concourse is underground by definition. Due to high groundwater, high excavation costs, and program constraints, the master planners have invented the underground level aboveground with a simple change of grade level in architectural drawing. Unlike other underground concourses, the Canary Wharf Concourse is an

effective public space. The hall is the main street of social and everyday activities for over 120,000 employees and residents. The quintessential business model for high- density transit-oriented development is supported by the underground concourse.

Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris

The Les Halles Redevelopment in Paris is an example of Parisian’s relentless love

of their city. Parisians supported the subway to prevent Haussmann’s modern

infrastructure from destroying their beautiful city. Architects proposed the underground

civic forum in the heart of Paris to preserve architectural and urbanity aboveground,

instead of a brutal vision of an international trade center. After several decades, they

showed how to revitalize underused and unsafe underground public space. Les Halles

recently completed its second round of transformation. In 2007, French architects Patrick

Berger and Jacques Anziutti proposed a plan for La Canopé (the canopy), a translucent

awning covering the underground entrances to the world's largest underground subway

station.

References:

Braham, W. W. (2016). Architecture and systems ecology : thermodynamic principles of environmental building design, in three parts.

Cervero, R., Guerra, E., & Al, S. (2017). Beyond mobility : planning cities for people and places. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Freeman Fox and Partners. (1970). Hong Kong Mass Transport Further Study. Hong Kong.

New York City Department of Transportation. (2008). World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm.

Odum, H. T., & Pinkerton, R. C. (1955). Time’s Speed Regulator: the Optimum Efficiency for Maximum Power Output in Physical and Biological Systems. American Scientist, 43(2), 331–343.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH METHOD

Intellectual Survey on Hidden Cities

Underground public spaces have proliferated in city centers around the world with various motivations: to achieve efficient use of surface land by locating non-essential functions underground (Sterling, 1993; Broere, 2016); to better connect with subsurface transit and adjacent buildings; and to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic (Roberts,

1999). These motivations were translated into principles for planning underground spaces such as capacity-building and improving the speed of pedestrian flow.

While many studies in urban design have focused on traditional outdoor public spaces such as squares and plazas (Whyte, 1980, 1988; Gehl, 1987; Cullon, 1961;

Sitte, 1889; Cooper-Marcus & Francis, 1998; Carr et al., 1992), and streets and sidewalks (Jacobs, 1995; Appleyard, 1982, Moudon, 1986; Gehl, 1987; Loukaitou-

Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009; Mehta, 2007; Kim, 2015), few have addressed the quality and design the integration of diverse social groups. Moreover, density is the critical factor for the success of underground spaces (Whyte, 1980, 1988; He et al., 2012;

Bobylev, 2016). However, previous research has examined underground spaces only in medium- to low- density cities (i.e., Montreal, Toronto, Dallas, and Minneapolis). Thus, it is necessary to study underground public spaces in higher-density cities (i.e., New York

City, London, Tokyo, and Hong Kong).

Scientists’ View of Urban Underground Space

Underground scientists and engineers define urban underground space (UUS) as “a geospace beneath urban areas” that provides direct services, including groundwater, geothermal energy, and artificial spaces (Bobylev, 2016). A narrower definition of manmade UUS, urban underground infrastructure (UUI), is more relevant to urban designers as “a set of artificial structures, located entirely or partially below ground level, interconnected physically or functionally” (Bobylev, 2007). Underground spaces are utilized as transportation tunnels (railways, roads, and pedestrian paths), utility tunnels and pipes (water, gas, electricity, waste water, and communication), geothermal energy sources, manufacturing facilities, storage basements (food, water, oil, waste, and storm water), basements for public use (shopping arcades, hospitals, libraries, parking garages, and civil defense facilities), and basements for private use (dwellings and cellars) (Bobylev, 2009; Sterling et al., 2012).

Underground spaces originated in utopian visions of the multilevel city in 19th- century Paris. The visionaries Henri Jules Borie and Jules-Antoine Moilin first explored the idea of an elevated pedestrian pathway system against Haussmann’s modernization of Paris (Yoos & James, 2016). Eugene Henard saw underground spaces as part of the multi-layered engineering solutions for the congested city center. In his presentation to the Royal Institute of British Architects, titled “Cities of the Future” (1910), Henard described underground spaces as primarily support functions for transporting coal and other materials, sewer systems, locating boilers and furnaces to heat the buildings, and storage for vehicles and helicopters. Underground spaces had been discounted as inferior or forgotten by modern architects until Raymond Hood proposed the Rockefeller

Center (1931), a multilevel urban vision integrating the subway with dense pedestrian environments in the heart of New York City.

The evolution of underground space was possible because of breakthroughs in engineering technology. British civil engineer Marc Brunnel gave birth to the modern underground space by building a tunnel underneath the Thames River in London

(Bennett, 2004). With the capability to build a longer tunnel in a deep subsurface area, the function of early modern tunnels shifted from supporting aboveground activities to becoming a thoroughfare in city centers, and underground rails, subway networks, and motor tunnels began to proliferate throughout the world. The role of underground space then evolved from supporting infrastructure to livable spaces as modern heating, air- conditioning, and ventilation technology were adopted, including Willis Carrier’s and

Joukovsky’s (1902) modern high-speed centrifugal fan (Banham, 1969; Cooper, 1998).

In turn, shops and stores augmented the functions of underground space, leading to extensive underground realms in contemporary city centers, as seen in “La Ville

Souteraine” (The Underground City) in Montreal by Vincent Ponte (Yoos & James,

2016).

Civil engineers believed that the challenge to contemporary cities could be resolved by utilizing underground spaces (Admiraal, 2012; Cornaro & Admiraal, 2012; Sterling et al., 2012; Broere, 2016). They have discussed the environmental and economic benefits of underground structures. Building in close proximity to existing facilities is the biggest locational advantage for underground space. This incurs further social benefits, since increased urban density contributes to compact development that allows for efficient use of transportation energy (Sterling, 1993). Durmisevic (1999) pointed out that locating traffic infrastructure, cinemas, theatres, museums, and shops underground will leave

more room for recreation and social activities aboveground. Structures isolated from the outdoor aboveground environment help to maintain consistent thermal comfort from severe weather and protection from external fires, noise, vibration, and fallout (Moreland,

1981; Saari, 1988). Isolation provides security from the outside and containment from the inside, which makes it appealing to both national security and research facility designers (Sterling, 1993).

Underground infrastructure can also improve the resiliency of cities (Admiraal, 2012;

Cornaro & Admiraal, 2012; Sterling & Nelson, 2012). Underground facilities and metro systems are less likely to be damaged by earthquakes (Wallis, 2010; Tashiro & Mutou,

2013). Large underground tunnels have been dug to divert storm water in Buenos Aires and Tokyo (Dal Negro et al., 2012; Miyao et al., 2000). In Kuala Lumpur, the underground tunnel for vehicle traffic has been temporarily used for rainwater storage

(Abraham, 2008).

Building scientists have been interested in improving the environmental quality of underground space. However, the most critical drawback of underground space is that people dislike it and do not feel safe there (Carmody & Sterling, 1987). People are reluctant to live and work underground due to its negative psychological association with darkness and safety, combined with humid and stale air (Sommer, 1974; Sterling, 1993;

Wada & Sakugawa, 1990). Physiological concerns have been addressed by incorporating natural light and forced ventilation with advanced building systems engineering.

Safety from disaster, terrorism, and crime is another critical issue deterring people from using underground space, as evacuation from interior fire is limited in deeper structures. A centralized ventilation system was the target of chemical sarin gas by

terrorists in Tokyo. Attackers prefer underused corridors or blind spots. Despite some concerns that can be addressed by major improvements in security with careful design, it is not possible to remove all psychological resistance to underground space (Sterling,

1993).

Urban Designers’ View of Underground Concourses

While engineers and scientists have been actively involved with underground space research since the 1970s (Sterling, 2015), urban design scholars have paid less attention to underground public spaces. Many public space studies have focused on the space’s environmental quality and the behavior of users in outdoor public spaces, squares, and plazas (Whyte, 1980, 1988; Gehl, 1987; Cullon, 1961; Sitte, 1889; Cooper-

Marcus & Francis, 1998; Carr et al., 1992), and streets and sidewalks (Jacobs, 1995;

Appleyard, 1982, Moudon, 1995; Gehl, 1987; Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009;

Mehta, 2013; Kim, 2014). Among newly privatized public spaces, a few typologies have received attention from urban design research: privately owned public spaces (POPS,

Kayden, 2000; Carmona & Wunderlich, 2012), shopping malls (Kowinski, 1985;

Crawford, 1992; Al, 2016), theme parks (Sorkin, 1995; Jacobs, 1995), multilevel skywalks (Whyte, 1980; 1988; Yoos & James, 2016; Solomon, 2016), and underground concourses (Boddy, 1992).

Despite underground public spaces serving functions similar to traditional public spaces aboveground, underground spaces have been widely criticized by urban designers. Many argued that these concourses have reduced the attraction of traditional public spaces as streets, parks, and plazas, leaving fewer patrons and less room for activities and social interaction (Gehl, 1987; Whyte, 1988; Cooper-Marcus & Francis,

1998; Carr et al., 1992). In small cities that are not supported by a high volume of users, indoor or underground spaces tend to fail. The basements are not environmentally suitable locations for high-quality shops (Whyte, 1988). Therefore, they argue that underground spaces have intrinsic design flaws.

Furthermore, underground spaces are considered less safe than streets and plazas because it is difficult to maintain natural surveillance (Newman, 1972; Jacobs, 1961) and because the geometrical layout of the space prevents access and visibility from the main route of access (Hiller, 1998; Cozen et al., 2004). These concourses are difficult to remember and navigate; therefore, many signs and maps are necessary to supplement navigating strategies (Whyte, 1980, 1988; Lynch, 1961). Poor wayfinding, orientation, and visibility are the results of the lack of design and technical coordination in dealing with conflicting architectural, structural, and mechanical planning priorities (Bosch,

2011). In the absence of design knowledge and place-making experts in the planning and implementation process, underground spaces would be built to engineering specifications, not to urban design principles.

Despite the pessimism regarding non-traditional public spaces dominating recent urban design discourse, an increasing number of studies have begun to reassess the value of unconventional public spaces found in privately owned, elevated, and underground space. Public spaces provided by the private sector, or “Capital Spaces,” are not necessarily exclusive but accommodate different needs of diverse social groups

(Carmona & Wunderlich, 2012). At a minimum, under the control of the public, guaranteed access to privately owned public spaces can contribute to the vitality of the overall public realm (Kayden, 2000; Barnett & Beasley, 2015). Both indoor and outdoor public spaces in Philadelphia, Reading Terminal Market, Rittenhouse Square, and the

Gallery, are described as the quintessential examples of a “cosmopolitan canopy, under which diverse people constantly exposed to one another occasionally interact, people watch, and become familiar with one another” (Anderson, 2011, p. 105). Unlike their

American counterparts, shopping malls in Hong Kong are not anti-urban by nature. “Mall

City” commercialized streets and squares; at the same time, they are places for social movements and demonstrations. Malls are also embedded in high-density and mixed- use communities and integrated with the mass transit system, helping Hong Kong to become one of the most sustainable cities in the world (Al, 2016). Elevated pathways in

Hong Kong are not only the result of authoritarian planning, but also of a unique collaboration between a comprehensive master plan and pragmatism from everyday life

(Frampton, Solomon, & Wong, 2012).

Hidden Cities: New Urban Reality

Underground public spaces are the new urban reality that we must incorporate into the public realm. As described above, scientists and engineers have so far dominated extensive research on underground space. Place-making experts have not rigorously promoted urban design principles in underground public space. As a result, the design of underground infrastructure is often ruled by engineering priorities, resulting in poor wayfinding and low visibility in underground public spaces (Bosch, 2011). Considering that many people use these underground spaces every day, we could capitalize on this opportunity to transform underground public spaces into places for social interaction.

Second, the preceding research has examined underground spaces in North

American cities with extreme climates, such as Montreal, Toronto, Dallas, and

Minneapolis (Boddy, 1992; Whyte, 1980, 1988; Cooper-Marcus & Francis, 1998; Carr et

al., 1992). However, these cities show quite different scales and densities from the recent models of underground space developments around the world. While density is a critical factor in the success of underground spaces (Whyte, 1988, 1980; He et al., 2012;

Bobylev, 2016), previously studied cities do not show enough density in the center.

Moreover, many other cities with failing underground spaces cannot sustain those spaces due to low population density (e.g., Detroit, Philadelphia, and Dallas). For these reasons, it is necessary to study underground public spaces in higher-density cities such as New York City, London, Hong Kong, and Moscow. Exploring the underground spaces of these cities will help to fill the gaps in knowledge that are more relevant for high- density transit-oriented developments, which have been replicated in many developing countries to accommodate population growth.

Research Method

This dissertation explores the conditions under which underground concourses, as engineered infrastructures, become meaningful places in city centers. I will trace the social and political debates in the development of subway systems and associated underground spaces. I will also document the design of resulting places and the behavior of users in the hidden cities to discover how earlier decisions affected the design of and the way people use the resulting underground spaces.

Underground scientists have explored three distinct research modes: structural analysis, simulation, and case studies. The integrity of the subsurface structure is one of the primary focuses of civil engineers. Geological surveys of the local and regional area are a recurring research method. Since it is difficult and expensive to build and test the structure and the interior environment of subterranean buildings, various computer 18

simulations are used to understand the dynamics and the quality of underground structures. Computer Fluid Dynamics is a favored research method to test the ventilation of the underground space. Moreover, structural analysis is done under various assumption regarding manmade or natural disasters. Case studies are often used to derive policy recommendations in underground spaces because there is a limited number of samples with a wide variety of structural settings and construction methods for statistical analysis.

Underground spaces became safer and more efficient as scientific research focused on structure and environment. However, these research methods do not aptly capture the quality of spaces and the behavior of the users. Simulation is efficient in understanding how people in an underground space react to a fire hazard, but it is not effective in predicting how they navigate in the afternoon because the simulation is performed under extreme conditions. It is difficult to computer model psychology and the irrational choices of people. Second, most of the scientific research on underground space does not explain the historical context of the current configuration of these spaces. Little investigation has been done on the motivations for critical design decisions. The causal relationship between the decision and the resulting space is critical for the designers or the decision-makers not to repeat the mistake.

To overcome the gap in research methods, I adopt mixed methods research to integrate historical study, qualitative research, and design research. For the research method, this dissertation reviews the history of subway and underground development around the selected transit hub, documents the public spaces in the transit hub and connecting concourses, and observes the behavior of people through participant observation. Unlike the conventional mixed methods research bridging the gap between

quantitative and qualitative research, this dissertation mixes history and environmental research.

Reviewing the history of subways and underground concourses helps us to understand the political and social context of why and how decisions were made. In particular, the debates over the planning of subways and underground spaces are interesting in terms of the motivation for subsurface infrastructure. A wide range of historic investigations is available in the selected cities to reconstruct the discussion.

Unlike other social research, urban design, architecture, and other environmental research are involved with the spatial dimension of the research design (Ziezel, 2006).

Documenting the built environment is one of the oldest and widely accepted research techniques. From the historical research and the field visit, I produced a series of design documents to analyze the space, the design characteristics, and the relationships among spaces. Among the design documents, I included plans, sections, and axonometric to analyze the design, circulation, and program of underground public spaces. After underground public spaces are analyzed and compared, conclusions will be drawn about the configuration of corridors and gathering squares and the design of connecting points to aboveground. Based on these findings, I will develop urban design guidelines and strategies for underground spaces for future implementation.

Third, I conducted participant observation at the field sites to document the activities and behaviors of users. Participant observation is the most frequently used research method among the livability theorists (Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987; Mehta, 2007).

Originating in social anthropology, it aims to learn about a culture by observing and participating in the social life of a group or a place (Emerson et al., 2011; Goffman,

1989). This is an effective way to obtain a comprehensive view of the use of public

space. This study will follow the participant observation protocol developed by William

Whyte (1980; 1988), Project for Public Space (2000), and Jan Gehl (1987; 1995). I observed and marked where people sit, stand, eat, and drink, as well as where social activities take place in these spaces, such as conversation, play, busking, and performance, and displays of affection. The survey of people’s behavior in underground space helps us to assess how the space functions (Gehl, 1987).

This dissertation compares history, design, and use in five hidden cities in different

countries. Comparative case studies are effective in identifying a generalizable theory by analyzing and synthesizing similar or different patterns across multiple cases. Case studies and the comparative method are another conventional research tradition that can

be applied to urban design (Appleyard, 1981; Gehl, 1987; Newman, 1972). This will help

us to understand how and why particular hidden cities work or fail. Through comparative

studies, we can understand how urban context, design, ownership, management, spatial

configuration, and government influence the success of underground public spaces.

References:

Abraham, K., (2008). Smart tunnel the unique dual purpose solution for Kuala Lumpur. In: Enlightened Underground, Centrum Undergrounds Bouwen.

Admiraal, H., (2012). Underground space as invaluable resource for resilient cities’. In: Paper presented at the 13th International Conference of the Associated research Centers for Urban Underground Space (ACUUS), Singapore, November 7–9.

Al, S. (2016). Mall city : Hong Kong’s dreamworlds of consumption. Honolulu : University of Hawaiʻi Press

Anderson, E. (2011). The cosmopolitan canopy : race and civility in everyday life (1st ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Appleyard, D. (1982). Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Banham, R. (1969). The architecture of the well-tempered environment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Barnett, J. & Beatley, T. (2015). Ecodesign for cities and suburbs. Washington DC: Island Press.

Bennett, D. (2004). Metro : the story of the underground railway / David Bennett. London: M. Beazley.

Besner, J (1997) Genese da la ville interieure de Montreal. Opening speech, 7th International Conference on Underground Space 1997—Indoor Cities of Tomorrow, ACUUS, Montreal, Canada.

Bobylev, N. (2007). Sustainability and vulnerability analysis of critical underground infrastructure. In Managing critical infrastructure risks: decision tools and applications for port security. Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from https://proxy.library.upenn.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/369 74728?accountid=14707

Bobylev. N. (2009) Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city’s master plan: a case of urban underground space use in Land Use Policy, 26 (4) ,pp. 1128–1137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.003

Bobylev, N. (2016). Underground space as an urban indicator: Measuring use of subsurface. Urban Underground Space: A Growing Imperative Perspectives and Current Research in Planning and Design for Underground Space Use, 55, 40– 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.10.024

Bobylev, N., & Sterling, R. (2016). Urban underground space: A growing imperative: Perspectives and current research in planning and design for underground space use. Urban Underground Space: A Growing Imperative Perspectives and Current Research in Planning and Design for Underground Space Use, 55, pp.1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.022

Boddy, T. (1992). Underground and Overhead: Building the Analogous City. In Variations on a theme park : the new American city and the end of public space (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Bosch, J. (2011). Social safety in underground metro stations; lessons learned and implemented in the Amsterdam metro, the Netherlands. ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congres.

Broere, W. (2016). Urban underground space: Solving the problems of today’s cities. Urban Underground Space: A Growing Imperative Perspectives and Current Research in Planning and Design for Underground Space Use, 55, 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.11.012

Carmona, M. (2012). Capital spaces : the multiple complex public spaces of a global city. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Carmody, J. (1983). Underground Building Design : Commercial and Institutional Structures. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Carmody, J. (1985). Earth Sheltered Housing Design. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Carmody, J., and Raymond L. Sterling. (1987). Design Strategies to Alleviate Negative Psychological and Physiological Effects in Underground Space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2 (1): 59–67. doi:10.1016/0886-7798(87)90143- X.

Carmody, J and Sterling, R (1993) Underground Space Design—A Guide to Subsurface Utilisation and Design for People in Underground Spaces. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, G., & Collins, C. (1986). Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning. Mineola: Dover Publication Inc.

Cooper, G. (1998). Air-conditioning America : engineers and the controlled environment, 1900-1960. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cooper-Marcus, C. (Ed.). (1998). People places : design guidelines for urban open space (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Cornaro, A., Admiraal, H., (2012). Changing world – major challenges: the need for underground space planning. In: Paper presented at the 2012 World Congress of ISOCARP, Perm, Russia, September 10–13.

Cozens, P. M., Pascoe, T., & Hillier, D. (2004). Critically Reviewing the Theory and Practice of Secured-by-design for Residential New-build Housing in Britain. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 6(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140176

Crawford, M. (1992). The World in a Shopping Mall. In Variations on a theme park : the new American city and the end of public space (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Cullen, G. (1961). Townscape. London: Architectural Press.

Dal Negro, E., Boscaro, A., Laham, D., (2012). Successful TBM operations in urban environment: the “Arroyo Maldonado” project in Buenos Aires. In: Proceedings of the ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress 2012 – Tunnelling and Underground Space for a Global Society.

Emerson, R. M. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frampton, A. (2012). Cities without ground : a Hong Kong guidebook / Adam Frampton, Jonathan D. Solomon, Clara Wong. Rafael, Calif.: Oro editions.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings : using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Goffman, E. (1989). On Fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(2), 123– 132. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124189018002001

He, L., Song, Y., Dai, S., & Durbak, K. (2012). Quantitative research on the capacity of urban underground space – The case of Shanghai, China. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 32, 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.06.008

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J., (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Jacobs, A. B. (1995). Great streets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Jenks, M, Burton, E and Williams, K (eds) (1996) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form. E & FN Spon.

Kayden, J. S. (2000). Privately owned public space : the New York City experience. New York: John Wiley.

Kim, A. M. (2015). Sidewalk city : remapping public space in Ho Chi Minh City. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Kowinski, W. S. (1985). The malling of America : an inside look at the great consumer paradise (1st ed.). New York: W. Morrow.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2009). Sidewalks : conflict and negotiation over public space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Mehta, V. (2007). Lively Streets: Determining Environmental Characteristics to Support Social Behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 165–187.

Miyao, H., Kamoshita, Y., Kanai, M., Fukumoto, K. (2000). Underground river tunnel for flood control by shield tunneling The Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers

Moreland, F., et al. (1981). Earth-Covered Buildings: An Exploratory Analysis for Hazard and Energy Performance. Final Report, contract no. 81-600091, FEMA 4411E

Moudon, A. V. (1986). Built for change : neighborhood architecture in San Francisco. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space; crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.

Pasqual, J, and Riera, P. (2005). “Underground Land Values.” Land Use Policy 22 (4): 322–30. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.03.005.

Project for Public Space. (2000). How to turn a place around : a handbook for creating successful public spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Roberts, M., Lloyd-Jones, T., Erickson, B., & Nice, S. (1999). Place and space in the networked city: Conceptualizing the integrated metropolis. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809908724438

Durmisevic, S. (1999). “The Future of the Underground Space.” Cities 16 (4): 233–45. doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(99)00022-0.

Saari, K. (1988). The Rock Engineering Alternative. Finnish Tunnelling Association. ISBN 951-754-374-3. 25

Sommer, R. (1974). Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Solomon, J. D. (2016). It Makes A Village. In S. Al (Ed.), Mall City: A Catalog of Hong Kong. University of Hawaii Press.

Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a theme park : the new American city and the end of public space (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Sterling, R. (1993). Underground space design / designed and illustrated by John Carmody ; Underground Space Center, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Minnesota. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Sterling, R. (1997). “Underground Technologies for Livable Cities.” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 12 (4): 479–90. doi:10.1016/S0886- 7798(98)00007-8.

Sterling, R., Admiraal, R., Bobylev, N., Parker, H., Godard, J., Vähäaho, I., Rogers, D., Shi, X. and Hanamura, T. (2012). Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, 165:4, 241-254

Sterling, R., Nelson, P., (2012). City resiliency and underground space use. In: Paper presented at the 13th ACUUS Conference, Singapore, November 7–9.

Tashiro, Y., Mutou, Y., (2013). Disaster-prevention measures for Tokyo metro tunnels. In: Anagnostou, G., Ehrbar, H. (Eds.), World Tunnel Congress 2013 Geneva – Underground – the way to the future!, pp. 275–282.

Wada, Y. and Sakugawa. H. (1990). Psychological Effects of Working Underground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 5 (1-2): 33-37. Pergamon Press.

Wallis, S., (2010). Santiago Metro Withstands Massive Earthquake.

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Whyte, W. (1988). City : rediscovering the center (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Yoos, J., & James, V. (2016). Parallel Cities: The Multilevel Metropolis. New York: Walker Art Center.

Ziesel, J. (2006). Inquiry by Design. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER 3

AN UNDERWORLD FOR “THE WELFARE OF MASSES,” MOSCOW

Introduction

Near Red Square and Kremlin Palace, three Metro stations and many connecting tunnels are hidden underneath the center of Moscow. The Okhotny Ryad, Teatralnaya, and Ploshchard Revolyutsii stations constitute a network of underground plazas and corridors from the intersection of Okhotny Ryad and Tveskaya Utilisa to the alleys behind the State Department Store (GUM). After a long escalator ride from the street, subway passengers can find shelter from Moscow’s biting winter. Finally, they arrive at

“underground palace”10 in Neoclassical and Art Deco style decorated with glittering

chandeliers and Italian marble reminiscent of a cathedral in the Middle Ages.

Contrary to the connotation of underground space being inhumane place to be, the

Moscow Subway was pro-urbanists’ countermeasure against anti-urbanists who wanted to abandon the congested city center to fulfill socialist ideology. To address congestion and to accommodate recreation from labor, anti-urban socialists claimed that suburban communities living in nature could improve the welfare of the working class. However,

Moscow’s planners did not give up hope on the city center. Instead of moving out to suburban Moscow, subway planners intended to intensify and vitalize the center by solving congestion with then-innovative transportation technology.

The idea for the Metro being developed “to show power of state government" in

Russia since 1935. Unexpectedly, subway planners had achieved more than just propaganda: beloved public space underground representing the welfare of masses and

10 Kuznetsov et al., (2016). Hidden Urbanism: Architecture and Design of the Moscow Metro 1935-2015. pp. 6. 27

the national pride.11 Vitaly Stadnikov, Associate Professor at the Vysokovsky Graduate

School of Urbanism in the Higher School of Economics, points out that Moscow Metro was a gift from the state to the working class to enjoy “the best experience of the day” while they commute “from factories to their overcrowded public housing.”12 Subway

architects have realized Communist ideology by reforming the space of “capitalist

exploitation of the working-class” into the “palace of proletariat” in Moscow.13

The Soviet city planners had to build their subway from scratch due to financial constraints. However, the budget cuts forced Muscovites to come up with technical innovations and unique adaptation of architecture in underground. The precedents in the

West were considered as inadequate examples to follow. However, not knowing how to build a subway system costs more money and lives. The Metro celebrated the Soviet’s modern technology, however, the first phase of the subway system was built with manual labor.14 Hidden behind the beautiful facade of the station, the construction

process entailed countless delays, injuries, and deaths due to the lack of proper

equipment and the aggressive construction schedule. The Soviet leadership built the

Metro as a symbol of the Soviet state’ dedication to improve the welfare of proletariat,

but ironically, it was too expensive for people to use the Metro when it first opened.

11 Wolf, W. K. (1994). Russia's revolutionary underground: The construction of the Moscow subway, 1931- 1935. pp. 355. 12 Interview with Vitaly Stadnikov 13 Wolf, W. K. (1994)., pp.330. 14 Bobrick, B. (1982). “Labor Saturdays and A Czar’s Ransom.” In “Labyrinths of iron, a history of the world’s subways.” pp. 277. 28

9 [+I@>-!0N*+,,-(!.+/+-'!$5!D$'6$B)!#2>--!'/8/+$('!8(,!8!'2$==+(I!%8;;!8>-!6$((-6/-,!6>-8/+(I!8(!-c/-('+9-! (-/B$>3!$5!@(,->I>$@(,!/>8('+/!2@S)!

;B Despite the financial constraints, the Soviet subway planners put the utmost priority on the emphasis on the design and the user experience. Dushkin and Manizer, a prominent Russian architect and artist, respectively, have created a haven of “triangular props”15 in Ploschad Revolyutssi Station. The colonnade of double octagonal pylons in

Okhotny Ryad Station creates a “soft edge”16 to facilitate casual contact and social activities. The ventilation system hidden from the Art Deco Style pylon changes fouled air in the stations four times an hour. The marble floors are scrub-cleaned overnight.17

Mezzanines, platforms, columns, and walls in Moscow metro are equivalent to effective plazas, squares, and benches aboveground.

Besides the artistic and historic value of these stations, the social life in these stations are less known and hidden beneath the surface. Unlike other underground concourses in Western world, the central halls of Moscow Metro are the vibrant urban plazas in which the same activities can be found as in any other outdoor public spaces.

The design and spatial quality of the stations have transformed the underground infrastructure into meaningful places for Russians. As result, rich social life exists amidst heavy foot traffic. Passengers not only wait for incoming trains but also their friends in subway stations. These hidden plazas are preferred places to meet and greet friends partly because the spaces are protected from cold winters and hot summers. Even

Dmitri, a native Muscovite who hates underground space, does not mind being in Metro stations, says: "I like being aboveground but I do not mind staying in Metro stations

15 Whyte, H. William.(1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation. pp. 94. 16 Gehl, Jan (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 75. 17 Bobrick, B. (1982). pp. 281. 30

because it has high ceiling and beautiful. It does not feel like I am being in underground.”18 Similar sentiments have been expressed by many Muscovites.

The spaces of horizontal and vertical movement in the stations, corridors, and escalator banks show contrasting patterns of social activities. Despite the ample social

activities in the central halls of the subway stations, the corridors and pedestrian tunnels

connecting stations to stations are rather dull. Corridors are the technical option to deal

with overflowing pedestrian foot traffic; the original intention for the corridors was not to

replicate the vitality of the streets and promenades aboveground. Thus, these functional

spaces merely house waves of commuters during rush hour. In contrast, seemingly

technological and hyper-functional devices such as escalators accommodate more

social activities in the underground. Escalators are located at the crossroads of many

pedestrian foot traffic paths; they are inevitable gateways to the underground plazas in

Moscow Metro from the street. By nature, escalators allow people to pause for a minute

or two. This momentary pause is a window for people to be exposed to more social

activities when they enter and exit the subway stations.

The history of the Moscow Metro has been covered by many Russian historians,19

and it is not my intention to translate that history in this chapter. William Wolf (1995)

presented the history of the first Metro line in his doctoral dissertation focusing on

political and engineering challenges and how Muscovites overcome those challenges.

Alexander Zumel (2016) presented the architectural history of Moscow Metro, including

its history after the first phase. The intent of this chapter is to understand the motivation

and meanings of the Moscow Metro to Muscovites, to trace how the three subway

18 Interview with Dmitri 19 Zmeul, Alexander. (2016) Excavating Underground Archives: Architectural History of the Moscow Metro. in Kuznetsov, S., Zmeul, A., Kagarov, E., Meuser, P., & Martovitskaya, A. (2016). Hidden urbanism: architecture and design of the Moscow metro, 1935-2015. Berlin: DOM publishers. 31

stations have been built, and to explain why people use these underground spaces for social activities. How have Muscovites transformed a transit infrastructure into a meaningful public space?

Moscow Metro: Pro-Urban Aspiration Against Anti-Urbanists

At the turn of the twentieth century, Moscow’s population reached over one million.

Due to the increasing demand for housing and transportation, experts and politicians began to discuss the idea of a subway in Moscow. In 1902, a group of rail engineers,

Balinsky and Knorre, presented a bolder vision of a Moscow subway. Its general organization was similar to the first scheme; ring railroads that were connected to radial rails. Balinsky and Knorre planned for 40 miles (67 km) of elevated rail and 10 miles (16 km) of subway tunnel with a grander vision for the Central Station near Red Square, the current location of Teatralnaya Station. The proposal was rejected because Moscow officials were not familiar with the idea of underground rail. In part, Balinsky’s association with a capitalist entrepreneur caused government officials to balk on final approval because the project was to be financed by the American engineer and investor Merry A.

Werner. 20 More importantly, however, an electric streetcar system was in operation a

year before. Therefore, transportation experts were reluctant to invest in another

expensive public transport system in the center.

Full-scale planning and debate on a subway in Moscow did not take place until 1924.

Regardless of increasing urban immigration, many believed that the existing streetcar

system was enough to handle transportation. Moreover, the First World War in 1914 and

the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution in 1917 deterred people from moving

to Moscow. The subway debate resumed when Moscow officials began to realize that

20 Bobrick, B. (1982). pp. 152. 32

they needed to reconsider building a subway when people began to return to the cities after 1921.

In 1923, the Moscow City Council Presidium, the executive board of the council, resumed negotiations with foreign companies for the Moscow subway and created a design department within the Moscow City Rail trust (MGZhD). A group of Moscow City

Council members went to Europe to attract foreign partners, including Siemens Bau-

Union and AEG (General Electric Company), in 1924. Siemens Bau-Union and S.N.

Rozanov, a Russian-born engineer who had fled to Paris during 1the 917 Revolution,

prepared two separate draft plans for the subway in 1926. Applying what he learned in

Paris, Rozanov devised an entire underground system with three lines radiating out from

the center. Similar to the Paris Metro, Rozanov proposed a shallow tunnel just a few feet

below the surface to naturally ventilate the underground structures. Siemens Bau-Union

adopted the subway system from Germany. They proposed five subway lines similar to

the plan proposed in 1912 by Knorre and the Moscow City Duma, an organization

equivalent to a municipal urban design department.21 In 1927, the Moscow City Council decided to build the subway over the following five years. The council chose Siemens

Bau-Union’s scheme since they also offered favorable financial support from Germany.

This decision was announced to the public in 1928.

The Moscow subway debate from 1928 to 1931 was not only a political power struggle between left and right but also an urban planning controversy for the future vision of Moscow.22 The debate related to the subway included urban growth, public transit, and quality of life, which are relevant to contemporary urban planning issues.

21 Ibid., pp. 273. 22 Wolf, W. K. (1994). pp. 23. 33

Two contrasting views existed in the urban growth field related to building a subway in Moscow. Predominantly, socialists with an anti-urban vision were against the idea of building a subway in a communist city. They believed that “big cities were by nature anti- socialist and thus should be abandoned or even destroyed.”23 Moisei Ginzburg, a prominent Soviet anti-urbanist, argued for resettlement of the urban population to the suburbs where people can enjoy ample light, fresh air, and natural landscape: a Russian version of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City. Therefore, “developing subway plans for a doomed city” was considered an irrational choice for the ideal socialist community.24

Further, G. Puzis argued that a subway is too expensive and an “example of

capitalist exploitation of the working-class”, which is ideologically undesirable in the

Soviet Union.25 The conditions of overcrowded subways in capitalist cities such as New

York City, London, and Paris created dire conditions of “human porridge” that robbed the working class of valuable time and energy.

The proponents of a subway system presented counterarguments against Puzis. N.

Osinskii, Deputy Director of Vessenkha (USSR’s economic planning agencies), rejected the idea that there was economic and population decline in the center of the city. The population of Moscow was increasing sharply, contrary to anti-urbanists’ expectations.

He further proposed to increase density in the center by adding a couple of floors without building a new infrastructure on the periphery of Moscow. Osinskii envisioned that the increased population would share the cost of subway construction. Gende-Rote, the head of the Moscow tram trust, also refuted the anti-subway arguments. The

23 Fitzpatrick, S. (1974). Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-32. Journal of Contemporary History, 9(1), 33- 52. 24 Brumfield, W. Craft. (1990). Reshaping Russian architecture : Western technology, utopian dreams. New York : Cambridge University Press. pp. 164. 25 Strumilin, S.G. (1931). Ekonomicheskaia zhizn’. Moskva: Sovet truda I oborony SSSR, 6 June 1931, pp.2. 34

resettlement to the suburbs would result in decrease of industry and residents in the center, transforming Moscow from “powerful proletarian center” to a “bureaucratic appendage”, or “a city of government institutions.”26

Pro-subway Muscovites further expressed that environmental conditions could be

overcome with better design and new technology. Osinskii argued that the subway is

more efficient and faster than any other mode of public transit; therefore, people would

benefit more from shorter commutes. Addressing environmental concerns, Gende-Rote

recommended that the advanced technology, such as forced ventilation system, would

improve the environmental quality in underground space. He opined that the defects in

the Western subway system resulted from the flaws of capitalism. Gende-Rote believed

in the superiority of socialism over capitalism, arguing that concerns of efficiency could

be avoided under socialism, where “the welfare of the masses” had the utmost priority.27

The potential military value of an underground subway system was not the primary

rationale at the time; still, Osinskii and Gende-Rote foresaw the advantage of using the

subway as a bomb shelter.

Other modes of public transit system, including bus and tram, were suggested as

alternatives to the expensive subway system. Fortifying the existing street car system

had been considered as another alternative since the beginning of the subway debates

in 1902. Puzis recommended a bus system, since buses were the public transport of the

future and were much cheaper than subways. They did not need as vast an amount of

investment in infrastructure as a subway, and they could be implemented almost right

away via the existing road system. Moreover, bus factories could be also utilized as

26 Ibid., 9 June 1931, pp.2. 27 Wolf, W. K. (1994)., pp. 39. 35

national defense assets, as they could convert the bus factory into one for military transport vehicles.

However, buses and trams are considered inefficient options for the radial street network of Moscow. The converging roads to the center tends to create severe congestion at the center, which was the emerging transportation issue. Therefore, the surface system could not well accommodate the increased demand. The streetcar system was at 150% of its recommended capacity in 1929. The bus system was added in 1929 but exacerbate the traffic congestion. The alternatives were proven to be inadequate to resolve the traffic congestion.

“Palace of the Proletariat”

On 15 June 1931, the Moscow subway was approved by the Central Committee, and the City Council allocated 55 million rubles for its construction.28 A couple of months later, Metrostroi was established to manage the construction of the subway. Pavel

Pavlovich Rotert, the chief civil engineer who oversaw the construction of the Dnieper hydroelectric power station, was appointed as the head of Metrostroi.29 Under pressure from political leaders, Metrostroi put out a fast-track plan for building the subway system.

However, Metrostroi did not have enough experience, knowledge, equipment, budget, or labor for the daunting task. Rotert himself had almost no knowledge of building subways. Few other engineers had experience in building subways. Foreign expertise was essential for the subway project. From the early planning phase, German engineers from Siemens Bau-Union were involved. George Morgan, an American tunnel

28 Ibid., pp. 21. 29 Bobrick, B. (1982). pp. 273. 36

engineer, was the main technical advisor to Metrostroi.30 Beginning in 1932, however,

foreign knowledge transfer was discontinued because the Soviets experienced severe

financial constraints.

The financial difficulty left Metrostroi with a lack of equipment or an appropriate work

plan. The first subway line was entirely hand-dug by Muscovites because Metrostroi could not acquire proper equipment for excavation. Workers dug the tunnel with picks and shovels instead of air hammers or steam shovels used in other Western subway construction. Machinery was not the only thing missing; engineers and political leaders wasted time and resources due to their lack of technical knowledge of tunneling in an urban environment. They debated for many months to determine tunnel alignment, excavation, and construction methods.

However, the lack of resources and isolation from the precedents of Western cities left Moscow Metro as the most unique subway in the world. Indeed, the subways in New

York City, London, and Paris were precedents to be avoided by the Russian subway planners. The discussions in designing stations and access well represented how

Muscovites tried to avoid previous examples. As discussed above, the poor environment of Western subways was regarded as an example of capitalist exploitation of the proletariat. Subways in the West were “crowded, dirty, gloomy, and thus unfit for socialist societies.”31 Importing capitalists’ failure could not be accepted by Russian socialists.

Muscovites refined the underground infrastructure into the “palace of proletariat” with an ideological intention: the “welfare of the masses.”32

30 Schlögel, K. (2012). Moscow, 1937. Cambridge: Polity. 31 Wolf, W. K. (1994). pp. 326. 32 Ibid,. pp. 330. 37

The “socialist” metro was different from the “capitalist” metro in terms of two folds; the emphasis on design and aesthetic over technical aspects and the emphasis on the user experience over costs even when Soviet was going through the financial challenge.

For platform configuration, lateral platforms that could be found New York City and Paris were simpler and cheaper to build because the alignment of the subway tunnel did not have to shift to the sides from the center. However, the Moscow subway followed an island-platform pattern that was adopted in London because it was convenient for access and transfer.33 The consolidated space in the middle also provided opportunities

to create a grand space for people. The spatial configuration of stations was changed by

political officials to enhance the quality of space. Kaganovich, the prominent political

leader and Stalin’s right-hand man, was in charge of subway construction and had a

great interest in subway architecture. He ordered the architects to change the platform

design from a two-arch to a three-arch for a more spacious station, despite the

increased cost.

High-quality aesthetic was one of the main emphases in station design. Kaganovich

stressed that “not a single station should be similar to another.”34 In 1934, the Moscow

City Council held a design competition of 13 stations and entrance buildings. To address

Kaganovich’s demand, famous Soviet architects were involved in the competition, including Ivan Fomin, a key contributor of post-constructivism, Ilya Golosov, a leader of constructivism, Nikolai Ladrovsky, a member of the Russian avant-garde, and numerous other young architects.35 Despite the city announced the second and third places for the

competition in each station, these winners were not guaranteed to design the stations.

33 Zinovʹev, A. (2011). Stalinskoe metro. Moskva: Zinovʹev A.N. 34 Wolf, W. K. (1994). pp. 305. 35 Kosenkova, I. L. (2010). 38

Instead, the winning architects and artists were grouped and assigned with design tasks for each station. These design proposals were dominated by the Art Deco and

Neoclassical styles, decorated with chandeliers and expensive marble and granite, creating “underground palaces.”

Moscow subway planners were not shy introducing new technology and investing resources to improve people’s experience in the underground. The construction of the

Moscow subway shifted from shallow open-trench to deep tunnel to avoid conflicts with existing subsurface utility lines and surface traffic during construction.36 Amid the technical challenges of deep tunneling, the Party officials were concerned about the inconvenience to passengers who had to climb up and down the endless stairs when stations were placed deep underground.

Vladmir Makovskii, a young Soviet engineer introduced escalators in Moscow Metro despite the challenges. He had access to technical literature on the London and New

York subways and found that escalators had been used to address the challenge of deep tunnel passenger access in London’s Tube. Escalators were still a new technology, even in Western countries. Veteran engineers were skeptical of the young engineer’s futuristic ideas; escalators were untested in the Soviet Union and too expensive to be brought in from abroad. After Stalin’s approval of deep tunneling on 23 May 1932,

Moscow Metro was redesigned to be 20 to 30 meters below ground. Soviet manufacturers were able to reverse-engineer escalators examining marketing documents from Otis; which was one of the two escalator developers in the world at that time. These futuristic machines have played a critical role in making hidden cities in

Moscow successful.

36 Bobrick, B. (1982). pp. 272. 39

Rise and Fall of Underground Palace

After 4 years of approval from Central Committee and 33 years after the initial plans,

Moscow Metro, with a total length of 11.2 km with 13 stations, opened to the public on

15 May 1935. Soviet propagandists praised the lavish, well-lit, and spacious décor of

Moscow Metro as proof of the commitment to the welfare of proletariat.37 Foreign experts also commended Moscow Metro’s “exceptional beauty and quality.” About 370,000

Muscovites visited the Metro to celebrate the opening of the subway. Harold Denny, the

New York Times’ Moscow correspondent, described the festive atmosphere as an

“underground picnic” at which Muscovites were dressed in their best clothes with banners.38

Upon the success of the first Metro, the Moscow subway expanded its system in the following years. Slowly, the emphasis on the users and the proletariat class was replaced with the authoritarian motivation. Stage 2 opened in 1938 with refined “Art

Deco” or “Neoclassical” style stations. Stage 3 continued from 1943 and 1944 during

World War II. During the war, the Metro stations were bomb shelters for citizens and the

Soviet High Command during German air raids. Additional tunnels were built and sectioned out to create a protected command post for Stalin and his generals. After the war, Metro stations began to celebrate Stalin’s victory; stations became temples of war rather than classical palaces. The ornaments of new subway stations were simpler and changed to emphasize them as monuments to the war. Statues of political leaders like

Lenin and Stalin began to appear in almost all stations.39

37 Wolf, W. K. (1994) pp. 330. 38 Harold, D. (1935). “Moscow Subway Thrives; 6,500,000 Used It First Month -- Passengers Accustomed to It.” in New York Times, 16 June 1935, pp.20. 39 Kuznetsov et al., (2016). Hidden Urbanism: Architecture and Design of the Moscow Metro 1935-2015. pp. 146. 40

1I=8C&3ACB?&37C&""W&=E8&;8T&9ADGAT&K8=CA&D=7=:A;D&?A&;A=&D88K&=A&DE7C8&=E8&D7K8&

GE7C7G=8C:D=:GD&AI&=E8&MC8T7C&D=7=:A;DS&%8T8C&DHUT7>&D=7=:A;D&T8C8&D=C:MM8?&AI&7;>&

AC;7K8;=DS&(E8&;8T&)AJ:8=&B87?8CW&%:X:=7&ZECHDEGE8JW&TEA&T7D&=E8&K7:;&MCAMA;8;=&AI&

98=CA&MCA[8G=DW&:;:=:7=8?&=E8&;8T&KAJ8K8;=&:;&=E8&:;?HD=C:7B:]7=:A;&AI&GA;D=CHG=:A;&7;?&

D=7;?7C?:]8?&?8D:@;S&";&P`ccW&ZECHDEGE8J&:DDH8?&7&^#8GC88&A;&$B:K:;7=:;@&37D=8&:;&

2H:B?:;@D:@;_&=A&C8KAJ8&^GAKMB8=8B>&H;[HD=:I:8?_&B7J:DE&AC;7K8;=7=:A;&AI&MHUB:G&

D=CHG=HC8D&?HC:;@&=E8&)=7B:;&8C7SaO&ZECHDEGE8J&7C@H8?&=E7=&=E8&T7D=8IHB&D=7=8&IH;?D&IAC&

^7CGE:=8G=HC7B&8\G8DD8D_&GAHB?&U8&C8?:C8G=8?&=A&:KMCAJ8&EAHD:;@&GA;?:=:A;DS&):;G8&=E8&

P`bODW&98=CA&D=7=:A;&7CGE:=8G=HC8&8KME7D:]8?&^D:KMB:G:=>W&D=C:G=;8DD&AI&IACKW&7;?&BAT/GAD=&

DABH=:A;DS_aP&&

[+I@>-!TN*+,,-(!.+/&!$5!D$'6$B]!?32$/(&!1&8,]!#9->'38&8]!8(,!:;$'2628>,!1-9$;&@/'++!'/8/+$('!8>-!;$68/-,! 8!5-B!S;$63'!5>$%!1-,!Hk@8>-!8(,!J>-%;+(!:8;86-)! aO&3ABIW&3S&ZS&gP``ah)!MMS&YdPS& aP&ZH];8=DAJ&8=&7BSW&gNOPdhS&& <>

It is unfortunate that the tradition of Moscow’s hidden cities had discontinued.

However, Moscow Metro stations are regarded as the most beautiful subways in the world, which are separated from other Western examples. The subway system was then transmitted to other Communist cities, including Pyeongyang in North Korea, Berlin in

East Germany, Prague in Czechoslovakia, and some Chinese cities. Metrostroi, now a private construction company specializing in subway construction, exported Russian subway technology to Chenai and Mumbai in India.

Hidden Ensemble

Kosenkova (2010) argues that the entire underground space should be integrated as “an ensemble of the whole city,” a continuation of city streets and squares rather than utilitarian structures as he reviewed the history and architecture of Moscow Metro. The three stations in the center of Moscow, Okhotny Ryad, Teatralnaya, and Ploshchard

Revolyutsii are the defining examples of such a city ensemble. The ensemble consists of three subway stations, two pairs of one-way corridors connecting the stations, and six banks of escalators. It is interesting to see how Muscovites use the underground streets and plazas of Moscow and to understand the reason why these places outperform other underground spaces around the world.

Three Stations: Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, and Ploshchard Revolyutsii Station

Okhotny Ryad Station was one of the first thirteen stations opened in 1935. It is located on the corner of Tverskaya Road and Okhotny Ryad Road. The station originally had two entrances; the south exit was incorporated in Hotel Moscow facing Manezhnaya

Square, and the north exit was the remodeled ground floor of an existing building located

across from the entrance plaza of the State Academic Bolshoi Theater of Russia. The south entrance was demolished along with the hotel in 2004. Now, the south entrance is split into six branches connecting an underground shopping mall and four corners of the intersection of Tverskaya Road and Okhotny Ryad Road.42

A well-lit station platform appears as passengers descend three banks of elevators

from the streets above. While the floor and columns are made of white gray marble, the

subway track walls are covered with white ceramic tiles. The marble used in Okhotny

Ryad Station did not come from a quarry; instead, the marble came from the Cathedral

of Christ the Savior. After the church was demolished in 1932, the Italian marble was too

good to be wasted. Architects of Lenin Library had preserved the marble, stacking it for

future projects. Metrostroi had difficulty in stocking interior finish material and decided to

recycle them in the new station.43

Okhotny Ryad Station has changed its name as the political environment has shifted.

Okhotny Ryad was its original name when it first opened in 1935. The station was

named after Kaganovich from 1955 to 1957 to commemorate Kaganovich’s leading role

in subway construction. In 1957, Khrushchev removed Kaganovich’s name and returned

to Okhotny Ryad after he won the political struggle against Kaganovich. In 1961, the

name of the station was renamed to “Prospekt Marksa,” or Prospect of Marx. A portrait

of Marx was hung in the northern entrance hall in 1964. Finally, the station recovered its

original name in 1990 when the Soviet Union was dismantled.44

Ploshchad Revolyutssi Station opened in 13 March 1938 as part of the second

phase of Metro’s development. The station spans from Revolution Square in the

42 Moscow Metro Official Website, Accessed on 25-May-2017 http://www.metro.ru/stations/sokolnicheskaya/okhotny_ryad/ 43 Wolf, W. K. (1994)., pp. 309. 44 Zinovʹev, Aleksandr. (2011). Stalinskoe metro. Moskva: Zinovʹev A.N. 43

northwest to Birzhevaya Ploshchad in the south. Rather than utilizing the subsurface of public right of way, Ploschad Revolyutssi Station lay diagonally across underneath buildings and roads. Two entrances on each end of platform are embedded in other buildings, making it difficult to locate the entrances. The station was named after

Revolution Square, honoring the February 1917 revolution.

Ploshchard Revolyutsii was the first Metro station that incorporated sculpture as a primary focus of its design. Seventy-six bronze sculptures honoring 20 years of Soviet rule of Russia still exist after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992. The sculptures depict pioneers, peasants, children, students, border guards, and paratroopers in a chronological order of Soviet revolution from 1917 to 1937. Matvei Genrikhovich Manizer, whose work was primarily bronze monumental sculptures representing ideological figures and events, produced the figures at the Leningrad Art Workshop. Since

Ploshchard Revolyutsii, the focus of design shifted towards artistic decoration rather than architecture.45 Stations in later phases became grander and were decorated more with sculptures and other art elements, including murals and wall decorations. Architects were not fully supportive of such an approach.

Teatralnaya Station was also opened in September 1938 but six months after

Ploschad Revolyutssi. The station was named after the square located above the station,

Teatralnaya Square. The square is a forecourt of the Bolshoi Theater, Maly Theater, and

Russian Youth Theater, and it is connected to Revolution Square across Okhotny Ryad

– Teatralnaya Road. Teatralnaya Station does not have its own entrance hall. Instead,

entrances to the station are shared with the north entrance of Okhotny Ryad Station and

the west entrance of Ploschad Revolyutssi Station.

45 Kuznetsov et al., (2016). pp. 101. 44

"J7;&1B8XD7;?CAJ:GE&FAK:;W&=E8&7CGE:=8G=&AI&(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;W&DHGG8DDIHBB>&

C8:;J8;=8?&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&:;IC7D=CHG=HC8&7D&7;&8II8G=:J8&MHUB:G&DM7G8&:;&E:D&

%8AGB7DD:G7B&7CGE:=8G=HC8S&FAK:;&T7D&A;8&AI&=E8&MCAK:;8;=&+HDD:7;&7CGE:=8G=D&

?8J8BAM8?&=E8&%8AGB7DD:G7B&D=>B8&:;&)AJ:8=&4;:A;&7;?&A;8&AI&=E8&X8>&GA;=C:UH=ACD&=A&87CB>&

)=7B:;:D=&7CGE:=8G=HC8&AC&MAD=/GA;D=CHG=:J:DKW&7;&7==8KM=&=A&C8GC87=8&^GB7DD:G7B&DE7M8D&

T:=EAH=&GB7DD:G7B&?8=7:BDS_&FAK:;&8B7UAC7=8?&=E8&%8AGB7DD:G7B&7CGE:=8G=HC8&:;&=E8&D=7=:A;S&

(E8&?8D:@;&8B8K8;=D&AI&(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;&IABBAT8?&GB7DD:G7B&?8=7:BDW&:;GBH?:;@&M>BA;DW&

U8;GE8DW&7;?&G8:B:;@&?8=7:BDS&'A;;8G=:;@&=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BB&=A&=E8&MB7=IACKDW&=E8&M>BA;D&7C8&

7;GEAC8?&T:=E&#AC:G&GABHK;D&A;&IAHC&GAC;8CDW&7;?&U8;GE8D&G8;=8C8?&U8=T88;&=E8&

GABHK;D&A;&8:=E8C&D:?8&AI&=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BB&7;?&MB7=IACKS&FAK:;W&EAT8J8CW&GAHB?&;A=&I:;:DE&

=E8&D=7=:A;&?H8&=A&E:D&?87=E&ICAK&7&DH??8;&D=CAX8S&.;8&AI&E:D&7MMC8;=:G8DW&7XAJW&

G7CC:8?&AH=&=E8&MCA[8G=&U7D8?&A;&FAK:;fD&AC:@:;7B&?8D:@;&:;&P`YQSad9

9 [+I@>-!WN#-8/>8;(8&8!H/8/+$(!.-(/>8;!*8;;!+(!T\0C)!D@'6$9+/-'!@'-!/2-'-!'@SB8&!6-(/>8;!28;;!8'!8!'$6+8;! =;86-!5$>!6$(9->'8/+$(]!B8+/+(I]!8(,!%--/+(I)! ad&ZH];8=DAJ&8=&7BSW&gNOPdhS&MMS&POPS& -!7N#-8/>8;(8&8!H/8/+$(!.-(/>8;!*8;;!+(!T\0C)!V!6$@=;-!'/8&!'/+;;!+(!/2-!%+,,;-!$5!B89-'!$5!6$%%@/->! />855+6)!!!

<= Three Underground Plazas: Inefficient But Effective Places

Despite the differences in history and architectural style of each station, the central

halls of the three Metro stations share the common vitality of any outdoor urban plaza

aboveground. The central hall is a place to greet and meet with colleagues, friends, and

lovers. People lean against columns, sit on benches, and stand in the middle of the

crowd. Amidst the heavy foot traffic, social life flourishes underground, as with any other

city’s public space.

Muscovites have used the station platforms as their meeting place for their friends.

In the age of telephone, people arrange rendezvous point and time as might have seen

in cold war spy movies. The tradition did not disappear even with the wireless cellphone

age. Dmitri, a young Muscovite who uses the Metro every day, also pointed out that

"People meet in the station because it is easy to find and everyone knows where the station is. Outside is a bit more difficult to find."

It is interesting to note that these central halls were the unintended result of naïve aspirations for “palace for proletariat” envisioned by a non-expert. Lazar Kaganovich, a doctrinaire Stalinist and a prominent figure in subway construction, ordered subway engineers to change the configuration of the Metro station from two-arch to three-arch, first in Okhotny Ryad Station construction site. Kaganovich had no previous experience in subway construction or in architecture; the only experience he had was at a shoemaking factory in Ukraine where he initiated a labor movement and started his political career. Kaganovich may have been a boot maker who lacked knowledge of subway station design; however, his authoritarian order to switch from a two-arch to a three-arch station design resulted in rich social activities in underground subway stations.

[+I@>-!-'!+(!:;$'628,!1-9$;&@/''+!H/8/+$()!#2-!'6@;=/@>-'!,-=+6/!=+$(-->']!=-8'8(/']!62+;,>-(]! '/@,-(/']!S$>,->!I@8>,']!8(,!=8>8/>$$=->'!+(!8!62>$($;$I+68;!$>,->!$5!H$9+-/!>-9$;@/+$(!5>$%!0M0C!/$!0MWC)!

MB7=IACK&T:=E&DAG:7B&7G=:J:=:8D&7KA;@D=&=E8&E87J>&IAA=&=C7II:GS&3E:B8&=E8&=TA&7CGE8D&A;&=E8&

MB7=IACK&D:?8D&7C8&IH;G=:A;7B&DM7G8D&7BBAT:;@&M7DD8;@8CD&=A&T7:=&=A&UA7C?&=C7:;DW&=E8&

K:??B8&7CGE&:D&7&C8?H;?7;=&DM7G8&7;?&:D&;A=&;8G8DD7C>&=A&AM8C7=8&=E8&D=7=:A;S&9ADGAT&

98=CA&T7D&GC:=:G:]8?&7D&7;&H;;8G8DD7C>&MHUB:G&:;J8D=K8;=&?HC:;@&=E8&87CB>&DHUT7>&

?8U7=8W&7;?&7??:;@&7??:=:A;7B&GAD=D&=A&7GE:8J8&M7B7=:7B&LH7B:=>&T7D&?:II:GHB=&=A&[HD=:I>S&

!AT8J8CW&=E:D&C8?H;?7;=&DM7G8&7;?&?8GAC7=:A;&MCAJ:?8?&H;:LH8&AMMAC=H;:=:8D&=A&

=C7;DIACK&7&=C7;DMAC=7=:A;&:;IC7D=CHG=HC8&:;=A&7&MHUB:G&DM7G8&TE8C8&9HDGAJ:=8D&E7J8&

G8B8UC7=8?&D:;G8&:=D&AM8;:;@S&#K:=C:W&B:X8&A=E8C&9HDGAJ:=8DW&MC8I8CD&7UAJ8@CAH;?&=E7;&&

H;?8C@CAH;?S&!AT8J8CW&E8&?A8D&;A=&K:;?&=E8&98=CA&^28G7HD8&:=&E7D&E:@E&G8:B:;@&7;?&

U87H=:IHBS&"=&?A8D&;A=&I88B&B:X8&"&7K&U8:;@&:;&H;?8C@CAH;?Se&'8;=C7B&E7BBD&7C8&T8BB&B:=&7;?&

J8;=:B7=8?&7C=:I:G:7BB>&=ECAH@E&=E8&?:IIHD8CD&=E7=&7C8&:;=8@C7=8?&:;=A&M>BA;DS&FAC&8\7KMB8W&

#HDEX:;&7C=IHBB>&E:?&7&J8;=:B7=:A;&DE7I=&7D&M7C=&AI&=E8&AC;7K8;=D&:;&0BADGE7?&+8JAB>H=DD:&

)=7=:A;W&7D&D88;&:;&I:@HC8&U8BATS&

[+I@>-!ZN*QV.!U+55@'->'!+(!:;$'628,!1-9$;&@/''+!H/8/+$()!U@'23+(!-9-(!+(/-I>8/-,!/2-!'+%=;-!/-62(+68;! -;-%-(/!8'!/2-!6-(/->!=+-6-!$5!=&;$('!862+-9+(I!/2-!2+I2-'/!;-9-;!$5!8-'/2-/+6)!!

[+I@>-!CN#-8/>8;(8&8!H/8/+$(!.-(/>8;!*8;;!+(!T\0C)!O/!+'!/2-!589$>-,!=;86-!5$>!D@'6$9+/-'!/$!B8+/!5$>!/2-+>! 5>+-(,')!

#8DM:=8&AI&=E8&=:@E=&DM7G8&AI&=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BBW&=E8&B8J8B&AI&DAG:7B&:;=8;D:=>&:D&;A=&DK7BBS&

9ADGAT&98=CA&D=7=:A;D&7C8&D=7;?7C?:]8?&IABBAT:;@&Z7@7;AJ:GEfD&J:D:A;S&1&=>M:G7B&

MB7=IACK&MB7;&?:J:?8D&=E8&D=7=:A;&:;=A&=EC88&]A;8DW&:;GBH?:;@&UA7C?:;@&7C87D&A;&8:=E8C&D:?8W&

7&G8;=C7B&E7BB&:;&=E8&K:??B8W&7;?&7&GABHK;&]A;8&TE8C8&CATD&AI&B7C@8&M>BA;D&D8M7C7=8&=E8&

G8;=C7B&E7BB&ICAK&=E8&=C7:;&UA7C?:;@&7C87S&(E8&B8;@=E&AI&=E8&=EC88&D=7=:A;D&7C8&7UAH=&cNc&

I88=S&.XEA=;>&+>7?&)=7=:A;&:D&DB:@E=B>&BA;@8C&7=&caO&I88=S&(E8&T:?=E&AI&=E8&D=7=:A;D&:D&

H;:IACK&7=&PPc&I88=W&U7D8?&A;&Z7@7;AJ:GEfD&DHUT7>&D=7=:A;&D=7;?7C?:]7=:A;S&)=7=:A;D&7C8&

KHGE&KAC8&DM7G:AHD&=E7;&=>M:G7B&DHUT7>&D=7=:A;D&:;&%8T&5ACX&':=>W&07C:DW&AC&

(E8&D=7=:A;&7CGE:=8G=D&MB7;;8?&IAC&DM7G:AHD&G8:B:;@&E8:@E=D&C7;@:;@&ICAK&Pc&=A&NO&I88=S&

(E8&BAG7=:A;&AI&=E8&8DG7B7=ACD&:D&=E8&K7:;&?C:J8C&IAC&=E8&?:II8C8;G8&:;&D:]8S&(E8&G8;=C7B&E7BB&

AI&.XEA=;>&+>7?&)=7=:A;&gNP&I88=&T:?8W&cOQ&I88=&BA;@W&7;?&PQ&I88=&E:@Eh&:D&KAC8&=E7;&

?7 =T:G8&7D&U:@&7D&(87=C7B;7>7fD&G8;=C7B&E7BB&g3

U:@@8C&=E7;&0BADGE7?&+8JAB>H=DD:&)=7=:A;S&3E:B8&8DG7B7=ACD&:;&.XEA=;>&+>7?&)=7=:A;&7C8&

BAG7=8?&7=&8:=E8C&8;?&AI&=E8&MB7=IACKW&=E8&A=E8C&=TA&D=7=:A;Df&E7BBD&7C8&DEAC=8;8?&U8G7HD8&

=E8&8DG7B7=ACD&7C8&MB7G8?&DAK8TE8C8&:;&=E8&K:??B8S&(E8D8&G8;=C7B&E7BBD&7C8&[HD=&7&

IC7G=:A;&AI&-C7;?&'8;=C7B&(8CK:;7B&E7BB&gPNOf\Nbcf\PNcfhS&!AT8J8CW&=E8&:;=8;D:=>&AI&DAG:7B&

7G=:J:=:8D&:D&;A=&:;D:@;:I:G7;=S&&

(E8&MC8D8;G8&AI&U8;GE8D&K7X8D&=E8&U:@@8D=&?:II8C8;G8&:;&=E8&B8J8B&AI&J:UC7;G>&:;&=E8&

G8;=C7B&E7BBDS&(E8&K7:;&?:II8C8;G8D&:;&=E8&?8D:@;&AI&=E8&=EC88&G8;=C7B&E7BBD&7C8&TE8=E8C&AC&

=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BB&E7D&:;GACMAC7=8?&D87=:;@&I87=HC8D&:;&:=D&D=7=:A;&?8D:@;S&(87=C7B;7>7&

)=7=:A;W&TE8C8&U8;GE8D&7C8&:KU8??8?&U8=T88;&GABHK;DW&7==C7G=D&KAD=&AI&=E8&DAG:7B&

7G=:J:=:8D&:;&H;?8C@CAH;?&MHUB:G&DM7G8DS&08AMB8&D=7;?&:;&=E8&K:??B8&AI&=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BBW&D:=&

A;&=E8&U8;GE8DW&7;?&B87;&7@7:;D=&=E8&T7BB&?HC:;@&CHDE&EAHCW&GC87=:;@&7&M8CI8G=&DAG:7B&

DG8;8S&"J7;&FAK:;&7C=IHBB>&?8D:@;8?&=E8&U8;GE8D&:;&E:D&AC:@:;7B&DGE8K8S&4;B:X8&K7CUB8&

U8;GE8DW&TAA?8;&U8;GE8D&7C8&[HD=&C:@E=&IAC&M8AMB8&=A&D:=&7;?&X88M&T7CK&:;&7&GAB?&T:;=8CS&

(E8D8&U8;GE8D&:;&=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BB&7C8&E7BI/C8G8DD8?&:;=A&=E8&GABHK;DW&GC87=:;@&7&KAC8&

:;=:K7=8&D8==:;@&IAC&M8AMB8&T7:=:;@S&08AMB8&BAJ8&=E8D8&U8;GE8D&DHGE&=E7=&KAC8&

9HDGAJ:=8D&D=7;?&:;&ICA;=W&T7:=:;@&IAC&=E8:C&IC:8;?D&7;?&=7BX:;@&=A&87GE&A=E8CS&&

[+I@>-!GNm#>+8(I@;8/+$(!=>$=Y!+(!:;$'628,!1-9$;&@/''+!H/8/+$()!D@'6$9+/-'!/$@62!'/8/@-!$(!/2-!B8&!/$!B$>3! $>!2$%-)!! ?> Compared to Teatralnaya, Ploschad Revolyutssi Station does not provide enough seating. Instead, Dushkin and Manizer integrated subway stations with artwork by creating a haven of “triangulation props.” The sculptures in Ploschad Revolyutssi Station are not mere objects to view. It is common to observe passengers boarding or getting off trains and touching particular parts of sculptures such as dog noses, chicken heads, baby’s feet, and guns. "Touching sculptures in Ploschad Revolyutssi Station is more like ritual or totem because not many Muscovites believe in god. It means good luck."47 Mitri, an art student studying sculpture, explains why people touch these sculptures.

Muscovites passing through Ploschad Revolyutssi Station start their day with a wish for good luck. Often they get in single file to wait for their turn. People smile at each other and have light conversation while they are waiting. It is the quintessential example of

Whyte’s “triangulation prop”, facilitating casual contacts among strangers.

Okhotny Ryad Station does not provide any features of sitting spaces nor sculptures; however, the central hall is still the place for meeting because of its “soft edge.” Two escalator banks were added in a third section on both ends of the central hall to facilitate transfer to Teatralnaya Station in the 1940s. The two escalator banks sector out the zone in the middle reserved for a waiting space. It is wide enough and placed outside of the heavy pedestrian traffic. The shape of columns on the sides contributes to transforming the space into a waiting area. The columns are double- elongated octagons, creating a recessed space in the middle. It is a kind of Jan Gehl’s

“soft edge.”48 Gehl describes “soft edge” as a façade where a lot of things can happen.

His typical soft edge is the ground floor of buildings where many doors and windows are placed to facilitate communication between inside and outside. This colonnade shares

47 Interview with Mitri 48 Gehl, Jan (2010). Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 75. 52

=E8&D7K8&GA;I:@HC7=:A;&:;&7&T7>W&7D&M8AMB8&=C7J8B&=ECAH@E&=E8&GABHK;D&7;?&KAJ8&7UAH=&

=E8&DM7G8S&08AMB8&=8;?&=A&D=7;?&AC&B87;&7@7:;D=&=E8&C8G8DD8?&DM7G8&AC&GABHK;DS&(E8&

G8;=C7B&E7BB&:;&.XEA=;>&+>7?&)=7=:A;&:D&7;A=E8C&J8CD:A;&AI&7;&7G=:J8&H;?8C@CAH;?&MHUB:G&

DM7G8S&&

[+I@>-!MN.-(/>8;!28;;!$5!?32$/(&!1&8,!H/8/+$(!+(!T\0C)!:-$=;-!;-8(!8I8+('/!/2-!=&;$(!B2+;-!/2-&!B8+/)!

"VGGFMHDGY-,TGGFQI-LVS-(LLDMDFGH-+VPF\FGH&

3E8;&=E8&=EC88&D=7=:A;D&T8C8&I:;:DE8?&:;&P`YQW&=E8C8&T7D&;A&GA;;8G=:A;&=A&87GE&

D=7=:A;&8\G8M=&=E8&8;=C7;G8&E7BBD&A;&=E8&D=C88=&B8J8BW&TE:GE&T8C8&DE7C8?&U>&GA;;8G=:;@&

D=7=:A;DS&(A&=C7;DI8C&=A&7;A=E8C&DHUT7>&B:;8W&M7DD8;@8CD&E7?&=A&8\:=&=ECAH@E&8DG7B7=ACD&

7;?&=C7J8B&?AT;&=A&C87GE&=E8:C&?8D=:;7=:A;S&FCAK&=E8&P`aODW&7&;8T&D8=&AI&=H;;8BD&T7D&

UH:B=&:;&=E8&K:??B8&AI&=E8&G8;=C7B&E7BBD&=A&MCAJ:?8&7GG8DD&=A&A=E8C&D=7=:A;DS&07:CD&AI&

8DG7B7=ACDW&D=7:CDW&7;?&BA;@&=H;;8BD&T8C8&UH:B=&=A&I7G:B:=7=8&87D>&=C7;DI8C&7KA;@&DHUT7>&

B:;8DS& ?6 (E8D8&=H;;8BD&7;?&GA;;8G=:A;D&T8C8&;A=&7&;8T&GA;G8M=S&)HUT7>&D=7=:A;&MB7;;8CD&

7BT7>D&T7;=&=A&:;GC87D8&GA;;8G=:J:=>&=A&7BBAT&7;&^8IIAC=B8DD&=C7;DI8C_&8;J:CA;K8;=S&.;8&

H;:LH8&7DM8G=&AI&9ADGATfD&DHUT7>&=H;;8BDW&EAT8J8CW&:D&=E7=&=E8D8&7C8&A;8/T7>&

GACC:?ACD&=E7=&IACG8&M7DD8;@8CD&=A&IABBAT&7&M7C=:GHB7C&?:C8G=:A;&TE8;&=C7;DI8CC:;@&=A&

7;A=E8C&DHUT7>&B:;8l&7CGE:=8G=D&C8I8C&=A&=E:D&G:CGHB7=:A;&7D&7&^C7G8&=C7GX_&GA;I:@HC7=:A;S&&

[+I@>-!0\N.+>6@;8/+$(!H/>8/-I&!+(!*+,,-(!.+/&!$5!D$'6$B)!?(-NB8&!6$>>+,$>)!

.;8/T7>&GACC:?ACD&7C8&8II8G=:J8&KAJ8K8;=&D=C7=8@:8D&=A&E7;?B8&M7DD8;@8C&

G:CGHB7=:A;&:;&GCAT?8?&D=7=:A;DS&";&7&T7>W&=E8&G:CGHB7=:A;&?:7@C7K&C8D8KUB8D&=E8&J8:;D&

GA;;8G=:;@&?:II8C8;=&AC@7;DS&(A&=C7;DI8C&=A&(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;W&=E8&=C:M&U8@:;D&7=&=E8&

G8;=C7B&E7BB&:;&.XEA=;>&+>7?&)=7=:A;S&FAA=&=C7II:G&=A&7;?&ICAK&(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;&:D&DMB:=&

=ECAH@E&=E8&8DG7B7=ACD&:;&=E8&K:??B8S&(E8&T8D=8C;&8DG7B7=AC&:D&?8?:G7=8?&=A&=E8&=C7II:G&

=AT7C?D&(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;W&7;?&=E8&A=E8C&:D&IAC&M8AMB8&7CC:J:;@&7=&.XEA=;>&+>7?&

)=7=:A;S&)MB:=&=C7II:G&:D&MADD:UB8&U8G7HD8&AI&=E8&?8?:G7=8?&A;8/T7>&=H;;8BDS&&

(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;&:D&TE8C8&KHB=:MB8&IBATD&AI&G:CGHB7=:A;&GABB:?8&T:=E&87GE&A=E8CS&

!AT8J8CW =E8&=C7;DI8C&:;&(87=C7B;7>7&)=7=:A;&:D&C7=E8C&D:KMB8&U8G7HD8&=E8&D=7=:A;&

?< planners cleverly sectioned out the circulation when laying out the station plan.

Passengers transferring from the other two stations arrive at Teatralnaya Station from either end of the platform, while passengers leaving Teatralnaya Station start their transfer in the middle of the central hall via the stairs. The clear circulation planning of departure and arrival zones help efficient operation in Teatralnaya Station.

In the Ploshchard Revolyutsii Station, traffic from Teatralnaya arrives at the station at the western end of the platform. Passengers who wish to move east towards

Teatralnaya or Okhotny Ryad move through the escalators located in the central hall and continue their journey through one-way corridors similar to Okhotny Ryad Station. The pedestrian circulation strategy is widely adopted throughout the Moscow Metro. Thus, there is less chance of becoming confused if you are familiar with the general rules for transfer.

The architectural styles of the corridors are different from those of the stations, reflecting a change in architectural style. The tunnel connecting Okhotny Ryad and

Teatralnaya was built in 1945, when the Neoclassical style was the predominant trend in

Russian architecture. The tunnels are furnished with plaster and ceramic tiles embossed with art pieces, similar to the station design of Ivan Fomin and Aleksey Dushkin. The second set of tunnels was built later without any ornaments, following the austere but monumental Stalinist style. These tunnels are rather narrow compared to others; however, the design of the tunnel compensates for the spatial restraints. The tunnels

have inversed u-shape section profiles where the side walls are about six feet high and

aligned with people’s eye level. The ceiling is plastered white without any joints or cracks.

The lighting and white surface wash off shades, making it difficult to fathom the depth of

the ceiling.

& [+I@>-!00N#>8('5->!.$>>+,$>!5>$%!:;$'628,!1-9$;&@/''+!H/8/+$(!/$!#-8/>8;(8&8!H/8/+$(!+'!5@>(+'2-,!B+/2! =;8'/->!8(,!6->8%+6!/+;-'!-%S$''-,!B+/2!8>/!=+-6-'!+(!E-$N.;8''+68;!H/&;-!

& [+I@>-!0TN#>8('5->!.$>>+,$>!5>$%!#-8/>8;(8&8!/$!?32$/(&!1&8,!H/8/+$(!

?= (E8&7MMB:G7=:A;&AI&=TA&?:D=:;G=&7CGE:=8G=HC7B&GE7C7G=8C:D=:GD&:;&GACC:?AC&?8D:@;W&

%8AGB7DD:G7B&7;?&)=7B:;:D=&D=>B8W&:D&7;&8\7KMB8&AI&7&C7=E8C&DHU=B8&T7>I:;?:;@&D=C7=8@>&:;&

H;?8C@CAH;?&DM7G8DS&38D=8CB>&?:C8G=:A;&GACC:?ACD&7C8&IHC;:DE8?&T:=E&7&%8AGB7DD:G7B&

:;=8C:ACW&TE:B8&87D=8CB>&GACC:?ACD&7C8&7HD=8C8&T:=EAH=&AC;7K8;=DS&"=&K7>&;A=&U8&=E8&D=7=:A;&

MB7;;8CDf&?8D:@;&:;=8;=:A;l&EAT8J8CW&=E8D8&DHU=B8&?8=7:BD&7C8&KHGE&KAC8&8II8G=:J8&:;&

T7>I:;?:;@&=E7;&GABACIHB&M7:;=&AJ8C&GA;GC8=8&T7BBDS&(E8&T7>I:;?:;@&D=C7=8@>&:;&=E8&

9ADGAT&DHUT7>&:D&7BKAD=&IACG:;@&M8?8D=C:7;D&=A&IABBAT&=E8&CHB8D&D8=&U>&D=7=:A;&AM8C7=ACDS&

1&GAHMB8&AI&D:@;D&T:BB&DHII:G8&=E8&TACXS&FABBAT&=E8&IBATW&7;?&=E8;&>AHiBB&7CC:J8&7=&>AHC&

?8D=:;7=:A;S&"=&:D&7;A=E8C&8\7KMB8&AI&)AJ:8=&7H=EAC:=7C:7;&MB7;;:;@S&&

[+I@>-!0WN_@'3+(I!+(!#>8('5->!.$>>+,$>)!#2-!8>62!$5!/2-!/@((-;!=>$9+,-'!=->5-6/!86$@'/+6!5$>!/2-!H=8(+'2! 6;8''+6!I@+/8>+'/)!#2-!%@'+6!/@>(-,!/2-!-(,;-''!/@((-;!+(/$!%$>-!=;-8'8(/!=;86-!/$!S-)!R(5$>/@(8/-;&]! 2$B-9->]!2-!B8'!($/!'$!'@66-''5@;!8//>86/+(I!D@'6$9+'/-'!

?@ #8DM:=8&=E8&J7C:8=>&:;&7CGE:=8G=HC7B&D=>B8&7;?&?8=7:BDW&=E8&GACC:?ACD&7C8&H;GCAT?8?&

T:=E&7&C7=E8C&?HBB&C7;@8&AI&7G=:J:=:8DS&<8@:A;D&AI&GAKKH=8C&K7CGE&?AT;&=E8&GACC:?ACD&

?HC:;@&CHDE&EAHCDS&)AK8&M8AMB8&MB7>&GB7DD:G7B&@H:=7C&7=&=E8&GAC;8CD&TE8C8&=E8C8&:D&B8DD&

DHM8CJ:D:A;W&7;?&7&I8T&U8@&IAC&E8BMS&!AT8J8CW&=E8D8&GACC:?ACD&7C8&MC:K7C:B>&IAC&

G:CGHB7=:A;l&;A=&K7;>&M8AMB8&D=AM&AC&GAKKH;:G7=8&T:=E&A=E8CD&7D&=E8>&T7BXS&F8T&?8D:@;&

8B8K8;=D&7==C7G=&M8AMB8&:;&=E8&GACC:?ACDl&AUJ:AHDB>W&UB7;X&T7BBD&:;&7&%8AGB7DD:G7B&D=>B8&?A&

;A=&BHC8&9HDGAJ:=8DS&FAA=D=8MD&7C8&=E8&A;B>&C8DA;7=:;@&DAH;?&:;&=E8&GACC:?ACDW&TE:GE&7C8&

8J8;&KAC8&?C7K7=:G&T:=E&=E8&M8CI8G=&7GAHD=:GD&ICAK&=E8&MCAI:B8&AI&=E8&:;J8CD8?&H/DE7M8&

GACC:?ACS&

[+I@>-!07NL$9->'!$(!4'68;8/$>'!+(!D$'6$B!D-/>$)!#+%-!+'!I$;,)!#2-!=8''+$(8/-!D@'6$9+/-'!6$@=;-!,$!($/! B8'/-!8(&!'-6$(,)!

3FEDIMVPFSDGY-2VMDOQ-+FOGDGY-VL-(IMOQOHVSI--

9HDGAJ:=8D&C8@7C?8?&8DG7B7=ACD&7D&^=E8&D=HII&AI&DG:8;G8&I:G=:A;_&TE8;&:;=CA?HG8?&I:CD=&

:;&P`Ycl&EAT8J8CW&=E8&8;@:;88CD&7;?&MAB:=:G:7;D&?:?&;A=&MC8?:G=&=E8&DAG:7B&J7BH8&AI& ?A escalators in present-day Moscow.49 Escalators are a prominent feature of the Moscow stations; passengers must descend from the street to reach the platform level. Now

these machines are the defining experience of the Moscow subway.

Escalators are the landmarks to orient oneself in the underground. Often a Moscow

station is anchored by banks of escalators at either end, connecting the platform to the

head house at the street level. The location of escalators is standardized at either end to

reduce confusion in wayfinding; still, people are disoriented by the strict symmetrical configuration. Each bank consists of three escalators; one upward, another downward, and one in the middle switched up or down to address demand changes during rush hour. The longest escalator is located in Teatralnaya, and it takes 1 minute 37 seconds to descend from street to platform level.

Despite the seeming inhumane characteristics, escalators in the Moscow subway are the place where rich social activities take place. Counterintuitively, people socialize more on the mechanized steps than on the street of Moscow because escalators allow people to pause while they are on. People chat with their friends, finish their coffee, read newspapers or books, and text or make calls while they are on escalators. Many activities can happen during this brief moment. I observed and counted the activities and the number of people passing by in the next lane. Figure below is the summary of the observed activities on the escalators of Okhotny Ryad, Teatralnaya, and Ploshchard

Revolyutsii stations to see how people use escalators.

49 Wolf, (1995) pp. 82. 59

Morning Rush Hour 11% 3% 17% 68% 38,200 p/hr

Lunch 7% 11% 12% 68% 26,700 p/hr activity

y Conversation Kissing Passing Phone Time of D a Standing

Afternoon 7% 13% 17% 61% 1% 31,250 p/hr

Evening Rush Hour 4% 16% 13% 67% 0.2% 43,600 p/hr

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 Count

Figure 15-Activities on Escalators. More social activities are observed in evening rush hour.

On average, 650 people pass the opposite lane. 65% of people were just standing

still, while about 7.5% was passing by. For identifiable activities on the escalator, 15%

was either looking at their cell phones or reading newspapers or books, and other 10%

was actively talking to other people. While the proportion of people looking at their smart

phones did not change much, the number of observed conversations was higher in the

afternoon and evening. Even during evening rush hour from 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM, the

number of conversations peaked at 16.8%. Comparing people looking at their phones

and talking to others, the number of observed conversations was slightly higher except

in morning rush hour. This is about an average of other effective corridors in

underground concourses we will examine in the following chapters. The social activities

and the level of traffic is almost identical to Jubilee Walk in Canary Wharf.

";&9ADGATW&EAT8J8CW&8DG7B7=ACD&DEAT&=E8&KAC8&:;=8;D8&DAG:7B&7G=:J:=:8D&=E7;&A=E8C&

GACC:?ACDS&"=&:D&;A=&C7C8&=A&D88&GAHMB8D&I7BB:;@&:;&BAJ8&A;&8DG7B7=ACDS&1;&8DG7B7=AC&D=8M&:D&

=E8&M8CI8G=&D8==:;@&IAC&7&GAHMB8&=A&K7X8&8>8&GA;=7G=S&"=&:D&;A=&?:II:GHB=&=A&D88&7&GAHMB8&

X:DD:;@&A;&8DG7B7=ACDl&=E8&KAD=&:;=8;D8&DAG:7B&7G=:J:=:8D&7C8&CAH=:;8&:;&=E8&E:??8;&G:=>&AI&

9ADGATS&FHC=E8CKAC8W&8DG7B7=ACD&=HC;8?&:;=A&DAG:7B&DM7G8D&:;&=E8&7I=8C;AA;&7;?&8J8;:;@&

D:K:B7C&=A&%8T&5ACX&':=>fD&.GHBHD&38D=&'A;GAHCD8&'ACC:?ACS&3E8;&M8AMB8&G7;&7IIAC?&7;&

8\=C7&K:;H=8&T:=E&=E8:C&IC:8;?D&7;?&GABB87@H8DW&=E8>&=8;?&=A&H=:B:]8&8J8C>&D8GA;?&A;&

8DG7B7=ACDW&TE8C87D&:;&=E8&KAC;:;@&CHDE&EAHCW&=E8>&D=ACK&=ECAH@E&GACC:?ACD&7;?&

8DG7B7=ACDS&

[+I@>-!0ZNV!18(I-!$5!H$6+8;!V6/+9+/+-'!#83-!:;86-!+(!D$'6$B!D-/>$!4'68;8/$>'!

=> Corridors vs. Escalators

The two circulation elements in Moscow Metro, corridors and escalators, are both competitive and complementary to each other. The primary function for escalators is to carry people vertically from street to platform and vice versa. A seemingly lower but considerable number of people use escalators to transfer between subway lines or to avoid harsh outdoor winter weather. In contrast, the corridors connecting the three stations are dedicated to passenger transfer. These corridors are single-functioning spaces intended to relieve foot traffic demand. During rush hour, escalators are congested by commuters queuing on platforms. Long lines of people might be the worst nightmare for station managers and pedestrian traffic consultants. Adding dedicated traffic corridors interweaving stations would relieve this traffic planners’ concerns. The issue is that no other space program or design element was considered when these corridors were planned. Corridors are equipped to facilitate the most efficiency in foot traffic; there are no obstacles impeding pedestrian flows and nothing to attract passengers’ eyes.

The three Metro stations present a unique setting to test how the two different circulation elements work in underground transit. Which is people’s preferred mode of transfer? Why do people choose one over the other? Is there any meaningful pattern?

To answer these questions, I counted the number of people using transfer tunnels or escalators from arriving trains and followed their route choices through the underground.

Walking through corridors from Okhotny Ryad Station to Ploshchard Revolyutsii

Station takes 5:45, while escalators take 6:15. Taking escalators requires about half a minute more than the corridors. However, the corridor is not a pleasant walk; it is more

like army men road marching. A few guitarists and other musical artists busk on the corridors to cheer commuters, but that is the only compensation of walking in the tunnels.

In Ploshchard Revolyutsii Station, two-thirds of passengers from northbound trains proceeded to corridors, while the other third used escalators. People using escalators are mostly exiting the station; however, about 20% of people still use escalators to transfer to Teatralnaya Station. Interestingly enough, people tend to choose to walk through the corridors more often than ascending and descending through escalators. A third of passengers wish to transfer using escalators, and two-thirds preferred long corridors. By using corridors, people can save 30 seconds, but the walk is 100 feet longer. The upside of corridor walking is that people are free from long lines waiting for escalators during rush hour. Conversely, the downside is that the walk is a bit of exercise. Senior Muscovites tend to use escalators for obvious reasons. For some

reasons, Muscovites prefer to walk more.

Underground Shopping Mall

The year 1991 was the turning point for both the Soviet Union and the Moscow

Metro. After the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, the Metro was commercialized

along with many other government institutions. Even the State Department Store (GUM)

in front of Red Square and Kremlin Palace turned into a luxury-brand shopping mall for

tourists and bourgeois Muscovites. Advertisement posters began to appear in the walls

of Metro stations and subway trains. As government control weakened, maintenance of

stations and trains also became an issue with stations left unclean and vandalized due

to budget cuts; Muscovites eat and drink in the stations and cars, which was unheard of

?HC:;@&)AJ:8=&8C7ScO&&

[+I@>-!0CN:>+98/+^-,!:@S;+6!H=86-!+(!?32$/(&!1&8,!H2$==+(I!.-(/->!

[+I@>-!0GNL8%+(8/+(I!$>!_;$63+(I!:@S;+6!H=86-!B+/2!1-/8+;!

cO&3ABIS&gP``chW&MMS&YdbS& =< The spread of commercialism did not stop at the boundaries of the Metro.

Commercial shopping malls began to appear in the subway system to support an underfunded public transit system. Okhotny Ryad Shopping Center is one of the examples of a transit mall built after the Soviet era. It opened in 1997 after tearing down an open plaza. Initially, the developer proposed a three-story shopping mall at the site.

Converting public spaces into privatized malls was not acceptable to many Muscovites, and criticisms of the new mall were on the rise. Thus, the plan was revised to amalgamate the two different functions, public plaza and shopping mall, by submerging the mall underground while cascading plaza above the mall. The plaza is elevated about four meters above and gradually stepped down to the street level. It is difficult to access the top of the plaza from the street, where several glass domes transmit daylight down to the mall from the roof. The connection to the subway is not prominent enough because the main entrance to the mall is located right along the plaza fore-fronting Red Square in front of the Four Seasons Hotel.

The mall is extremely successful. Three levels of mall are packed with many shops, international apparel brands, cosmetic shops, cell phone retailers, and a food court. The customers are mainly young Muscovites in their teens and twenties. Compared to GUM,

Okhotny Ryad is more geared towards young people. Besides retail, "Young Muscovites like to meet at the mall. It is their meeting place,” Professor Stadnikov noted. It is almost always packed with people, even on Monday morning when many Muscovites go to work. Public benches located along the corridors are occupied most of the time.

However, the mall seems to be suffering from its own success. Public spaces are being privatized in every part of the mall. Corridors are filled with sales stands. Every corner is occupied with cell phone shops, jewelry stands, cosmetics, and manicure

shops. Cafes and restaurants occupy wherever there is room. Interior plazas intended for general public and courts for performances are now rented by retailers; even the fountain in the central court turned into the centerpiece of a luxury restaurant. The balcony space with the views to daylit interior courts is almost always filled with shops, so that decent views are blocked by the display. Even daylight from skylights is privatized. At the southeastern corner of the second level, a cafe / juice bar serves young couples. Instead of a sitting area, their kitchen is located directly under the skylight, illuminating cupboards and blenders. It is the quintessential example that commercialism consumes every inch of private, public, and privately owned public space in the city.

Conclusions: What works and what does not?

Muscovites devised an entirely new kind of hybrid; an efficient infrastructure and meaningful public space in underground at the same time. Despite the Metro’s beginning as a highly political propaganda project to show the superiority of communist society over capitalist society, the Moscow Metro is the result of a relentless effort to improve public welfare. Russian subway planners resisted following Western precedents. They did not settle on creating just functional spaces with poor environment quality; instead, they demanded higher-quality public service. The ideological motivation of “welfare of the masses” was the pertinent design philosophy for designing public spaces in a transit hub.

Many factors contribute to the success of hidden city in Moscow. Decent year-round thermal comfort is one of the reasons for the success. People stay underground in the windy Russian winter as well as summer. In addition to thermal comfort, the design of these underground public spaces better accommodates Muscovites’ needs to stay safe. 66

Benches and architectural features allow people to use the space better and longer.

Heavy columns on the subway platform are spaced out enough to prevent any blind spot, but are arranged close enough to define spaces. Users of these spaces benefit from the location of central halls; round-the-clock security is provided by a continuous flow of passengers to and from subway trains and the streets above.

From a layperson’s view, “Comparing subways in New York City and Paris, Moscow subway is much easier to use. In terms of wayfinding, Moscow Metro has clear wayfinding strategy. [Those in] New York City and Paris are confusing to find way out.”51 Despite the clear circulation strategy, however, Moscow stations are symmetrical.

Locating escalators on both sides is a clear wayfinding strategy for exiting and entering

stations, but it is difficult to know what these exits lead to. Even more experienced

Muscovites are often confused because of the symmetry; only a sign can tell them which

is the right exit for them.

The lively atmosphere of the underground plazas in the Metro led the station managers

to rethink the role of retail programs in underground concourses. The three stations in

the Moscow Metro do not accommodate any retail program within the stations. There is

not a single vending machine or newsstand within the stations. Still, the public spaces in

these stations are activated by diverse social activities. While other contemporary

subway station planners have been adding a mezzanine level for ticketing and retail

spaces to rent out, Moscow Metro planners avoid such redundant spaces. The compact

design of the Moscow Metro helps to reduce total area for maintenance, security, and

heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC); thus, operation costs could be reduced

by consolidating underground spaces to a small footprint. I will continue to explore the

51 Interview with Tonya 67

myth of retail in underground concourses in the following chapters. Is retail an obvious necessity to activate underground concourse?

References:

Bobrick, B. (1982). Labor Saturdays and A Czar’s Ransom. In Labyrinths of iron, a history of the world’s subways. New York, NY: Newsweek Books.

Brumfield, W. Craft. (1990). Reshaping Russian architecture : Western technology, utopian dreams. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Fitzpatrick, S. (1974). Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-32. Journal of Contemporary History, 9(1), 33-52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/260267

Gehl, J., (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Harold, D. (1935). “Moscow Subway Thrives; 6,500,000 Used It First Month -- Passengers Accustomed to It.” in New York Times, 16 June 1935, pp.20.

Kosenkova. (2010). Arkhitektura stalinskoĭ ėpokhi : opyt istoricheskogo osmyslenii︠ a︡ . Moskva: KomKniga.

Kuznet︠ s︡ ov, S. (2016). Hidden urbanism : architecture and design of the Moscow metro, 1935-2015. Berlin: DOM publishers.

Neutatz, D. (2013). Moskovskoe metro : ot pervykh planov do velikoĭ stroĭki stalinizma (1897-1935).

Sovetskoe gradostroitelʹstvo 1920-1930-kh godov : novye issledovanii︠ a︡ i materialy / sostavitelʹ i otvetstvennyĭ redaktor I︠ U︡ . L. Kosenkova. (2010). Moskva: Librokom.

Strumilin, S.G. (1931). Ekonomicheskaia zhizn’. Moskva: Sovet truda I oborony SSSR

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Wolf, W. K. (1994). Russia’s revolutionary underground: The construction of the Moscow subway, 1931-1935 (Ph.D.). The Ohio State University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from https://proxy.library.upenn.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/30 4105179?accountid=14707

Zinovʹev, A.; Aleksandr N. (2011). Stalinskoe metro. Moskva ; Zinovʹev A.N.,.

Московскому метро 70 лет. (2005). World Architecture Magazine.

ОАО Metrogiprotrans. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.arhmetro.ru/contacts/

Тридцать лет без права строить Проекты Московского метрополитена, так и оставшиеся на бумаге, и хроника строительства первой очереди столичной подземки — в спецпроекте «Ъ». (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2017, from http://www.kommersant.ru/projects/metro1935

CHAPTER 4

FROM MEGASTRUCTURE TO “SYMBOL OF RECOVERY”, NEW YORK CITY

Introduction

The underground concourse of Lower Manhattan consists of three major gathering places: Battery Park City Winter Garden, the Oculus, and the Fulton Center, along with three corridors connecting these underground plazas with subway stations. From west to east, Brookfield Place Winter Garden in Battery Park City is the gateway to the underworld from the Hudson River waterfront. Through the banks of escalators down, the West Concourse connects the Winter Garden to Calatrava’s grand hall, a bird-like structure covering the oval-shaped marble plaza that is framed with white steel ribs. At the eastern end of the grand hall, Dey Passageway links the Oculus to the lower level of

Fulton Center for the subway trains and the bustling streets of New York City. Planners of New York City and the Port Authority have boasted of the extensive pedestrian network serving millions of people in the heart of this dense and vibrant city.

The hidden city in New York City evolved from an urban vision for efficient circulation strategy to an architectural idea for effective places through the collaboration

between innovative architects and urban designers. The Lower Manhattan Plan of 1966

was a systematic approach to address urban congestion through separating and

consolidating vehicle traffic and pedestrian movements. Despite the several grade

changes from over the ground in 1966 plan to below grade in 1969, the vision for a

coherent pedestrian network remained intact. The urban vision gained the momentum as

Fumihiko Maki’s “megastructure” was widely accepted by architects. The architects and

urban designers infused life in the megastructure as they saw the potential of marrying

the infrastructure with “social condenser,” term dated to 1928 Russian Constructivism, a communal space derived from overlapping and intersecting circulation space with other programs. In Urban Design Manhattan in 1969, the ideas of megastructure and social condenser were evolved to ‘mixing chambers’ in the conglomeration of high-rise towers and transit system. These series of ideas have widely adopted in developing the visions for Lower Manhattan including the master plans Battery Park City in 1979.

The early implementation of the urban and architectural vision seemed to be quite different from what the urban visionaries expected. Minoru Yamasaki first incorporated the vision in his plan of the first World Trade Center (WTC), connecting surrounding urban blocks via skywalks with an underground transit hall. However, his grand vision was mistranslated into a mediocre underground transit mall with an excessive retail program. The underground network connecting halls and stations was built inconsistently, so users found it difficult to orient themselves and felt the spaces were too confined.

After the 9/11 tragedy, the underground concourse in Lower Manhattan took a dramatic turn. Calatrava successfully symbolized the recovery of Lower Manhattan through his bird-like structure of the underground transportation hub. Beneath the surface, the Port Authority took advantage of retrofitting the hub and reorganized the underground infrastructure to connect major transit nodes in Lower Manhattan. The

Lower Manhattan Plan of 1966 was finally realized, but underground.

The long tradition of place-making in New York City was not inherited in the underground concourse of Lower Manhattan. The urban designers in New York City have been pioneers in promoting good urban design theories and practices; however, it is difficult to see the same vibrant urban life of the city in the underground public spaces.

Understanding the need to keep underground corridors and waiting halls unoccupied for traffic and emergency requirements, these places are sometimes too vast, inhumane, and sterile.

However, the wit of New Yorkers transformed the architectural master piece into an underground urban square with a great deal of social potential. Despite underground public spaces are not designed to promote such social activities, people have demanded places for optional and social activities in underground.52 Sitting is prohibited in WTC

Transportation Hub by the Port Authority’s regulation, and it is difficult to find sitting

space. However, the under-supply of seating is filled by users improvising windowsills for

their benches and by retail tenants providing philanthropic sittings and for-pay tables in

their shops. The characteristics of the public spaces also change per demand from users. The West Concourse in the morning rush hour is a corridor for efficient movement, but in the afternoon, the same corridor turns into an enclosed or into an urban square to host casual conversations, just like any other effective public spaces aboveground.

Many historians have already told the history of World Trade Center, the Battery

Park City Development, and the Fulton Center, which I cannot fully cover in this chapter.53 Instead, I will focus on how underground space has evolved in Lower

52 Gehl (1987) explained the correlation between physical quality and people’s activities in public space. Under poor physical quality, only necessary activities take place in public spaces, such as, walking, commuting, and grocery shopping; whereas higher quality of activities, social and optional activities including sitting, standing, playing, and conversation take place under good physical quality. 53 Gilespies (1999) presented the history of how World Trade Center was built through engineering and political challenges. Glanz and Lipton’s (2003) book is standing out in describing the process of destruction of WTC with presenting hypothesis of structural failure and dealing with immediate response to the collapse. Sagalyn (2016) reconstructed the history of recovery and redevelopment efforts for current WTC development. Gordon (1997) tells the history of Battery Park City in relationship to the Lower Manhattan redevelopment plans and political dynamics. Alexander Cooper’s Battery Park City Master Plan Report in 1979 shows the design intention and what was continued from previous master plan in 1969. Not much history was revealed for Fulton Center. Hood’s (1993) history of New 72

Manhattan. The first part of the chapter will review the master plans and projects that contributed to the making of the hidden city. The plans include the Lower Manhattan

Plan of 1966, the Plan of New York City 1969, the Battery Park City master plans in

1969 and 1979, the World Trade Center Traffic and Infrastructure Plan in 2002, and the

Innovative Design Study Competition in 2002. The second half of the chapter covers the way people use the system of underground concourses. Where do they gather, move, rest, and socialize? What are the urban design features that promote social interaction?

A Megastructure for An Efficient and Effective City

The blueprint for a hidden city perceived by a group of architects and urban

designers to reorganize the old city to improve its public realm to be free of congestion.

The Lower Manhattan Plan of 1966 laid out the groundwork for the current underground

system by proposing an extensive network of pedestrian circulation. Wallace, McHarg,

Roberts, and Todd from Philadelphia, Conklin and Rossant from New York City prepared

the plan to designate the east-west streets for specific functions to improve the

movement of cars, people, and materials. By classifying streets into arterial, service,

parking, or pedestrian, the plan created several sectors of districts that could be serviced

by a set of streets. Pedestrian corridors were strengthened by widening streets and

consolidating patches of leftover spaces. These passageways were connected to newly

planned waterfront promenades. Marinas and recreational harbors were placed where

pedestrian corridors and waterfront promenades intersected.

One of the biggest planning challenges for the master plans was how to decongest

the city center. Separating circulations of pedestrian, vehicle, emergency, and service

York City subway system help us understand the context of the idea for Fulton Center. However, MTA’s reports on Fulton Center described the motivations and process for Fulton Center. 73

traffic seemed to be the first step towards that goal. Many clever access strategies were tested and recommended for separating traffic. The planners of the Lower Manhattan

Plan in 1966 feared that east-west pedestrian traffic would block car traffic on Church

Street; therefore, they recommended a pair of bridges connected to Broadway directly from the WTC plaza. The Plan for New York City in 1969 changed their recommendation to connecting to the underground through the basement of One Liberty Plaza or the US

Steel Building. This new connection would create an extensive underground network through the Fulton Street IRT station, the BMT station at Church Street, and the PATH station under the World Trade Center.

Maki’s “megastructure” was adopted in Lower Manhattan to address the conflict in vehicle and pedestrian access in the city. Originating from Le Corbusier’s For

L’Empereur, Algiers in 1931, for the massive structure with modular houses under an elevated highway, Fumihiko Maki developed the term “megastructure” in his book

Investigation in Collective Form.54 The idea resonated widely with architects and urban designers alike in the 1960s and 1970s. The Regional Planning Association’s (RPA) plan for Urban Design Manhattan (1969) faithfully followed the megastructure concept as a means of relieving urban congestion.55 They proposed a prototypical approach to

rationalize transportation in Midtown Manhattan by adding Access Trees, a multi-level

transportation hub embedded in the urban fabric connecting underground subways,

streets, pedestrian platforms, and office and residential towers through vertical

transportation. Despite the plan having been drawn for Midtown Manhattan, architects

and planners tried to superimpose the megastructure concept on the relatively crooked

streets and blocks of Lower Manhattan.

54 Banham, Reyner. 1976. Megastructure : Urban Futures of the Recent Past 55 Okamoto, Rai Y., 1969. Urban Design Manhattan 74

A vision for megastructure in Lower Manhattan was incorporated in the 1969 Master

Development for Battery Park City. Wallace Harrison, William Conklin, and James

Rossant envisioned a self-sustaining city within the city in the 1969 plan. They proposed a megastructure of five million square feet of office, half a million square feet of retail, and 14,000 residential units all interconnected as a single structure. A 7-story-high enclosed pedestrian circulation spine with retail shops interweaved with residential and commercial clusters. People could move about anywhere this enclosed space without exposure to the outdoor environment.

The vision for the megastructure was revised much more realistically in 1979 by

Alexander Cooper. The central spine from the 1969 plan was limited only to the commercial center in the middle. Multiple bridges and retail shops in and enclosed winter garden connected 5 office towers and 1 Amex Theater 32 feet above ground level. The skywalk then extended over West Street to connect the North Tower and US Customs in the World Trade Center. Cooper intended the new skywalk and winter garden to provide

“the year-round climate controlled ‘mixing chamber’ for the pedestrians.”56

This “mixing chamber” was a refinement of the European architectural idea of

“social condenser.” Modern architects had developed an idea for a “social condenser” in buildings and transit infrastructure. Social condenser is a spatial idea developed by early modern architects and Soviet constructivists, in which architects intentionally overlap and intersect programs through circulation to create an environment overcoming social hierarchy. The idea to create a communal space in the building was developed further to create an extensive pedestrian network in the Lower Manhattan Plan of 1966. RPA introduced “social condenser” in Urban Design Manhattan in 1969. While the “mixing

56 Alexander Cooper Associates. 1979. p.84, Battery Park City : Draft Summary Report and 1979 Master Plan Prepared for Battery Park City 75

chamber” in Midtown Manhattan was primarily a circulation collector providing direct access to vertical elevators and subway underground with natural light for finding one’s way, one in Battery City Park was designed to facilitate more social activities. The winter garden was an interconnected lobby that provided access to buildings and was landscaped with trees and flowers. The vision as social condenser was completed by

Cesar Pelli’s Winter Garden in the World Financial Center until 9/11 Attack.

9/11 Recovery

The WTC was an icon of international capitalism before 9/11 and was attacked twice by terrorists in 1993 and 2001. In 1993, terrorists killed 6 office workers with truck bombing in the parking garage. On September 11, 2001, 2,192 civilians, 343 firefighters, and 71 police officers were killed by the Al-Qaeda terrorists. The recovery from 9/11 was a symbol of American courage and resilience.

Lower Manhattan’s redevelopment plan was under enormous pressure to maximize its symbolism in designing the WTC district. After 9/11, New Yorkers and the world did not want the World Trade Center to remain in ruins; people demanded prompt recovery. To facilitate the recovery of WTC, the New York City Mayor and Governor organized the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). The Port Authority and LMDC together selected Beyer Blinder Belle (BBB) for the WTC master plan. After three months of initial concept study, six design schemes from BBB were revealed at the public hearing event “Listening to the City” on July 20, 2002. Despite their practicality,

Beyer Blinder Belle’s six design schemes were heavily criticized, as people wanted to see more symbolism in the project. Within the same month, LMDC issued a request for qualification to selected architects and urban designers for an international design competition, “Innovative Design Study.” A total of 407 teams submitted applications in 76

September 2002. Seven groups were initially chosen to put forward their visions for

Ground Zero, and two more were added as the competition proceeded.

The Innovative Design Study Competition resulted in 9 visions for Ground Zero.

Libeskind’s plan was filled with symbolism not limited to an architectural icon. “Park of

Heroes”, “Wedge of Light”, “deep indelible footprints”–every design feature somehow incorporated a memorial to the tragic event. Libeskind presented his multi-faceted towers keeping the shadow off of the “wedge of light” where “Each year on September

11th between the hours of 8:46 am, when the first airplane hit and 10:28 am, when the second tower collapsed, the sun will shine without shadow, in perpetual tribute to altruism and courage.” 57 In February 2003, Daniel Libeskind was announced as the

winner of the competition, despite questions on the implementation of the plan.

Birth of An Underworld in Lower Manhattan

While the aboveground design competition entries were filled with pure symbols, the

Port Authority was more concerned with their underground infrastructure. In parallel to

the design competition, the Port Authority hired Standton Eckstut from Ehrenkrantz

Eckstut & Kuhn (EEK) to develop a design scheme for an extensive infrastructure

system that could support both aboveground skyscrapers and an underground PATH

system.58 In his WTC Site Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plan, Eckstut showed an extensive underground pedestrian public realm and transit system to the

WTC towers, a new transit hub, the Winter Garden at Battery Park City, and Fulton

Center. Eckstut’s plan resembled the pedestrian framework of the 1966 Lower

Manhattan Plan. It was the revival of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd’s east-west

57 Downtown Lower Manhattan Association (D-LMA) Official Website http://www.d-lma.com 58 Sagalyn, Lynne B., 2016. Power at Ground Zero : Politics, Money, and the Remaking of Lower Manhattan. 77

pedestrian corridor, except the corridor was now placed underground instead of at street level.

In response to the unusual demand for symbolism in WTC, the Port Authority chose

Santiago Calatrava, one of the “starchictects”, to design the transportation hub project in

July 2003. The transportation hub was not intended as a memorial to 9/11; it was simply treated as infrastructural facility improvement to repair the damaged and antiquated transit infrastructure in Lower Manhattan. However, the Port Authority took further steps, treating the project as an expensive trophy to restore their historic legacy, as well as contribute to 9/11 recovery.

After six months, Calatrava revealed his design for the Transportation Hub in

January 2004. The design was inspired by “a bird from child’s hands” released from her hands. The hall is defined by arches rising 150 feet from the central atrium. The arches further extend upwards, creating a dovelike roof profile. In the original design, the glass- and-steel-ribbed structure was designed to mechanically open up the symbolic wings similar to Calatrava’s Milwaukee Art Museum. On the ground level, there was an elliptical opening connected to the transit hall. The longitudinal axis of the oval was aligned with the southern edge of Libeskind’s “Wedge of Light” plaza.

In addition to architectural metaphor, Calatrava stressed the role as “a new public square” in the dense urban center.59 As a renowned transit station architects, he believed that a station is more than a building. A station is a public infrastructure that can

“revitalize an old one as a place where people will gather together.60 Therefore,

Calatrava believed that cities must “build [such] public infrastructure with high

59 Santiago Calatrava, 2017. “A Monument to Life” in “Oculus” pp.21. 60 Ibid., pp.184. 78

ambitions.”61 He envisioned “the elliptical-shaped Transit Hall of the Oculus works [as] a

glass-covered urban square.”62

Calatrava understood the wayfinding strategy is critical for the success of underground concourse. He wanted to build “a station that [his] mother can find her way around very easily and comfortably” because facilitating finding one’s way is essential in designing a station.63 The grand hall and opening for natural light is an unassisted means of finding one’s bearings in an underground station. In the Hub, there is not a single column in the area people pass through. All the columns are located on the edge of the wall or integrated to avoid impeding any pedestrian movement. To accommodate the structural challenges and the aesthetics, a total of 36,500 tons of steel was necessary. Since domestic steelworks could not manufacture “sculptural and curvilinear” steel elements, a third was shipped from northern Italy and another third from Spain.

After a series of phased openings, an American flag was raised in the PATH WTC station on the16th August 2016 to celebrate its full operation. Half-buried Oculus was the

center piece completing the vision for a megastructure that was perceived in the 1966

master plan but in underground setting. The Oculus extended the ritual experience of the

9/11 Memorial to the underground.

61 Paul Goldbert, 2017. “World Trade Center Transit Hub” in “Oculus” pp.11 62 Santiago Calatrava, 2017. “A Monument to Life” in “Oculus” pp.23. 63 Mafi, Nick. 2016. “Santiago Calatrava on the World Trade Center Transportation Hub.” Architectural Digest, September 9. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/santiago-calatrava-tells-us-process-designing-wtc-transportation- hub

[+I@>-!0MN#2-!?6@;@'!b>8(,!*8;;)!H/@((+(I!8>>+98;!/$!/2-!4%=+>-!.+/&)!.8;8/>898!>-9-8;-,!2+'!=@S;+6!'k@8>-! @(,->(-8/2!/2-!'&%S$;!$5!>-6$9->&!+(!/2-!2-8>/!$5!K#.!,+'/>+6/)! A7

Urban Design and Social Life of Lower Manhattan Underground

The World Trade Center before 9/11 worked like “a city within a city,” as Gilespies observed.64 Underneath Yamasaki’s Twin Towers, a 45,000-square-foot underground shopping mall was located to entice 42,000 office workers and commuters using PATH.

65 In order to capitalize on the foot traffic in and out of the commuter rail station, the

concourse included 16 clothing shops, 5 bank branches, 13 food and beverage shops,

and 25 specialty shops. The concourse was not aesthetically attractive; however, it was

still lively. The retail amenities, small shops, department stores, fast-food stands, and

convenience stores kept the concourse active most of the week. The underground

concourse was a shelter from cold and downdraft of skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan.

The dense life of a city was packed into a 16-acre plot, both aboveground and

underground. Can we still observe the liveliness in the underground concourse of Lower

Manhattan?

Three major gathering places and another three corridors connecting these places

constitute the hidden city of Lower Manhattan. They are the Battery Park City Winter

Garden, the Oculus, and the Fulton Center, and three corridors connect these

underground plazas with subway stations. The grand vision of 1966 Lower Manhattan

Plan and Eckstut’s World Trade Center Traffic and Infrastructure Plan in 2002 were

finally realized to create an extensive pedestrian public realm, but underground.

64 Gillespie, Angus K., 1999. Twin Towers : The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center. 65 Ibid., 81

K+(/->!b8>,-(!+(!_8//->&!:8>3!.+/&!

(E8&3:;=8C&-7C?8;&:;&27==8C>&07CX&':=>&:D&D7;?T:GE8?&U8=T88;&=E8&=TA&=AT8CD&AI&

2CAAXI:8B?&0B7G8W&AC&MC8J:AHDB>&X;AT;&7D&=E8&3ACB?&F:;7;G:7B&(AT8CS&(E8&D:]8&AI&=E8&

3:;=8C&-7C?8;&T7D&C8?HG8?&ICAK&=E8&G8;=C7B&DM:;8&AI&7&K8@7D=CHG=HC8&:;&P`d`&=A&7&

T:;=8C&@7C?8;&:;&=E8&GAKK8CG:7B&?:D=C:G=&MB7;&:;&P`b`S&dd&(E8&D:]8&7;?&8\=8;=&AI&=E8&3:;=8C&

-7C?8;&T7D&8J8;&IHC=E8C&C8?HG8?&U>&08BB:l&EAT8J8CW&=E8&JABHK8&AI&DAG:7B&7G=:J:=:8D&T7D&

;A=&C8?HG8?&7=&7BBS&"=&:D&=E8&KAD=&7G=:J7=8?&MHUB:G&DM7G8&T:=E:;&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&

GA;GAHCD8&AI&

[+I@>-!T\N#2-!=;8(!$5!/2-!@(,->I>$@(,!6$(6$@>'-!+(!L$B->!D8(28//8()!44JP'!%8'/->!=;8(!B8'!-c/-(,-,! 6$((-6/+(I!%8v$>!/>8('+/!($,-'!+(6;@,+(I!*@,'$(![->>&!#->%+(8;]!K+(/->!b8>,-(]!:V#*!?6@;@']![@;/$(! .-(/->]!8(,!D#V!'/8/+$(')!!

dd&1B8\7;?8C&'AAM8C&1DDAG:7=8DS&P`b`S&MMSQaW&_8//->&!:8>3!.+/&dA!U>85/!H@%%8>&!1-=$>/!8(,!0MCM!D8'/->! :;8(!:>-=8>-,!5$>!_8//->&!:8>3!.+/&!V@/2$>+/&!& A; Olympia & York Developments of Toronto was designated to develop the entire office project in 1980. The developer selected Cesar Pelli’s plan after a small design competition among other two architectural firms, Kohn Pederson Fox and Mitchell

Giurgola.67 Pelli’s scheme exceeded the expectations demonstrated in the 1979 mater plan’s guideline. Pelli created a 125-foot-high glass vault lined with shops and restaurants. In his view, these spaces were “public living rooms for the project and the city” that could host everyday meetings and extraordinary events. Pelli’s main design objective was to transplant the activities and social life of the 17th-century Italian piazza to 20th-century America.68

Pelli’s design objective has been met since the Winter Garden opened in 1988. It is the most frequently used public space in Lower Manhattan. The space (WLH:

120’x180’x125’) is 100 feet shorter than the main concourse of Grand Central Station

(120’x275’125’). The size of the space did not matter much in accommodating social activities. Pelli’s Winter Garden is furnished with ample sittings and vegetation. Sixteen palm trees are planted in the middle of the Winter Garden. On either side of the palm trees, 32 benches accommodate places to sit and talk to colleagues or friends for coffee breaks. The Winter Garden and waterfront plaza are almost seamlessly integrated with each other. Tables and movable chairs are located next to the grand glass curtain wall, with a view of the Hudson River. Mirroring the inside, outdoor tables and chairs in summer facilitate casual conversation, and the furniture is replaced with an ice skating rink in winter. It is a favorite place to visit for young mothers or babysitters during harsh winters.

67 Gordon, David L. A. 1997. pp.78, Battery Park City : Politics and Planning on the New York Waterfront 68 Pelli, Cesar. 1993. Cesar Pelli : Selected and Current Works 83

08BB:&T7;=8?&=A&K:;:K:]8&M8?8D=C:7;&J8C=:G7B&G:CGHB7=:A;&U>&MB7G:;@&=E8&BAUU:8D&7=&=E8&

D7K8&B8J8B&7D&=E8&UC:?@8&TE8;&E8&?8D:@;8?&3F'S&28IAC8&`oPPW&3('&7;?&3F'&T8C8&

GA;;8G=8?&J:7&7&M8?8D=C:7;&UC:?@8&7=&=E8&K8]]7;:;8&B8J8BS&9AD=&AI&=E8&AII:G8&TACX8CD&

=C7J8B8?&ICAK&87D=&=A&27==8C>&07CX&':=>&=ECAH@E&=E:D&UC:?@8S&(E:D&C8?HG8D&=E8&J8C=:G7B&

=C7;DMAC=7=:A;&?8K7;?&IAC&G7CC>:;@&M8AMB8&HM&7;?&?AT;&U8=T88;&=E8&BAUU>&7;?&D=C88=&

B8J8BS&1I=8C&=E8&`oPP&7==7GXW&=E8&3:;=8C&-7C?8;&7;?&=E8&UC:?@8&GA;;8G=:;@&3('&=A&3F'&

T8C8&?7K7@8?S&FHC=E8CKAC8W&=E8&GCADD:;@&38D=&)=C88=&T7D&GE7;@8?&ICAK&7;&AJ8CE87?&

UC:?@8&=A&7;&H;?8C@CAH;?&GACC:?ACS&(E8D8&GE7;@8D&B8?&=A&=E8&GHCC8;=&GA;I:@HC7=:A;&AI&=E8&

3:;=8C&-7C?8;&7;?&G:CGHB7=:A;&D=C7=8@>S&%ATW&M8AMB8&E7J8&=7X8&=TA&8DG7B7=ACD&ICAK&=E8&

01(!&38D=&'A;GAHCD8&=A&=E8&3:;=8C&-7C?8;&7;?&=A&=E8&K8]]7;:;8&B8J8BS&&

& [+I@>-!T0NK+(/->!b8>,-(!+(!_>$$35+-;,!:;86-!r=>-9+$@';&!3($B(!8'!K$>;,![+(8(6-!.-(/->s!

(E:D&GE7;@8&:;&J8C=:G7B&G:CGHB7=:A;&D=C7=8@>&C8DHB=8?&:;&=TA&H;8\M8G=8?&8II8G=DS&F:CD=W&

=E8&UH:B?:;@&DM7G8D&7=&=E8&D=C88=&B8J8B&U8G7K8&KAC8&7K8;7UB8&=A&C8=7:B&?8J8BAMK8;=S&2>&

DE:I=:;@&=E8&BAUU>&MCA@C7K&C8LH:C8K8;=&=A&=E8&HMM8C&B8J8BW&KAC8&DM7G8&:D&7J7:B7UB8S&):;G8&

A< KAD=&AI&=E8&GAKKH=8CD&E7?&=A&@A&=ECAH@E&=E8&3:;=8C&-7C?8;W&=E8&BAT8C&B8J8B&7;?&

K8]]7;:;8&B8J8B&U8;8I:==8?&ICAK&:;GC87D8?&IAA=&=C7II:GS&)8GA;?W&=A&=E8&87D=W&=E8&@C7;?&

D=8M&AI&GA;;8G=:;@&=TA&B8J8BD&GC87=8?&7&DM7G8&D:K:B7C&=A&=E8&)M7;:DE&)=8MD&:;&+AK8S&"=&:D&

7&DMA=&IAC&@CAHMD&AI&=AHC:D=D&=A&D:=&7CAH;?&=E8&D8K:G:CGB8&D=8MD&=A&C8D=W&=7BXW&7;?&MB7>&T:=E&

87GE&A=E8C&T:=E&7&J:8T&AI&=E8&!H?DA;&+:J8C&T7=8CICA;=S&(E8&D=8MD&7C8&B7C@8&8;AH@E&IAC&

UA=E&B:;@8C:;@&=AHC:D=D&7;?&AII:G8&TACX8CD&A;&UC87XDS&(E:D&:D&7&MB7G8&=A&@8=&7&LH:GX&U:=8&=A&

87=&IAC&=E8&>AH;@&=AHC:D=DW&C8=7:B&TACX8CDW&GAII88&U7C:D=7DW&7;?&AII:G8&TACX8CD&AI&27==8C>&

07CX&':=>S&&

[+I@>-!TTN[@;/$(!.-(/->)!#2-!,-'+I(!6$(6-=/!$5!/2-!2@S!5$;;$B'!8!B2+>;=$$;!$5!=-$=;-P'!%$9-%-(/'!8/!/2-! +(/->'-6/+$(!$5!_>$8,B8&!8(,!%8(&!'@SB8&')!O/!+'!8!5@((-;!$5!%$9-%-(/!6$((-6/+(I!'@SB8&!/$!'/>--/!8(,!$5! ;+I2/!5>$%!'3&!/$!,8>3!@(,->I>$@(,)!!! A? Fulton Center

While the Winter Garden in Brookfield Place is active with a somewhat narrow spectrum of demographics—the affluent patrons from the financial industry and residents of luxury waterfront condos, Fulton Center on Broadway embodies the diversity of New York City. Some commuters speed by to escalators and stairs, while others sit on the edge with a view of the street. It is a hidden street corner as well as a plaza for financiers, tourists, construction workers, and homeless people.

Fulton Center was conceived to resolve the lack of coordination between subway lines and stations. The New York subway system began with the competition between two private rail companies: the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT) and the

Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company (BRT). The city officials believed that competition could only facilitate public transportation services for an exploding population. The flipside of this competition was duplicate investments and uncoordinated subway construction. Unlike north of Lower Manhattan, where a rigid grid plan was laid out,

Downtown Manhattan was built on the grid conforming to topography, historic streets, and the narrowing geometry of the island in the south. Subway planners with the two rail companies had to divert five major subway lines to Brooklyn; subway lines are tangled at the intersection of Fulton Street and Broadway. Within three blocks of Fulton Center, 6 subway tubes and 12 lines are aligned with the streets. Lines A and C dip down below the platform of Lines 4 and 5, Lines J and Z, and Lines R and W. Then, Lines 2 and 3 dive deeper than Lines 4 and 5. The platform, mezzanine levels, and connecting corridors are almost impossible to fathom. Peter Kalikow, then Chairman of MTA, criticized that “The current Fulton Street station is a maze of lines and passageways that have bedeviled our customers for decades with delays and confusion.” 86

A few weeks after 9/11, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was able to convince the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to include the Fulton Street Transit

Hub as part of the 9/11 recovery, even though the station was not damaged during the terrorist attack. MTA planned for a hub building and several underground connections to create an easy-transfer experience. Fulton Center opened in 2014; it took 10 years at a cost of $1.4 billion from original budget of $0.75 billion. The hub was planned to handle

300,000 commuters.69 In 2015, the ridership of the hub was 75,000 people on an average weekday, a 7.5% increase from previous years, and 21 million people for the entire year.70

Grimshaw Architects observed a whirlpool of people’s movements at the

intersection of Broadway and many subways. The building was simply designed around

the movement of heavy pedestrian traffic from streets and stations; following the

whirlpool, the architects internalized the circulation to the center of the building.

However, it is difficult for pedestrians from the sidewalk to recognize the central space in

the middle unless they enter the building. Entering the door, a circular space appears in

the center through a series of oval-shaped columns. The circular hall in the middle is

about 90 feet in diameter and 120 feet in height— about a third of the Winter Garden or

a quarter of Grand Central Station. Escalators and stairs are placed at the four

quadrants of the circular hole in the middle as spokes in a wheel. People funnel through

stairs and escalators to the subway ticketing area downstairs.

The circular hall is a light well that collects natural light from the sky and distributes it

downstairs. Light from the sky is reflected by a cylindrical metallic sculpture hanging

from the sky: the Sky Reflector-Net, designed by James Carpenter. Carpenter

69 Fulton Center Official Website http://www.fultoncenternyc.com 70 MTA Annual Subway Ridership http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_annual.htm 87

envisioned that “[t]he artwork merges the human and social activity of the Fulton Center with a transcendent experience of New York City’s extraordinary skies, subtly connecting daily transit users’ passage through the city’s subterranean network with the daily and seasonal rhythms of the sky.”71 His intention for Fulton Center as a social condenser is

not limited to the space for his sculpture; the vision is realized on multiple levels in Fulton

Center.

Fulton Center hides several meaningful public spaces, both aboveground and

underground. On street level, the enclosed plaza has a rectangular shape with a large

circular hole that connects to other levels of the transit hub. The edge of the window is

occupied by diverse social groups of people as sitting spaces; the windowsill is wide

enough for sitting, about 40 inches. Rain or shine, day-to-day users seem to prefer the edge of the windowsill. Some buy sandwiches, falafel, or gyros from nearby street venders for lunch. The Sky Reflector-Net is a seasonal spot for famous architectural walking tours for a break from long walks in winter.

Two floors below the Sky Reflector-Net, an underground plaza at the lowest level of the Fulton Center opens up underneath as you turn the corner of the descending stairs.

On the other side of the plaza, an entrance to the corridor is hidden behind that connects

Fulton Center to the WTC PATH station. The space is a 3-dimensional puzzle of floors; the floors above overlap, the holes are punctured through the floors, and escalators and steps are floating around to connect the dissected floors. This puzzle of floors scrambles flow of movement and creates a visual tension among pedestrians. People look up and down to see other people passing. Lines of vision from different levels traverse the central space.

71 MTA Arts and Design Program http://web.mta.info/mta/aft/permanentart/permart.html?agency=nyct&line=4&station=19&xdev=0 88

More than a visual stimulation, the lower level of the Fulton Center is the less obvious but favorable plaza for meeting and greeting. The series of steps are a mediocre

copy of Spanish Steps in Rome; however, it works. A small group of social gatherings

takes place at the steps. People wait for others and talk to each other, sitting on steps

and leaning over railings. The roomy landing in the middle becomes a waiting area for

friends. The space is large enough to accommodate busy commuters passing by as

well. Primary colors of a LED display in the upper floor beam out to the metallic walls

and ceilings, creating a dynamic and futuristic atmosphere. This underground plaza in

Fulton Center reminds people of the street corner of Times Square.

Social activities take place at or near the traffic flows intersecting with other flows or

plazas. Whyte (1980) argued that active sidewalk corners were the places for people to

greet and converse. People tend to talk more and longer at the busiest street corners

with the highest pedestrian traffic. Jan Gehl (1987) found a similar pattern in

Copenhagen after he mapped the places for social activities.

Outdoor street corners and underground plazas do not seem to share any common

characteristics. However, both do share one attribute: the intersections of pedestrian

movement, whether outdoor or indoor. Streets and the underground plaza in Fulton

Center have the same spatial quality when we take away the vehicle thoroughfare in the

middle. Two or more different pedestrian traffic streams collide at street corners, as well

as the Fulton underground plaza. Several routes of pedestrian traffic can be observed in

the plaza. One route is the movement from subway lines A and C to lines E and R, and

to the PATH Station. Another route connects lines A and C’s mezzanine to lines 4 and

5’s platform. In a way, this underground plaza is an inversed street corner where people

wait for, meet, and greet others. The lessons from Whyte and Gehl applies to the

H;?8C@CAH;?&MB7]7&:;&FHB=A;&'8;=8C&T:=EAH=&8\G8M=:A;S&(E8&E:??8;&MB7]7&:;&FHB=A;&

'8;=8C&M7GXD&7D&KHGE&DAG:7B&7G=:J:=>&7D&A=E8C&7UAJ8@CAH;?&AH=?AAC&MHUB:G&DM7G8DS&

[+I@>-!TWN#2-!*+,,-(!:;8^8'!+(![@;/$(!.-(/->)!E-B!F$>3->'!B8+/!8(,!%--/!/2-+>!5>+-(,'!8/!/2-!S$//$%!$5! H3&N1-5;-6/$>!E-/)!

#2-!?6@;@'!

28=T88;&=E8&=TA&MB7]7DW&=E8&@C7;?8D=W&KAD=&U87H=:IHBW&7;?&KAD=&8\M8;D:J8&

H;?8C@CAH;?&MHUB:G&DM7G8D&G7;&U8&IAH;?&:;&

(C7?8&'8;=8C&01(!&)=7=:A;&E:?8D&7;&AJ7B/DE7M8?&H;?8C@CAH;?&MB7]7&IC7K8?&T:=E&7&

TE:=8&D=88B/C:UU8?&GABA;;7?8S&'7B7=C7J7&T7D&DHGG8DDIHB&:;&D>KUAB:]:;@&=E8&UH:B?:;@&DHGE&

=E7=&'E7:CK7;&AI&=E8&<7;?K7CXD&0C8D8CJ7=:A;&'AKK:DD:A;&+AU8C=&2S&(:8C;8>&?8D:@;7=8?&

=E8&UH:B?:;@&7D&7&^MC88KM=:J8&B7;?K7CX_&8J8;&U8IAC8&=E8&AM8;:;@S&1CGE:=8G=HC8&GC:=:GD&

B7 and journalists praised the building as “a symbolic act of aesthetic daring72”, “a phantasmagoric piece of urban theater”, “a rival Grand Central Terminal in elegance and beauty73”, and “the Port Authority’s gift to New York City.” 74

The WTC Transportation Hub is packed with multiple functions in its design. Below the dovelike structure the PATH station, shopping mall, and multiple lines of subway stations are connected by corridors and plazas. The pedestrian corridors reach to the

Winter Garden of Brookfield Place across West Street through underground corridors, to the large anchor stores as Eaterly and H&M located on the 3rd floor of 4 WTC Tower.75

The Transportation Hub was designed to handle 250,000 passengers daily, contingent upon the potential connection to JFK Airport, with daily traffic expected to rise to 175,000 on weekdays in 2025. Although the station handles just over 20% of what is planned, it is still too early to assess its full-scale operation.

Rush hour starts at 8:00 in the morning. Waves of commuters inundate the grand hall every few minutes, as PATH trains arrive from Newark and Hoboken and unload their passengers. Three streams of New Jersey commuters fan out from the station north to Vessey Street, south to 4 WTC and Wall Street, and east towards Fulton

Center. On the opposite side, the volume of western traffic is more consistent from

Fulton Center. Office workers in the World Financial Center pass through the grand hall and proceed to the Western Concourse, then exiting through the Winter Garden in

Brookfield Place. Most pedestrians are occupied with their morning rituals, listening to

72 Ada Louise Huxtable. 2004. “A Landmark Destination: The Bus Station.” Wall Street Journal, June 15. 73 Davidson, Justin. 2004. “Newsday’s Justin Davidson Finds a Soaring Icon.” Newsday, January 24. 74 Skelding, Cornor, 2016. “The Oculus, A ‘Gift to the City,’ Semi-Officially Opens” Politico New York, 2016- 03-03 http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/03/the-oculus-a-gift-to-the-city-semi-officially- opens-000000 75 Sagalyn, Lynne B., 2016. Power at Ground Zero : Politics, Money, and the Remaking of Lower Manhattan.

music, following podcasts, or catching up with morning e-mail. The hectic morning ends around 9:30.

People rarely run into each other, even when they cross other’s way, as Whyte observed in Seagram Building Plaza in Midtown. During morning rush hour, there is a stream of people traveling westerly from Fulton Center to Battery Park City and a stream of people passing easterly from PATH station to Vessey Street; the two streams intersect in front of the Apple Store. Almost none collide with each other as they walk,

even with their ears plugged with earphones and eyes riveted on their phones.

Not much foot traffic is observable at mid-day. Occasionally tourists stop by the

viewing decks on both ends of the grand hall that are connected to the street level.

Groups of tourists take pictures as well as a break from harsh weather in winter. They do

not have time to spare in the mall or do not want to carry extra bags after shopping;

rather, they speed out to the next tourist destination.

The volume of pedestrian traffic jumps back up around 4:30 in the afternoon. The flow of

people is just reversed from that of the morning rush hour. New Jersey commuters

stream through the three entries from the east, Vessey Street, Wall Street, and Fulton

Center to the PATH station. Most people do not pay attention to the retail stands in the

middle of the hall or shops aligned with the oval hall. While the first hall of rush hour is

dominated by New Jersey commuters rushing to the PATH station until 5:30, New

Yorkers pick up during the second half until 7:30. The office workers return from Battery

Park City to Fulton Center for subway transfer. A constant flow of people veers around

the northern edge of the grand hall, taking the escalators up to the corridors towards the

Fulton Center Hub. The reverse commuters from Exchange Places and Newport from

New Jersey veer around the other side of the hall, along the southern edge towards the

east. It is not too different from morning rush hour, except the pace is slower and the flow is less dense. A few standing in the middle of the grand hall waiting for their friends, however, soon push out to less busy parts of the hall. The evening rush hour ends around 7:30, leaving the hall with occasional workers returning home.

Sitting in Underground Concourse

Whyte (1980) argued that the amount of sitting area is the determining factor of a successful public space, not the shape or total area. He compared the density of users in New York City public spaces and concluded that the amount of available sitting space has the most direct relationship to the intensity of use. He suggested that 10% of total open space be reserved for sitting space; Gehl (2010) tested the increase in seating space, also attracting more people to sit. By doubling seating space in the public space of the Aker Brygge quarter of Oslo harbor, he found that the number of people seated was doubled. Thus, adding benches will invite more people to stay in the city.

The lessons from urban designers were not applied to underground halls. The placement of appropriate sitting space is critical to attract people to public spaces; however, sitting is prohibited in the WTC Transportation Hub. According to the World

Trade Center Site Rules and Regulations published by the Port Authority in 2014,

“[e]xcept for a person in a wheelchair, stroller, or other similar apparatus, or a person waiting for emergency medical assistance, no person may sit or lie down.”76 It is illegal to

sit on the floor of the grand hall or any corridors. Within underground concourses,

corridors, and mezzanines governed by the PA or MTA, I was able to find only one

bench at the far end of Lines 2 and 3’s mezzanine level.

76 THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, 31-July-2014. “World Trade Center Site RULES and REGULATIONS” https://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/pdf/wtc-rules-regulations.pdf 93

[+I@>-!T7NH+//+(I!O'!:>$2+S+/-,!+(!?6@;@'!

!AT8J8CW&=E8&8;IACG8K8;=&AI&=E8&CHB8&D88KD&=A&U8&7CU:=C7C>S&.;8&7I=8C;AA;&:;&

67;H7C>&NOPbW&7&I8K7B8&=AHC:D=&T7D&D:==:;@&A;&=E8&IBAAC&;8\=&=A&=E8&01(!&=:GX8=:;@&7C87S&

3:=E:;&7&I8T&K:;H=8DW&7&D8GHC:=>&@H7C?&G7K8&=A&:;IACK&E8C&=E7=&D:==:;@&T7D&MCAE:U:=8?S&

!AT8J8CW&D:==:;@&:D&7BBAT8?&?HC:;@&MC:J7=8&8J8;=D&=E7=&7C8&EAD=8?&U>&38D=I:8B?W&=E8&C8=7:B&

AM8C7=ACS&.;&=E8&AM8;:;@&?7>&AI&=E8&K7BBW&Pd=E&AI&1H@HD=&NOPdW&=E8&@C7;?&E7BB&T7D&I:BB8?&

T:=E&U8;GE8D&IAC&:;J:=8?&M8AMB8&IAC&=E8&AM8;:;@&G8C8KA;>&7;?&M8CIACK:;@&7C=DSbb&(E8&

MC:J7=8&J8;H8&MB7;;8CD&7C8&;A=&DE>&7UAH=&UC:;@:;@&AH=&GE7:CD&:;&=E8&@C7;?&E7BBW&GAC?A;:;@&

AII&=E8&D:==:;@&7C87&IAC&MC:J7=8&J8;H8D&?HC:;@&T88X8;?DS&'E7:CD&7C8&UCAH@E=&:;&UH=&=E8&

8J8;=D&;A=&7GG8DD:UB8&=A&MHUB:GS&"=&:D&GB87C&=E7=&=E8&:;=8;=:A;&AI&=E8&D:==:;@&U7;&:D&;A=&7UAH=&

X88M:;@&=E8&CHB8D&D8=&U>&MHUB:G&7H=EAC:=>l&C7=E8CW&MCAE:U:=:;@&D:==:;@&:;&=E8&@C7;?&E7BB&:D&

;A=E:;@&KAC8&=E7;&7&T7>&=A&?8=8C&H;?8D:C7UB8DW&EAK8B8DD&M8AMB8W&B:;@8C8CDW&AC&;A;/

GHD=AK8CD&TE:B8&MC:J7=:]:;@&MHUB:G&DM7G8DS&&

bb&E==M*ooTTTS;>?7:B>;8TDSGAKo;8T/>ACXoT8D=I:8B?/TACB?/=C7?8/G8;=8C/@C7;?/AM8;:;@/@7BB8C>/ PSNbcYQcNkMK)B:?8tPSNbcYQaQ& B< &

[+I@>-!T$9+'-,!H+//+(I!

[+I@>-!TZN:2+;8(/2>$=+6!H+//+(I!+(!V==;-!H/$>-!

B? & [+I@>-!TCNOEU!D-^^8(+(-!

& [+I@>-!TGNU-&!:8''8I-B8&!

B= This strategy seems to be ineffective. Retail tenants of Westfield Mall do their best to provide their share and to accommodate the needs of customers. The Apple Store incorporated public seating space inside of their flagship store. No questions are asked of the users of their scattered wooden benches. People can spend hours testing out iPads and new iPhones. Coffee shops on the grand hall level also look for every opportunity to sector out space for tables and chairs.

People are clever enough to find and devise places to sit; the undersupplied sitting is improvised in the underground concourse of Lower Manhattan. People avoid the grand hall with heavy surveillance and move to less supervised areas. Many tired tourists rest their legs in the retail lobby of WTC 4, where commuters are let out through the escalators of the south corridor from the grand hall. Similar to Fulton Center, the windowsill on Church Street is the perfect location for people to sit, a good place to hear and see diverse languages, races, and nationalities. These tourists are mostly strangers to Lower Manhattan and the Oculus, and they are experienced at hunting for places to sit. The second and third floors often turn into street cafés. People bring their own lunches or wait for their friends for coffee. Even with the sitting ban in underground concourses, there is always a demand for seating. If this demand is not met by architects and managers, people are resourceful enough to find their own places to sit.

Corridors: West Concourse, Dey Street Passageway, and IND Transfer Mezzanine

The underground plazas and subway stations in Lower Manhattan are connected via three underground corridors and many passageways that lead to subway platforms and streets aboveground. The Winter Garden and the oval plaza are connected by a

500-foot-long PATH West Concourse. The Oculus grand hall and Fulton Center are connected by a new 350-foot-long Dey Street Passageway. The dark mezzanine level 97

for subway A&C has been transformed into an IND transfer mezzanine, which consolidates confusing pedestrian subway circulation into one corridor.

The Dey Street Passage and IND Transfer Mezzanine were direct outcomes of the

Fulton Street Transit Hub improvement plan. MTA and their engineering consultants,

Arup, explored different configurations of the underground connections and Fulton

Center. The IND mezzanine consolidated redundant adjacent entrances and replaced the network of passageways and ramps to create a free transfer mezzanine to other subway lines. New escalators and elevators have been installed to improve the station’s accessibility from the street and from other subway platforms. The Dey Street

Passageway is a convenient way to move about the underground Lower Manhattan from

Fulton Center to the Oculus, to PATH Station, and to Battery Park City. It is not climate- controlled like the Oculus grand hall, but the enclosed space is warm enough in harsh winters to attract most subway commuters traveling between Fulton Center and the

PATH station.

Despite the similarity in design, the two corridors present quite different potentials as social places. The crossing of people’s movement in IND mezzanine creates an opportunity for casual contact, interaction, and cross-pollination, as Gehl (1987) argued.

Religious advocates and political activists understand the value of this node. Several groups of activists stand in the IND corridor and present their banners while they try to persuade pedestrians. A few people often use the mezzanine as they wait for their companies; it is another hidden plaza, but in an elongated version. However, the Dey

Passageway does not provide enough opportunities for social activities. From a traffic management standpoint, Dey Passageway effectively relieves the volume of pedestrian traffic on the street. During rush hour, the pedestrian volume from the PATH station

towards Wall Street and Fulton Center has blocked the north south vehicle traffic, which was one of the main concerns of New York City traffic engineers. The Dey Passageway is a conventional modern solution to deal with the enduring people-vehicle conflict: the separation of traffic on multiple levels.

The third corridor is the PATH West Concourse, a 500-foot-long corridor connecting the Winter Garden in Battery Park City to the oval plaza in the Oculus. There was no underground connection from the PATH station to Brookfield Place in the earlier World

Trade Center. Before the new corridor, people had to across West Street using two overhead pedestrian bridges. Vesey Street Bridge or North Bridge connected the World

Trade Center complex and Pelli’s World Financial Center before the 9/11 attack. Office workers in the World Financial Center arrived on the mezzanine level of the Winter

Garden, which is directly connected to the lobbies of the adjacent office towers. The plaza in the Winter Garden and retail on the ground level, then, were set aside from the main circulation route. However, the new underground connection from the PATH station changed the characteristics of the Winter Garden. Now, the Winter Garden is the arriving point for the Battery Park City. People move through the enclosed garden to their homes, offices, and waterfront promenade. This change from a set-aside garden to a node motivated new retail conversion in 2013. Brookfield, the current owner, expanded its retail program to include food service for office workers and luxury fashion items for the residents.

The PATH West Concourse is an extension of the Oculus grand hall. White steel ribs from the grand hall continue to frame the concourse. A double-height corridor accommodates retail shops on the concourse level and provides access to the WTC 1 tower on the mezzanine level above. In addition to the stunning beauty of the white ribs,

=E8&D8GA;?&KAD=&MCAK:;8;=&I87=HC8&AI&=E8&GACC:?AC&:D&7&YOO/IAA=/BA;@&<$#&7?J8C=:D8K8;=&

M7;8B&A;&=E8&DAH=E&D:?8&T7BBS&(E:D&?:DMB7>&:D&7&GB8J8C&:;=8CJ8;=:A;W&GAJ8C:;@&7&BA;@&UB7;X&

T7BB&U8E:;?S&)7;?T:GE8?&U8=T88;&=E8&3('&P&=AT8C&7;?&`oPP&K8KAC:7B&7D&:=&T7DW&=E8C8&

T7D&;A=&8;AH@E&CAAK&=A&:;D8C=&7&C8=7:B&MCA@C7K&A;&UA=E&D:?8DS&FHC=E8CW&7&E:D=AC:G&T7BB&AI&

=E8&MC8J:AHD&3('&:D&GAJ8C8?&U>&=E8&DAH=E8C;&D:?8&T7BBW&TE:GE&UCA7?G7D=D&GAKK8CG:7B&

7?J8C=:D8K8;=D&IAC&=E8&DEAMM:;@&K7BB&=8;7;=D&7;?&=E8&MC8J:8TD&AI&;8T&=8B8J:D:A;&D8C:8DS&&

[+I@>-!TMNK-'/!.$(6$@>'-)!mH$5/m!9')!U+I+/8;!4,I-!

1;&7??:=:A;7B&M8?8D=C:7;&=EACAH@EI7C8&:;&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&?A8D&;A=&?:D=C:UH=8&=C7II:G&

:;&U7B7;G8W&UH=&:=&KA;AMAB:]8D&=E8&IAA=&=C7II:GS&(E8&G7D8D&AI&=E8&=TA&GACC:?ACDW>&

07DD7@8T7>&7;?&01(!&38D=&'A;GAHCD8W&MCAJ8D&=E:D&KA;AMAB>S&(E8&GA;=:;HAHD&IBAT&

7;?&B7C@8&JABHK8&AI&M8?8D=C:7;&=C7II:G&:;&=E8D8&=TA&GACC:?ACD&7C8&;A=&:K7@:;7UB8&ICAK&

>77 aboveground. Dey Street is a favored street for delivery truck drivers without much foot traffic. At the crossing of West Street in front of WTC tower 1, a few pedestrians wait for the signal. Underground corridors won people’s vote by landslide over the street, due to the air-conditioned environment and the freedom from traffic signals. In the meantime, the vitality and liveliness of the aboveground city are forgotten in their commuting experience.

Soft Edge vs. Digital Edge

Edges of public spaces are very important for many designers. 78 Edge is where city and building meet, the boundary between private and public space. People naturally prefer to be on the edges of plazas and squares. 79 Having well-defined edges enriches

the spatial experience and stimulates social interaction. 80 Gehl (2010) suggests that soft

edges create lively cities. The intensity of activity and the design of an edge are closely

related. In his study of active and passive façades, the active façade generates seven

times more activity in front of a building than a passive facade. Therefore, he

recommended designing an edge to fit a human scale, to be more transparent, to appeal

to all the senses, to add texture and detail, to locate mixed functions, and to create

vertical rhythms on the façade.

The contrasting edge condition of the West Concourse presents an opportunity to

test effectiveness of a new type of edge: a media wall. As LED display technology

developed to allow the production of large but thin and light screens, media walls have

changed blank walls into interactive social media walls or simply replaced the outdated

78 Alexander, Christopher. 1977. A Pattern Language : Towns, Buildings, Construction; Gehl, Jan, 1987. Life between Buildings : Using Public Space; Jacobs, Allan B. 1993. Great Streets. 79 Gehl, Jan, 1987. Life between Buildings : Using Public Space.; Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. 80 Jacobs, Jane, 1960. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.; Gehl, Jan, 2010. Cities for People 101

billboard advertisements. How effective is a high-tech media wall in an urban environment? Is an LED advertisement wall better than old-fashioned retail frontage?

The two sides of the West Concourse are the perfect setting to test these questions. The northern edge is a conventional retail frontage, with an ice cream shop, a juice bar, a bank branch, and other establishments. On the opposite side, a long active advertisement media wall occupies most of the 300-foot marble wall.

In January 2017, I recorded two 10-minute videos in the morning at rush hour and in late morning to observe the behavior of people in the PATH West Concourse. I counted how many people passed through the corridor and in which direction people turn their attention. If the high-tech media wall is more interesting than a conventional retail frontage, people will turn their heads to the media wall and vice versa. If the edge treatment does not matter, then the count will be similar for both.

In the morning rush hour on 31st of January from 9:00 to 9:08, a total of 705 people passed through the corridor. It is equivalent to pedestrian Level of Service A (LOS A) 81;

5,000 people per hour, or 2.25 people per minute passing linear foot of passageway

width (p/min/ft). Among 705 people, 68 people turned their heads to retail frontage while

20 people turned to the media wall. Nineteen people were having light conversations

with their friends or colleagues while walking. In the afternoon from 15:09 to 15:24, only

503 people passed through, which is 40% of rush hour traffic; it is still LOS A with 2,000

people per hour, or 0.9 p/min/ft. A total of 86 people were conversing in the corridor. A

total of 97 people turned their heads to the soft edge while 27 people turned to the

media wall.

81 Level of Service (LOS) is a unit for measuring traffic congestion. 102

Soft vs Digital Edge

Facing Screen Facing Retail

Morning Rush Hour 2.8% 9.6% 84.8% 2.7% 4,843 pp/hr

Mid Morning 3.7% 14.7% 59.6% 22.1% 3,322 pp/hr

Activity y Conversation

Lunch 6.1% 15.8% 55.6% 22.6% 3,252 pp/hr Facing Front Facing Retail

Time of D a Facing Screen

Afternoon 5.4% 19.3% 58.3% 17.1% 1,992 pp /hr

Evening Rush Hour 2.0% 7.0% 84.0% 7.0% 4,474 pp/hr

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Count

Figure 30-Active Edge vs. Digital Facade. Real retail frontage attracts pedestrian's eyes 4 times more than the digital display advertisement

By almost 4 times more, the conventional retail frontage was more effective in

attracting pedestrians’ eyes within the confined environment of the West Concourse.

Despite the dazzling media wall, more people turned towards the retail frontage,

regardless of the time of day. Interestingly, during the morning rush hour, half of the

shops are not manned or opened. Still, people want to see real human activities and

actual spaces, not a simulacrum of urban life.

Managers of underground corridors use advertisement posters to activate the blank

wall. As tested above, however, it is more effective to have a real active edge rather than

forced activation of advertisement posters or expensive LED screens on the blank wall.

Neuroscientists might be the only qualified scholars to explain why the visual stimulation

was less effective in attracting people’s eyes. However, earlier urban designers seemed 103

to have the answers to the question already: the presence of people is the most important attractor of other people. 82 Even if an LED display airs eye-riveting

advertisements, people prefer to look at other real people or engage in real activities. In

planning underground public spaces, the same lesson learned from aboveground also

applies: “What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people.”83

A few more lessons can be drawn from observing people’s behavior in the West

Concourse. The character of the West Concourse changes from an efficient corridor in the morning rush hour to a social condenser in the afternoon. Not many people, only 2%, were chatting while they walked during rush hour. This is somewhat expected; people rush to work in the morning. In the afternoon, however, 17% of pedestrians had light conversations with others in the West Concourse, a jump from just 2% in the morning.

The West Concourse is a promenade where people take a walk during a break, as with any other aboveground public spaces. However, the hall does not provide room for social activities, no places to sit and linger. The underground public space is not designed to accommodate the shift.

However, there is room for improvement. Based on observation, the corridor never gets crowded, even during rush hour. At its peak, the West Concourse showed pedestrian LOS A: free flow of people without obstruction. Thanks to competent traffic engineering, the corridor will be never saturated with pedestrian traffic. The corridor handles 5,000 people per hour at its peak. It can handle four times more pedestrian flow to reach LOS D, or 22,000 people per hour. A few benches and movable chairs would

82 Jacobs, Jane, 1960. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.; Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.; Gehl, 1987 83 Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. p.19, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. 104

;A=&GA;@8D=&=E8&GACC:?AC&=AA&KHGES&"=&:D&7&K:DD8?&AMMAC=H;:=>&=A&;A=&=7X8&=E8&7?J7;=7@8&AI&

=E8&AJ8C/G7M7G:=>S&

3FHODQDGY-DG-6GEFSYSVTGE--&

.;8&AI&=E8&0AC=&1H=EAC:=>fD&AC:@:;7B&:;=8;=D&:;&C8?8J8BAM:;@&=E8&3('&(C7;DMAC=7=:A;&

!HU&T7D&=A&G7M:=7B:]8&A;&=E8&K7DD:J8&M8?8D=C:7;&=C7II:G&U>&^:;H;?7=:;@_&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&

DEAMM:;@&K7BB&T:=E&GAKKH=8CDS&(E8&0AC=&1H=EAC:=>fD&J:D:A;&T7D&DE7C8?&U>&C8=7:B&

?8J8BAM8C&38D=I:8B?&'ACMAC7=:A;W&7;&1HD=C7B:7;&DEAMM:;@/K7BB&AM8C7=AC&TEA&K7;7@8D&

•N`SY&U:BB:A;&:;&C8=7:B&7DD8=D&UA=E&:;&=E8&4;:=8?&Z:;@?AK&7;?&=E8&4;:=8?&)=7=8DS&&

[+I@>-!W0N1-/8+;![>$(/8I-!$5!K-'/5+-;,!D8;;)!L@c@>&!8(,!5;8I'2+=!'2$='!8>-!;$68/-,!8>$@(,!/2-!6-(/>8;!28;;!

08=8C&W&=E8&GE:8I&8\8GH=:J8&AI&38D=I:8B?&'ACMAC7=:A;W&?C87K8?&7UAH=&DAK8=E:;@&

LH:=8&?:II8C8;=&ICAK&TE7=&T8&D88&=A?7>S&!8&D88K8?&=A&MC8I8C&7&@:7;=&C8=7:B&MA?:HK&T:=E&

AII:G8&7;?&C8D:?8;=:7B&=AT8CD&A;&=AMW&B:X8&'7;7B&':=>&:;&FHXHAX7W&+AMMA;@:&!:BBD&:;&(AX>AW&

>7? and Namba Park in Osaka. Thus, Lowy was hesitant when he saw Libeskind’s master plan dissecting the ground floor retail podium into a few pieces. Lowy was critical of the

Libeskind plan due to its difficulty in retail opportunities. It was difficult for customers to access the retail shops on the third floor of the WTC Towers, as these shops were isolated from the main hall. Instead, he wanted a continuous and enclosed corridor in which consumers can walk directly by stores. The escalators and elevators do not provide the great visibility that you would get in suburban shopping malls.

Lowy’s comments on the configuration of the Westfield Mall were never incorporated into the revised master plan. However, his shops are framing the newly inserted crown jewel; two levels of underground retail shops surround Calatrava’s grand hall. The Oculus was filled with natural daylight and a continuous flow of commuters and tourists. For the isolated aboveground retail shops in 3 and 4 WTC towers, anchor stores on the upper floors attract people from the street and concourse levels. Fumihiko Maki, the architect of 4WTC, has inserted a vertical atrium to connect all three floors. H&M and

Banana Republic occupy the first and second floor, and Eataly, a luxury Italian franchise, is located on the 3rd floor. Thanks to the imported experience of the Italian market,

Eataly is crowded most of the week, including weekends. It is not clear if the new retail strategy satisfies Lowy’s expectations. However, it presents a new potential model that ties the large shopping mall to the constrained urban context without destroying the existing framework of walkable blocks.

A mega-shopping mall is not the only retail option in underground space. Similar to informal vendors on aboveground streets, long underground corridors can also facilitate vending businesses. Due to the cheaper rents and amiable environment, young start-up businessmen can easily afford their downtown shack. The kinds of items sold in the

106

GACC:?AC&GA;;8G=:;@&=E8&!HU&7;?&FHB=A;&'8;=8C&:;GBH?8&AC:@7K:&G7C?DW&8B8G=CA;:G&G7UB8D&

7;?&7GG8DDAC:8DW&;H=&UA\8DW&=C7J8B&:=8KDW&7;?&A=E8C&GA;J8;:8;G8DS&(E8&J8;?:;@&DE7GXD&

G7;&U8&IAH;?&A;&KHB=:MB8&B8J8BD&AI&=E8&FHB=A;&'8;=8C&)=7=:A;S&0C8DD8?&6H:G8C>&AII8CD&c&

IC8DE/DLH88]8?&?8=A\/[H:G8&UA==B8D&IAC&•N`ScO&;8\=&=A&=E8&8;=C7;G8&AI>&07DD7@8T7>S&

1&GAHMB8&AI&IBAACD&7UAJ8W&9CDS&2BAAK&D8BBD&D87DA;7B&IBAT8CDS&#>B7;fD&'7;?>&27C&7==C7G=D&

UA>D&7;?&@:CBD&A;&=E8&D=C88=&B8J8B&AI&FHB=A;&'8;=8CS&(E8&A;B>&?:II8C8;G8&U8=T88;&

H;?8C@CAH;?&7;?&7UAJ8@CAH;?&J8;?ACD&:D&=E7=&H;?8C@CAH;?&J8;?ACD&G7;;A=&D8BB&7;>&

IAA?&:=8KD&C8LH:C8?&=A&U8&GAAX8?&A;&D:=8S&9(1&:D&GA;G8C;8?&T:=E&:DDH8D&AI&AM8;&I:C8&7;?&

=E8&MC8D8;G8&AI&B:LH8I:8?&M8=CAB8HK&@7D&=7;XD&8\MAD8?&:;&7;&:;?AAC&DM7G8S&&

[+I@>-!WTNQ-(,+(I!H2863!+(!U-&!:8''8I-B8&)!H/>--/!9-(,$>'!/$!+(6>-8'-!-6$($%+6!,+9->'+/&!+(!/2-!6+/&! 6-(/->!

>7@ Retail programmers from the Westfield Mall might have observed similar opportunities for “vending” in underground public spaces. Just a few months after the grand opening, a total of 8 vending shacks began to appear in the middle of Calatrava’s grand hall. Vending shacks in the grand hall look the same as what can be found in department stores. The Westfield Mall redesigned a typical shack to be foldable and movable so that it can be stowed away when the mall is closed. It is rare to see the attendants touting their wares, partly because they do not want to attract any attention or to conceal their illegal business in a public facility.

Per Kayden’s categories of spaces, the grand hall of the Hub can be defined as a public-owned public facility; the Hub is owned by the Port Authority, and the retail shops are leased to Westfield. 84 It is not clear whether or not Calatrava’s grand hall was part of

the retail deal with Westfield. 85 However, it is difficult to believe that the grand hall was leased for placing retail shacks because the hall is located at the intersection of several pedestrian traffic flows; no traffic engineers or fire marshals would allow any obvious obstacles in the main course of pedestrian movement and emergency egress. One of the retail stands took further steps in design by transforming the shacks into art exhibits, combining with product display and pavilion design. Sennheiser’s audio sales shack displays their products on several tables made of thousands of crystal rods. The profile of the pavilion resembles the sound waveform in three dimensions. People can test out their products while they are waiting for trains and friends. In a way, Sennheiser’s pavilion is successful because the designer paid more attention to major urban design

84 Jerold Kayden points out the characteristics of spaces are diversified from ownership (public or private) to a new spectrum of space defined by ownership, use, and indoor or outdoor; publicly owned public space (i.e. parks, plazas, streets, transportation facilities); privately owned public space (POPS); private facilities (lobbies); and, private space.84 He argues such privatization or illegal use of the new public spaces is problematic.

108

MC:;G:MB8DS&'8C=7:;&D=CHG=HC8DW&M8CIACK7;G8DW&7;?&7G=:J:=:8D&:;&MHUB:G&DM7G8D&;7=HC7BB>&

UC:;@&M8AMB8&=A@8=E8C*&7&=C:7;@HB7=:A;&MCAMS&Qd&&

[+I@>-!WWNH-((2-+'->!H$@(,'68=-)!.8>-5@;;&!,-'+I(-,!8(,!=>$I>8%%-,!>-/8+;!'/8(,!68(!2-;=!86/+98/+(I! @(,->I>$@(,!=@S;+6!'=86-)&

"VGMQTIDVGIU-&JOH-WVSKI-OGE-WJOH-EVFI-GVH_&

.B?/I7DE:A;8?&K7D=8C&MB7;DW&@H:?8B:;8DW&7;?&MHUB:G&M7C=:G:M7=:A;&ICAK&HCU7;&

?8D:@;8CD&:;&%8T&5ACX&':=>&E7J8&MC8D8CJ8?&=E8&E:??8;&G:=>&7D&7&DAG:7B&GA;?8;D8CS&1&

D8C:8D&AI&K7D=8C&MB7;D&AI&&07CX&':=>&MCAJ:?8?&@H:?8B:;8D&IAC&

=E8&M8?8D=C:7;&MHUB:G&C87BKS&(E8D8&MB7;D&T8C8&:KMB8K8;=8?&DBATB>&UH=&GBAD8&=A&=E8&

AC:@:;7B&?8D:@;fD&:;=8;=&=A&GC87=8&7&D>D=8K&AI&M8?8D=C:7;&;8=TACXD&8;J:D:A;8?&:;&P`ddS&"=&

Qd&3E>=8&gP`QOh&?8I:;8?&=E:D&D=:KHBHD&I87=HC8D&7D&=C:7;@HB7=:A;&MCAMDS&(E:D&I87=HC8&G7;&U8&K7;>&?:II8C8;=& IACKD&ICAK&8ME8K8C7B&GA;J8CD7=:A;&=A&=7;@:UB8&DGHBM=HC8S&08CIACK7;G8&AI&UC7DD&U7;?D&AC&7&GBAT;&:;& =E8&G8;=8C&AI&MB7]7S&0E>D:G7B&AU[8G=&AC&D:@E=W&7&DGHBM=HC8&:;&G:J:G&DLH7C8W&AC&7&K7@;:I:G8;=&?AT;=AT;& B7;?K7CXD&7;?&DX>B:;8S& >7B is interesting to find that plans are not always shelved or abandoned; these plans are somehow put to good use for people in the city.

Thanks to rigorous design and construction management, the WTC PATH Station in

Lower Manhattan shows the utmost degree of an architectural aesthetic. Public spaces, corridors, and circulation and way-finding strategy are much more organized and advanced. The architects’ intention to create an urban square and to revitalized the old part of the town has been successful. The new half-buried subway station became the new destination for both international and domestic tourists.

Despite continuing efforts to activate the underground transit hub through placing shops, there seems to be a mismatch in retail programming and customers’ shopping patterns. Many retail shops in the Oculus are flagships to promote their brands rather than profiting from sales, as people rarely stop to shop in the Hub. Fewer customers are present on weekdays or weekends for such a high-profile and high-rent shopping mall.

Michael Sorkin, the renowned urban designer and critic, points out that “[t]he Westfield mall is virtually indistinguishable from Dubai duty-free.”87 The retailing in WTC Hub

almost resembles an airport duty-free mall aligned with generic multinational shops. As

people arrive and depart, they are supposed to shop for convenient items and duty-free

luxuries. Despite of the free of tax, commuters rarely shop in the Oculus.

There is an unmet demand for lounging and socializing spaces in underground

concourses. To address the issue, managers, engineers, and designers in Lower

Manhattan have sent “invitations”88 to people; to see the buildings and not to forget 9/11,

87 Stefan Al, 2017. “All under one roof: how malls and cities are becoming indistinguishable” https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/16/malls-cities-become-one-and-same 88 Gehl (1987) pointed out cities should be designed to invite people. The presence of people and any human activities attract other people. As Copenhagen tripled the total area for pedestrian streets and squares from 1968 to 1986, the total number of people standing and sitting also tripled.

110

to support the architectural master piece and public infrastructure, and to stay and socialize in the underground public spaces. Both private and public entities have hosted events and programmed the underground concourse to be a part of a successful public realm in the city rather than mere corridors for people to pass through.

References:

Ada Louise Huxtable. 2004. “A Landmark Destination: The Bus Station.” Wall Street Journal, June 15.

Al, Stefan, ed. 2016. Mall City : Hong Kong’s Dreamworlds of Consumption.

———. 2017. “All under One Roof: How Malls and Cities Are Becoming Indistinguishable.” Guardian, March 16. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/16/malls-cities-become-one-and- same.

Alexander, Christopher. 1977. A Pattern Language : Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander Cooper Associates. 1979. Battery Park City : Draft Summary Report and 1979 Master Plan Prepared for Battery Park City Authority / by Alexander Cooper Associates. New York: Alexander Cooper Associates.

Banham, Reyner. 1976. Megastructure : Urban Futures of the Recent Past. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Buttenwieser, Ann L., 2002. The Lower Manhattan Plan : The 1966 Vision for Downtown New York. 1st ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Davidson, Justin. 2004. “Newsday’s Justin Davidson Finds a Soaring Icon.” Newsday, January 24.

Dunlap, David. 2004. “A PATH Station That Honors 9/11, and Opens Wide, Too.” New York Times, January 24.

111

Gehl, Jan, 1987. Life between Buildings : Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gehl, Jan, 2010. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gillespie, Angus K., 1999. Twin Towers : The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Glanz, James. 2003. City in the Sky : The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. 1st ed. New York: Times Books.

Goldberger, Paul. 2004. Up from Zero : Politics, Architecture, and the Rebuilding of New York. 1st ed. New York, NY: Random House.

Gordon, David L. A. 1997. Battery Park City : Politics and Planning on the New York Waterfront / David L.A. Gordon. Cities and Regions ; v. 1. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

Hood, Clifton. 1993. 722 Miles : The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jacobs, Allan B. 1993. Great Streets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Jacobs, Jane, 1960. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books.

Kayden, Jerold S. 2000. Privately Owned Public Space : The New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley.

Mafi, Nick. 2016. “Santiago Calatrava on the World Trade Center Transportation Hub.” Architectural Digest, September 9. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/santiago-calatrava-tells-us-process- designing-wtc-transportation-hub.

New York (N.Y.). City Planning Commission. 1966. The Lower Manhattan Plan : Summary of Report. [New York: The Commission.

———. 1969. Plan for New York City, 1969 a Proposal. New York: City Planning Commission, [Dept. of City Planning.

Okamoto, Rai Y., 1969. Urban Design Manhattan. New York: Viking Press.

Pelli, Cesar. 1993. Cesar Pelli : Selected and Current Works / Introduction by Michael J. Crosbie, a Conversation with Cesar Pelli ; [Edited by Stephen Dobney]. Master Architect Series. Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia: Images Pub. Group.

112

Robins, Anthony. 1987. The World Trade Center. 1st ed. Englewood, Fla.: Pineapple Press.

Sagalyn, Lynne B., 2016. Power at Ground Zero : Politics, Money, and the Remaking of Lower Manhattan.

Skelding, Cornor. 2016. “The Oculus, A ‘Gift to the City,’ Semi-Officially Opens.” Politico New York, March 13. http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city- hall/story/2016/03/the-oculus-a-gift-to-the-city-semi-officially-opens-000000.

Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) Official Website http://www.renewnyc.com

Downtown Lower Manhattan Association (D-LMA) Official Website http://www.d-lma.com

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Official Website http://www.panynj.gov

The Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) Official Website http://www.panynj.gov/path/

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Official Website http://www.mta.info

Fulton Center Official Website http://www.fultoncenternyc.com

World Trade Center Official Website https://www.wtc.com

MTA Arts and Design Program http://web.mta.info/mta/aft/permanentart/permart.html?agency=nyct&line=4&station=19& xdev=0

113

CHAPTER 5

“COSMOPOLITAN CANOPY” OF HONG KONG

Introduction

Hong Kong is a city of layers. The city inherited its multi-layered physical and social

landscape from its natural topography and history.89 Hong Kong was once a small

fishing village on the northern slope of the peak when the Royal Navy first arrived.

Settlers, planners, and architects have adapted to this extreme terrain. Thus, multi-

layered urban structures seem natural in Hong Kong. Mid-level escalators are one of the

defining examples of such adaptation; it connects the Central District to Mid-Levels and

passes through SoHo so that people do not have to climb the slope. In fact, it created

SoHo. Not only in built environment, Hong Kong’s socioeconomic system also inherited

layers. From a series of historical and economic events, including British colonization,

immigration of and conflict with Mainland Chinese, the rise of Hong Kong as Asia’s financial hub, and increasing Foreign Domestic Helpers (FDW or FDH) from Philippines and Indonesia, strata have appeared in Hong Kong’s social landscape.

Hong Kong’s Central Station is situated in a multilayered physical and social context in the Center District of Hong Kong. Central Station begins at the base of the hill along

Des Voeux Road Central, spreading corridors and tunnels to Chater Street and under

Exchange Square towards Hong Kong Station. Hong Kong Station digs deep in the reclaimed harbor and bears the weights of office towers and a shopping mall of the

International Finance Center (IFC) on top. Both stations carry over 250,000 passengers daily. Underground tunnels and corridors connect subway stations to building lobbies,

89 Shelton, B., Karakiewicz, J., & Kvan, T. (2011). The making of Hong Kong : from vertical to volumetric. London: Routledge. 114

alleyways, pavilions, head houses, or sidewalks within the Central District for seamless integration into the public realm. The hidden city of Hong Kong is fundamentally “a civic place” and “a great room in the city.” 90

Manipulating the grade seems to be a tradition in Hong Kong. The underground network is not the only pedestrian thoroughfare in the Central District. At the ground level, pedestrians walk on the street and wait for buses. Bakery, noodle and conge shops located near bus stops serve commuters on hectic mornings. Few crosswalks are available to connect to either side of the road. Fifteen feet above the streets, a secondary skywalk system is available for people to cross streets and to access lobbies of major office buildings. Busy commuters do not have to wait for signals to cross and enter their office towers, hotel lobbies, and shopping malls directly from the skywalk system, as seen in the IFC complex.

Urban design scholars have criticized the fact that non-grade pedestrian networks have diluted the attraction of such traditional public spaces as streets, parks, and plazas, leaving fewer patrons and less room for activities and social interaction.91 Francesco

Rossini, however, points out that the Central District in Hong Kong is an outlier in terms

of such criticism. “[High] intensity is the biggest factor of success for skywalk,

underground, and street.” Unlike other cities in North America, “Hong Kong’s public

spaces are always busy due to the intensity.”92 Every corner of Hong Kong’s public

realm is occupied and crowded by different social groups.

90 Axel Menges. (2001). Arup: Hong Kong Station, pp. 9~10. 91 Whyte, (1980); Gehl, (1987); Whyte, (1988); Cooper-Marcus & Francis, (1998); Carr et al., (1992); Boddy, (1998) 92 Interview with Francesco Rossini on 25 July 2017. He is an assistant professor of urban design at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and has studied public spaces in Hong Kong. 115

[+I@>-!W7N!V!.$(6$@>'-!E-/B$>3!.$((-6/+(I!*$(I!J$(I!H/8/+$(!8(,!.-(/>8;!H/8/+$()!?9->!T<\]\\\! =8''-(I->'!/>89-;!/2>$@I2!/2-!@(,->I>$@(,!/>8('+/!2@S!+(!8!,8&)!!

>>= Hong Kong’s multilayered public realm may not suffer from underuse; still, multiple layers of the public realm contribute to segregation of social classes. While the skywalk enjoys the high maintenance and polite users from flashy corporate offices and shopping malls, sidewalks are discontinued by curb cuts and dark loading docks and are considered less amiable spaces for pedestrians to walk. During weekends and break times, stairwells and alleys become foreign workers’ havens for socializing. Since Hong

Kong has very little public space within the center, these non-spaces are utilized as alternatives for parks and plazas. Foreign domestic helpers and undocumented workers occupy less observable spaces underneath the skywalk. The underground passageway near Central Station along Chater Road is an asylum for the FDWs. This place is packed with Philippine and Indonesian workers who wish to spend afternoons with their friends.

Underground concourses of Hong Kong are arguably the only places removing the partitions among different social groups. The subway is the most efficient and the only transport system for moving around Hong Kong without being caught by traffic congestion. Financiers, expats, Hong Kong residents, tourists, and foreign domestic workers must share the subway train and spaces in stations every day. Thus, these underground public spaces create a setting “under which diverse people constantly exposed to one another occasionally interact and become familiar with one another.”93

Corridors and courts in subway stations promote the integration of Hong Kong’s social

strata.

As underground concourse became the place for leveling social strata through

facilitating casual contacts, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) devised a financial strategy

to support social equality at least in transportation. Hong Kong’s subway planners

93 Anderson, (2011), The cosmopolitan canopy : race and civility in everyday life, pp. 105. 117

invented “Rail-plus-Property,” the hybrid of public infrastructure with property development, to reduce the public investment and to reduce the transit cost.94 Rather

than privatizing the fruit from public infrastructure investment, MTR capitalize on the

profit and reinvest it on making public transportation affordable for all classes. “Rail-plus-

Property” is a financial vehicle to address social inequality in the layered city.

While Hong Kong has been at the center of various scholarly studies, few histories have been related to the development of MTR. Initiated by MTR, Nawas (2011) summarized the history of the organization from its early stages. The two studies exploring underground mass transit in 1967 and 1970 by Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith &

Associates and by Freeman Fox Partners present the socioeconomic background and the proposed plan for the first subway system in Hong Kong. Tan Zheng (2014) introduced the history of MTR in relationship to property development. Menges (2001) summarized the process and challenges of planning and building Hong Kong Station with support from Arup, the architect of record. Many argue that Hong Kong is an

“outlier” because of its unique setting including constraints in land, high intensity of use, staggering volume of pedestrian traffic, and unusual success of the public system. This chapter explores the contributing factors to Hong Kong being a unique example for an efficient infrastructure and effective place in the context of Asian hyper-density. Is it possible to replicate its success in other cities?

Growth of Hong Kong

It is impossible to introduce any history of Hong Kong without the United Kingdom’s involvement. Over 150 years, the UK had influenced the islands politically, financially,

94 Cervero, Robert, and Jin Murakami. "Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experience and Extensions."Urban Studies46, no. 10 (2009): pp. 2019-43. 118

and culturally, as well as in terms of urban planning and mass transit. After the First

Opium War in 1842 and the Second Opium War in 1860, the British began to occupy the area of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, New Territories. After the two wars, the British forced the Chinese government to agree on 99-year lease to control more than 200 islands around Hong Kong in 1898. The British engineers, surveyors, and architects transformed a small fishing town into a military and trade post under the principles of the

British Colonial Cities.95

The population of Hong Kong has grown since the First Opium War in 1842, except for the brief but brutal Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945. Commodore James

Bremer, commander-in-chief of the British forces in China, surveyed the Chinese population within the territory.96 In 1841, a total of 7,450 Chinese people lived on Hong

Kong Island; among them, 2,000 were living in boats along the shore. The small fishing

village grew into a city with a population of 1.6 million by 1941. Hong Kong’s population

was slashed by two-thirds in 1945 during the Japanese occupation; the total population was reduced to only a half a million.

Hong Kong recovered its population growth after the Second World War. The growth was fueled by immigration from mainland China. As Mao Zedong’s Chinese

Communist Party defeated the National Party led by Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949, refugees from the Mainland fled to Hong Kong away from communism. Foreign corporates’ regional offices were relocated from Shanghai to Hong Kong for the same reason. With an increased labor force and foreign investment, Hong Kong began its economic growth and enjoyed its role as a new center of manufacturing in Asia.

95 Home, R. K. (2013). Of planting and planning : the making of British colonial cities (Second Edition.). Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge, pp. 8. 96 Dennys, N. B. (1867). The treaty ports of China and Japan. A complete guide to the open ports of those countries, together with Peking, Yedo, Hongkong and Macao. London: Trübner and co.; pp. vi. 119

Refugees from Mainland China continued to flee to Hong Kong for two reasons.

Hundreds of thousands of people looked for political asylum from the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976, when Mao Zedong, the Chairman of the Communist Party of China, proposed to preserve Communist ideology by purging capitalist and anti-communists in the mainland. Second, it was easy to find jobs in Hong Kong because the city had become the industrial powerhouse in the 1960s. Refugees who had to swim across to

Hong Kong were referred as “Freedom Swimmers.”97 Such immigrants accounted for the

population growth from 1951 to 1971. The total population of Hong Kong doubled, from

2.2 million in 1951 to 4.0 million in 1971.

Search for An Efficient Public Transit System

With the significant increase in population, Hong Kong did not have a

comprehensive public transit system until 1979. The Kowloon Canton Railway

connected the southern tip of Kowloon to Guangzhou from 1910, but was limited to

Kowloon serving workers in manufacturing industry. The Hong Kong Tramways began

its service in 1902, running east-west parallel to the shoreline but limited to Hong Kong

Island. To cross Victoria Harbor, people had to take one of the ferry boats from Hong

Kong Island to Kowloon. Former MTR project director Russell Black recalled that “By the

late 1970s, I could see queues of 300 to 400 people waiting for full double decker, non-

air conditioned buses which cost 50 Hong Kong cents. When the buses reached their

stop, 20 people would squeeze onto the already full buses.”98 Private vans and

minibuses were prospering when legitimate transport service was strained beyond its

capacity. Thus, private van operators, whose licenses were limited to serving rural

97 Nawas, (2011). Moving Experience: The MTR’s First 36 Years. pp. 27. 98 Ibid., pp. 30. 120

areas, began to carry urban commuters navigating through arterials and local roads in

Kowloon.

However, both official and informal transit services together were not sufficient to move four million people around the city. To address the challenges, Freeman Fox,

Wilbur Smith & Associates (FFWS) was commissioned to develop a plan for a transportation system and published their findings in the 1967 Hong Kong Mass

Transport Study. Freeman Fox and Wilbur Smith were renowned British civil and transportation engineers of the time who specialized in long-span bridges and tunnels.

FFWS recommended subway as the future public transit system in Hong Kong.

They explored five modes of public transportation, including steel rail, rubber rail, monorail, bus or tram, and high-speed ferry in the report. FFWS justified their recommendations as they reviewed the pros and cons of each mode. The ferry could not cover a vast area of service. Rubber rail, similar to Paris’s Metro, was the second-best option but was considered difficult to maintain and operate. Monorail was still too early to be adapted in a real situation. Bus and tram were rejected because these would not solve the congestion problem. If a rapid bus system were built on the same grade as other modes of transport, i.e. walking, cars, and taxi, the speed would be the same and worsen the traffic congestion. Instead, an underground steel rail could move around and allow free movement without clogging the existing road. Furthermore, the subway was the “popular and efficient” option adopted worldwide;99 London, New York, Paris, and even Moscow had a few systems in full operation.

The cost was the main challenge identified in the 1967 study. Dr. Sean Mackey, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Hong Kong, argued that the cost for an

99 Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1967), Hong Kong Mass Transport Study, pp. 21. 121

underground subway was too much for a growing economy like that of Hong Kong. HK$

3.4 billion, or US$ 108 billion in 2015, was unbalanced as it served only 30% of Hong

Kong residents. The criticism of the excessive budget continued after Governor Murray

MacLehose approved the subway plan. In 1975, Lo Tak-shing, a lawyer and politician, challenged that the construction cost estimates were way off, considering the financial performance of previous public projects. He pointed out that road, tunnel, and rail projects had expenses 17-90% more than what had been budgeted. He was concerned that the total cost would be over the budget of what the government presented as HK$14 billion.

Subway in Hong Kong

Despite the cost concerns, Szeto Wai, the former chairman of the Transport

Advisory Committee, endorsed Freeman Fox & Wilbur Smith’s plan. He believed that it was the only plausible option to solve the congestion and transportation issues.

Obviously, adding more surface roads was challenging because Hong Kong already had suffered from a lack of usable land area. The Hong Kong government had to make room for residential and commercial development by “moving mountains and filling the sea.”100

It was irrational to carve out valuable land for transportation when an underground

solution could use the land more efficiently.

The Director of Public Works recommended to develop Freeman Fox & Wilbur

Smith’s work further because the Commissioners for Transport could not reach a

conclusion. For the next couple of years, Freeman Fox & Partners carried out a

schematic design to study alternatives for subway system alignment and general

principles related to station layout, circulation, safety, operation, maintenance,

100 Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1967). Hong Kong Mass Transport Study. Hong Kong., p. i. 122

architectural expression, and finishes. Further studies commenced on 1st September

1969 and published its findings in August 1970.

Freeman Fox and Partners proposed a subway system with a length of 52.6 kilometers; the cost of the entire system was estimated at HK$4,391 million in 1970, or

US$ 140 billion in 2015. The system served 48 stations linking Tsuen Wan to Central,

Kwun Tong to Central, Kennedy Town to Chai Wan, and Diamond Hill to Western

Market. The study projected 2.5 million daily trips when the government followed their recommended system.101

The report also outlined the design guidelines for station layout, circulation strategy, safety, and architectural finishes. Subway planners rigorously followed the rules in implementing the plan. The most important principle in designing subway station was improving “the efficiency of handling passengers arriving and departing at stations”102

and “increasing the speed of handling passengers.”103 Interior finish materials have been

selected for “easy maintenance.” Walls are colored uniquely to help people to orient

themselves better while underground. The stations are designed to create “unity” of

architecture as a whole. The engineers’ primary goal for the subway was to maximize

efficiency and speed of passenger movement, not to replicate meaningful plazas and

parks underground.

Under Financial Challenge: The Birth of “Rail-plus-Property”

In 1972, the Hong Kong Government approved the Initial System, a 20-kilometer-

long subway line connecting Kwun Tong and Prince Edward Station on Kwun Tong Line,

to Admiralty Station on Tsuen Wan Line, and Admiralty, Chater (Central), and Sheung

101 Ibid., para. 1.2. 102 Ibid., para. 8.2. 103 Ibid., para. 8.3. 123

Wan Stations on Island Line. The project was awarded to a Japanese consortium led by

Mitsubishi in 1974. However, the Japanese pulled out of the project due to the risk that they faced during the oil crisis in the same year.

Despite the setback, Governor Murray MacLehose decided to continue to build the subway with reduced scope in 1975, Modified Initial System (MIS). The MIS broke ground on November 3, 1975.104 After four years, September 30, 1979, the governor

announced the opening of MIS. He rode the first train from Shek Kip Mei to Kwun Tong

Station with 1,000 guests who had to donate HK$ 500 for charity. In the following year,

Chater Station in Central opened across the Victoria Harbor via a tunnel. On February

12, 1980, Princess Alexandra from UK officiated the opening ceremony, celebrating the

completion of MIS.

Hong Kong’s first subway was not possible without MTR’s new financing strategy,

“Rail-plus-Property.” From the beginning, the biggest challenge of the subway system in

Hong Kong was financial concerns. The need for decent public transit and supporting

studies with evidences of financial feasibility were obvious; however, Hong Kong

planners hesitated to devote themselves to building a subway system. “Rail-plus-

Property” was the reaction to the financial challenges that MTR was experiencing after the oil shock. The finance team of MIS, Lau Wah-sum, and Baron Sandberg devised a financial model to incorporate the subway station with adjacent property development to offset the initial investment.

Kowloon Bay Depot was the first “R+P” project. Norman Thompson, the first MTR’s chairman, wanted to utilize the vast roof of Kowloon Bay Depot to offset the subway construction costs. He proposed to convert the roof into a residential project. Telford

104 Nawas, (2011). pp. 39. 124

Gardens, housing 25,000 people with a value of HK$1.5 billion, was the first successful example of “R+P” financing.105 “R+P” was possible because MTR had the ability to reorganize and redevelop existing urban areas, or eminent domain, because their property development business was treated as a governmental infrastructure project.

MTR does not need any support from government. More than half (52%) of MTR’s income is derived from the property development.106 It is a self-sustaining public transit

system, which is rarely found in other railway infrastructure projects around the world.

Central Station: A Vision for A Transit Hub

Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith & Associates proposed Central Station as a transit hub

in 1967 study. Different from its current configuration, Central Station was located on

Des Voeux Road Central between Queen Victoria Street and Theater Lane. The station

was planned to connect Island Line and Kwun Tong Line. FFWS envisioned that Central

Station and the proposed bus terminal should be integrated by a series of underground

tunnels. They saw the potential for the two transport facilities combined; by connecting

the two, people who are beyond the subway catchment area can travel to the station via

bus and transfer to rapid rail.107

In the 1970 plan, the Central Station was divided into two stations: Pedder Station

and Chater Station. In further study, Shatin Line did not stop at Tsim Sha Tsui Station.

Instead, it extended across Victoria Harbor to Hong Kong Island and terminated at

Rumsey Station. Also, Island Line and Tsuen Wan Line were reorganized in the Central

District to remove redundant service. Admiralty Station became the hub of Island and

Tsuen Wan lines, whereas Central Station was divided into two stations. Chater Station

105 Ibid., pp. 53. 106 Cervero, Robert, and Jin Murakami. (2009): pp. 2019-43. 107 Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1967). pp. 91. 125

was the terminus of Tsuen Wan Line located under Chater Road, while Pedder Station was under Pedder Street on Island Line. The two stations were less than twenty meters apart from each other.

The proposal in 1970 was modified due to financial constraints. Subway lines were reduced to partial segments shared by multiple lines. Tunnels under Victoria Harbor were consolidated into one along Tsuen Wan Line. The names of the two stations returned to Central Station, despite the stations being unchanged from the 1970 plan.

The two stations were connected and opened in sequence: Tsuen Wan Line section in

1980 when the tunnel was completed, and Pedder Station section in 1985 with the completion of Island Line.

Hong Kong Station: An Urban Connector and A Civic Room

Hong Kong Station was part of larger regional development plan to connect new airport to the center of Hong Kong. As Hong Kong’s economic and population growth continued in the 1970s and 1980s, Kai Tak Airport operated beyond its capacity. The airport served as a military base for the Japanese Air Force from 1941 to 1945 and for the Royal Air Forces until 1954. It was too small to handle large commercial air traffic. A plan for a new airport existed just after WWII but was shelved due to various economic and political factors. In 1989, Hong Kong’s government authorized the plan to build an international airport at its current location. In addition to Chek Lap Kok International

Airport, the Hong Kong government wanted to build a series of supporting infrastructure and new towns to finance the project with “R+P” approach: Airport Core Programme

(ACP). This program includes an airport terminal, a 34-kilometer transport corridor connecting the airport to the central district, Tung Chung New Town, a land reclamation

126

MCA[8G=&IAC&D:=:;@&!A;@&ZA;@&)=7=:A;&7;?&"F'W&=TA&=H;;8BDW&=TA&UC:?@8DW&7&D:\/B7;8&

8\MC8DDT7>W&7;?&=E8&(H;@&'EH;@&DHUT7>&B:;8SPOQ&

1D&M7C=&AI&1'0W&=E8&@AJ8C;K8;=&7T7C?8?&9(+&'ACMAC7=:A;&=E8&MCA[8G=&=A&?8J8BAM&

7;&7:CMAC=&8\MC8DD&C7:B&D=7=:A;&7;?&!A;@&ZA;@&)=7=:A;&A;&dN&E8G=7C8D&AI&C8GB7:K8?&B7;?&

=A&AIID8=&9(+fD&:;:=:7B&:;J8D=K8;=S&3:=E&=E8&7MMCAJ8?&?8;D:=>&AI&PO&FBAAC&1C87&+7=:A&

gF1+hW&=E8&MA=8;=:7B&GAKK8CG:7B&?8J8BAMK8;=&T7D&8LH:J7B8;=&=A&POz&AI&=E8&=A=7B&

?8J8BAMK8;=&7C87&:;&'8;=C7B&#:D=C:G=SPO`&&

[+I@>-!WI>$@(,!5;$$>'!'->9-!#@(I!.2@(I!L+(-!8(,!V+>=$>/!4c=>-''!L+(-! 8/$=!$5!O[.!D8;;!

";&67;H7C>&P``NW&9(+&:;:=:7BB>&GAKK:DD:A;8?&+AGGAD:@;&<:K:=8?&7;?&1;=EA;>&%@&

1CGE:=8G=D&=A&D=H?>&=E8&GA;G8M=H7B&?8D:@;&AI&D=7=:A;D&7BA;@&=E8&1:CMAC=&$\MC8DD&+7:BS&^(E8&

D=7=:A;&?8D:@;&@H:?8B:;8D&MH=&IACT7C?&U>&=E8&=87K&G7BB8?&IAC&=C7;DM7C8;G>W&?7>B:@E=&

POQ&!A;@&ZA;@&-AJ8C;K8;=W&1:MAC=&'AC8&0CA@C7KW&E==M*ooTTTS:;IAS@AJSEXo7CGE:J8o;7MGAo7GMSE=KB& PO`&98;@8DW&1S&gNOO`hS&MMS&dS& >;@ awareness, spatial fluidity and a clear planning configuration.”110 Rocco Yim and

Anthony Ng stressed that the proposed stations need to be interconnected to Hong

Kong’s center city. Rocco Yim was one of the leading local architects since the 1980s,

investigating concepts of “urban connector” and “fluidity” as dominating ideas for

architectural projects.111 He believed “the architecture is an inside-out process, where a contiguous series of connector spaces in various guises; bridge, atrium, open deck, and subway are composed as a continuous route that knits together the social, traffic, circulation and open space systems in the neighborhood.”112

Rocco Yim’s design philosophy is emulated in the design of Hong Kong Station.113

The ground floor of Hong Kong Station is where in-town check-in counters are

sandwiched between the malls of the International Financial Center (IFC). The grand

atrium hall and light well weave the diverse functions at different levels together. Rocco

Yim envisioned a “great room,” a new civic focus for Hong Kong. As Rocco teamed up

with Arup Associates in 1992, an international engineering consultant firm with

transportation expertise, the architects were able to combine a design concept with

comprehensive circulation and structural solutions.

Arup and Rocco had to arrange multiple functions on the confined site, including

Airport Express Rail, Tung Chung Line, taxi and shuttle drop-offs, a parking structure, a

bus terminal, and a shopping mall with two landmark towers on top. Tung Chung Line

was planned to serve 72,000 commuters during peak hours. In addition to Tung Chung

Line, Airport Express projected 3,700 passengers an hour. Crafting a circulation strategy

110 Ibid., pp. 7. 111 Hope, E., Ryan, E., & Ryan, K. (2002). The City in Architecture: Recent Works of Rocco Design Limited. Mulgrave, Victoria: Image Publishing. pp. 14. 112 Ibid., pp. 20. 113 Menges, A. (2009). pp. 6-7. 128

=A&E7;?B8&=E8&D=7@@8C:;@&;HKU8C&AI&M8AMB8&E7?&=E8&H=KAD=&MC:AC:=>SPPa&(TA&U7;XD&AI&

8DG7B7=ACD&7=&=E8&87D=8C;&7;?&T8D=8C;&8;?D&AI&=E8&D=7=:A;&GA;;8G=&=E8&K8]]7;:;8&B8J8B&AI&

(H;@&'EH;@&<:;8&)=7=:A;&7;?&1:CMAC=&$\MC8DD&:;/=AT;&GE8GX/:;&IBAACS&(E8&D7K8&8DG7B7=AC&

U7;XD&G7;&KAJ8&M8AMB8&HM&=A&=E8&"F'&97BBS&(E8&1:CMAC=&$\MC8DD&MB7=IACKW&BAG7=8?&=TA&

B8J8BD&U8BAT&=E8&GE8GX/:;&IBAACW&:D&D8CJ8?&U>&=TA&D8=D&AI&8DG7B7=ACD&:;&=E8&K:??B8S&1;A=E8C&

K8]]7;:;8&IBAAC&:D&D7;?T:GE8?&U8=T88;&=E8&:;/=AT;&GE8GX/:;&IBAAC&7;?&=E8&MB7=IACK&B8J8BS&&

[+I@>-!WZN.-(/>8;!H/8/+$(!8(,!*$(I!J$(I!H/8/+$(!:;8()!D@;/+=;-!-c+/'!6$((-6/!/2-!@(,->I>$@(,!6$(6$@>'-!/$! /2-!'/>--/!8(,!/2-!8,v86-(/!,-9-;$=%-(/'!

4DQQDGY-HJF-*ORI-1FHWFFG-HJF-2HOHDVGI-

(A&:;=8@C7=8&=E8&IAHC&D=7=:A;D&8II:G:8;=B>W&DHUT7>&MB7;;8CD&?8J:D8?&UA=E&EAC:]A;=7B&

7;?&J8C=:G7B&GA;;8G=ACDS&";&!A;@&ZA;@&q&'8;=C7B&)=7=:A;W&=E8&G:CGHB7=:A;&GA;;8G=ACD&

C87B:]8?&7D&7G=H7B&DM7G8l&K8]]7;:;8&IBAACDW&BA;@&GACC:?ACDW&7;?&;A?8D&H;?8C&8\:D=:;@&

UH:B?:;@S&(E8&1:CMAC=&$\MC8DD&K8]]7;:;8&:D&7;&8\7KMB8&AI&EAT&G:CGHB7=:A;&D=C7=8@>&

PPa&"U:?SW&MMS&POS& >;B translates into physical space. Based on a series of computer simulations, the Airport

Express platform was planned to be served from both sides of the platform to reduce congestion in the arrival hall, arrival on the northern platform and departure on the southern platform. The only challenge to this bisected circulation approach is bringing arriving passengers back to Hong Kong Station across the rail tracks. Since the project was planned in a tight floor-to-floor height, just ten meters below street level, station planners added a mezzanine floor in-between the ground level and the platform level.115

The mezzanine was connected by two long corridors and filled with several retail shops and restaurants.

Another circulation-driven space exists between Hong Kong Station and Central

Station. In their 1967 report, Freeman Fox and Wilbur Smith & Associates proposed potential connection with the bus terminal via an underground pedestrian passageway.

Integrating the proposed bus terminal with the busiest subway station will create an urban public transit hub of Hong Kong. Originally, they aligned Central Station to be parallel with the terminal and even prescribed to add travellators to ease the transfer.116

However, the vision was reduced as Freeman Fox and Partners continued to study the station layouts. In1993, the vision was revived when Tung Chung Line was planned to connect suburban Hong Kong to the Central District, and subway planners were convinced that a physical connection to Central Station would be essential. Therefore, they proposed a 350-meter-long tunnel dedicated to transferring traffic between the two stations located directly under the existing stock exchange.117 Different alignments were tested and studied considering constructability, ease of access, and stock exchange

115 Ibid., pp. 13. 116 Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1967). pp. 91. 117 Menges, A. (2009), pp. 14. 130

operation. The current route is not the most direct; however, it was the only viable alternate to meet the brief mandated by MTR and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

In addition to the Stock Exchange, more conflicts existed when building the underground passageway. The corridor is too long to travel in case of fire, terrorist attack, or medical emergency, so that an additional entrance hall was proposed in

Douglas Street. The new entrance was connected to the bending spot of the corridor.

Linkage to Central Station was even more difficult because the paths had to be located under an existing building, the World Wide House. Since an underground space had to accommodate the World Wide House’s structural load, the connecting corridor to Central

Station was blocked by huge columns, making it even more difficult to navigate large crowds.

The World Wide House was built on the site of the previous General Post Office in

1980. Hong Kong’s government awarded MTR Corporation the right to develop the land to build Pedder Station (now the western part of Central Station). Cheng Kong Limited purchased the right to develop aboveground from MTRC and built a 32-story office tower with the first three floors as a shopping mall. As part of the lease, MTR Corporation mandated the developer to incorporate subway entrances on the ground floor and to accommodate their underground subway station design. MTR planned Pedder Station for three levels of below grade; the platform westward to Kennedy Town is located lowest at basement 3, the platform eastward to Wan Chai is located in the middle at basement 2, and an additional mezzanine level is located at basement 1. Basement 2, the platform to Wan Chai, is a subway transfer floor. Passengers can change their subway line to Tung Chung Line towards IFC or to Tsuen Wan Line towards Chater

Street without changing levels. Central Station’s mezzanine level at basement 1 is a

131

connecting corridor to many mid-level escalators, IFC Mall via skywalks, Lan Kwai Fong,

City Hall, Landmark Mall and other famous destinations. As passengers proceed to the exits, convenience stores, bank ATM, and cosmetic shops try to entice potential customers.

Social Life in Hong Kong and Central Station

Hong Kong Station and Central Station are designed with a highly functional focus.

Subway planners have solved complex engineering problems with clever ideas with emphasis on efficient operation of subway station. Considering the volume of the crowds in the underground, public spaces could have been lacked vibrant social life. However, amongst the heavy traffic, there are mixture of success and failure. Corridors are filled with people but awkwardly quiet; MTR users rarely talk to their friends. On the other hand, gathering places, such as the intersection of Tsuen Wan Line and Island Line, are not different from busy street corners of Central District above.

As observed in other cities, the lack of necessary design features contributes to the lack of social activities in the underground concourse. The Freeman Fox and Partners stressed the need for seating, but this was limited only to the platform level.118 Few

sitting locations are available for non-platform areas of the stations. Despite the 1970

report prescribing specific locations of seating, subway planners have added fewer

seats. For example, the mezzanine floor of Tsuen Wan Line is about 300 meters long;

however, there is no seating along the entire corridor. A handful of benches are placed

in the corners in the waiting area of the Island Line platform. The wall is decorated with

bright yellow tiles and advertisements. Per recommendation, corridors and waiting areas are primarily for passing through, not for staying. Management efforts are focused

118 Freeman Fox and Partners. (1970). Hong Kong Mass Transport Further Study. Hong Kong. para. 8.79. 132

7CAH;?&KAJ:;@&M8AMB8&LH:GXB>&7;?&8II:G:8;=B>W&;A=&=A&7==C7G=&7;>&DAG:7B&7G=:J:=:8DS&

1TIN-2HSFFH-"VSGFS-DG-6GEFSYSVTGE-

";&!A;@&ZA;@W&EAT8J8CW&=E8&E:@E8D=&MAMHB7=:A;&?8;D:=>&:D&7C@H7UB>&=E8&K7:;&I7G=AC&

IAC&=E8&DHGG8DD&:;&H;?8C@CAH;?&DM7G8S&(E8&GAC;8C&AI&"DB7;?&<:;8&7;?&(DH8;&37;&<:;8&:;&

'8;=C7B&)=7=:A;&:D&TE8C8&>AH&G7;&8\M8C:8;G8&=E8&H=KAD=&?8;D:=>&AI&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&

MHUB:G&DM7G8&AI&!A;@&ZA;@S&(E8&=TA&B:;8D&:;=8CD8G=&TE8C8&(DH8;&37;&<:;8&:D&7==7GE8?&=A&

"DB7;?&<:;8W&GC87=:;@&7&^(_/&:;=8CD8G=:A;S&07DD8;@8CD&TEA&=C7;DI8C&ICAK&!A;@&ZA;@&

)=7=:A;&=A&(DH8;&37;&<:;8&7;?&J:G8&J8CD7&KHD=&M7DD&=E:D&GE8GXMA:;=S&)=C87KD&AI&

M7DD8;@8CD&?:J8C@8&=A&HMM8C&B8J8B&K8]]7;:;8W&=A&BAT8C&B8J8B&MB7=IACKW&7;?&=A&GACC:?ACD&=A&

=E8&8\:=DS&(E8&:;=8CD8G=:A;&:D&7BT7>D&GCAT?8?&T:=E&=AHC:D=D&7;?&GAKKH=8CDS&&

[+I@>-!WCN*$(I!J$(I!>-'+,-(/'!B8+/!5$>!/2-+>!6$%=8(&!8/!/2-!6$>(->!$5!.-(/>8;!H/8/+$(!

(E:D&:D&=E8&MB7G8&TE8C8&>AH&G7;&AUD8CJ8&GADKAMAB:=7;&!A;@&ZA;@&T:=E&:=D&?:J8CD8&

DAG:7B&7;?&8=E;:G&@CAHMDS&.;&=E8&;AC=E8C;&T7BBW&7&D=7=:A;&K7M&IC8LH8;=B>&GBA@@8?&U>& >66 :;=8C;7=:A;7B&=AHC:D=D&7;?&J:D:=ACD&MHBB:;@&AH=&DK7C=&MEA;8D&=A&AC:8;=&=E8KD8BJ8DS&4;B8DD&7&

X;ATB8?@87UB8&=AHC&@H:?8&B87?D&=E8:C&T7>W&=E8D8&H;DX:BB8?&J:D:=ACD&EH??B8&HM&7;?&D=7C=&7&

DEAC=&?8U7=8&TE8C8&=A&@AS&"=&:D&^=E8&T7BB&AI&=E8&BAD=W_&7&UB7;X&T7BB&AI=8;&AGGHM:8?&U>&7&E7BI/

?A]8;&M8AMB8&BAAX:;@&:;=A&=E8:C&MEA;8DS&(E8&:;=8CD8G=:A;&:D&7BDA&7&I7JAC8?&MB7G8&IAC&!A;@&

ZA;@&C8D:?8;=D&=A&T7:=&IAC&=E8:C&IC:8;?DS&(E8&AMMAD:=8&D:?8&AI&=E8&GACC:?AC&:D&7&B8DD&UHD>&

7C87&TE8C8&I8T&B:;8D&AI&M8?8D=C:7;&KAJ8K8;=D&:;=8CD8G=S&"=&:D&7&MB7G8&IAC&C8=C87=l&M8AMB8&

MBH@/:;&=E8:C&;A:D8/G7;G8BB:;@&87CM:8G8D&7;?&8;[A>&=E8&KHD:GW&T7:=:;@&IAC&IC:8;?D&=A&7CC:J8S&

(E8>&7C8&UC:8IB>&:DAB7=8?&ICAK&UHD>&K8=CAMAB:=7;&B:I8S&9

[+I@>-!WGN.-(/>8;!H/8/+$()!Q+'+/$>'!'/$=!S&!/2-!B8;;!$5!/2-!;$'/)!

";&GA;J8;=:A;7B&8;@:;88C:;@&T:D?AKW&AUD=7GB8D&T:BB&UBAGX&=E8&IC88&IBAT&AI&M8AMB8S&

(E8&=AHC:D=D&;87C&=E8&D=7=:A;&K7M&AC&M8AMB8&T7:=:;@&IAC&A=E8CD&AI=8;&@7=E8C&:;&=E8&K:??B8&

AI&7&K7[AC&IBAT&7;?&GAHB?&:KM8?8&=C7II:GS&FHC=E8CKAC8W&7&M7J:B:A;&T:=E&7&I8T&GAKMH=8CD&:D&

BAG7=8?&7=&=E8&G8;=8C&AI&=E8&:;=8CD8G=:A;S&(E:D&D=7;?&7==C7G=D&M8AMB8&TEA&T7;=&=A&DM8;?&7& >6< I8T&K:;H=8D&TE:B8&=E8>&T7:=S&!AT8J8CW&=E:D&GA;J8;=:A;7B&T:D?AK&?A8D&;A=&7MMB>&=A&=E8&

:;=8CD8G=:A;&AI&'8;=C7B&)=7=:A;S&

"=&:D&:;=8C8D=:;@&=A&;A=8&=E7=&;A;8&AI&=E8D8&AUD=CHG=:A;D&E:;?8C&K7[AC&M8?8D=C:7;&IBATS&

1D&3E:=8&gP`QOh&7C@H8?W&M8AMB8&=E8KD8BJ8D&^?8=8CK:;8&=E8&B8J8B&AI&GCAT?:;@S_PP`&(E8C8&

:D&CAAK&=A&K7;8HJ8CW&7;?&!A;@&ZA;@&C8D:?8;=D&7C8&X:;?&=A&K7X8&CAAK&IAC&M8AMB8&

M7DD:;@&U>S&4;B:X8&=E8&=C7II:G&MB7;;8CDf&U:@@8D=&I87CW&GA;@8D=:A;&?A8D&;A=&D:KMB>&C8DHB=&

ICAK&7;&8\G8DD:J8&;HKU8C&AI&M8AMB8&MC8D8;=&:;&7&DM7G8S&&

F:@HC8&Y`/'8;=C7B&)=7=:A;!'ACC:?AC![>+,8&!49-(+(I!$(!T0'/!$5!h@;&!T\0G)!:-$=;-!I8/2->!8>$@(,!/2-!S@'&! 6$>(->'!>8/2->!/28(!%+,N'-6/+$(!$5!6$>>+,$>'&rS;@-A!'/8(,+(I]!>-,A!6$(9->'8/+$(s!

4QVW-VL-8FVRQF-

4;B:X8&A=E8C&G:=:8DW&7BB&=EC88&B7>8CD&AI&MHUB:G&C87BKW&D:?8T7BXDW&DX>T7BXDW&7;?&

H;?8CM7DD8D&7C8&7G=:J8&KAD=&AI&=E8&=:K8&:;&!A;@&ZA;@S&!:@E&MAMHB7=:A;&?8;D:=>&:D&=E8&

PP`&3E>=8W&3S&gP`QOhS-!H$6+8;!L+5-!$5!H%8;;!R>S8(!H=86-'S&%8T&5ACX*&0CA[8G=&IAC&0HUB:G&)M7G8DW&MMS&bYS& >6? most important factor to the vibrancy. The Central District has the population density of about 20,300 people per square kilometer, not including the transient population. 120 It is equivalent to the population density of Paris, Macau, and New York. Because of this density, the three layers of the public realm are filled with an endless flow of walking people.

The transfer passageway connecting Central Station to Hong Kong Station is the definitive to observe perpetual flows of people moving through the corridors. The passageway was born out of pure traffic engineering need. When subway engineers planned Hong Kong Station, they saw that a connection between the two stations would be critical to creating a comprehensive passenger network. Therefore, they proposed a

350-meter-long tunnel dedicated to transferring traffic between the two stations. This pedestrian passageway is designed to accommodate 40,000 people per hour. To facilitate effortless walking, two sets of travellators are installed; it is the longest pedestrian tunnel in Hong Kong.121

The connection has two segments. Beginning from the mezzanine of Tung Chung

Line, Hong Kong Station, a set of one-way corridors are attached to the midpoint of the

station. Each tunnel is about 7.4 meters wide and has a moving walkway to help people

move effortlessly. The two corridors merge as you arrive at the end of the first segment,

and the second segment appears on the left side of the tunnel. A 13.2-meter-wide two- way passageway continues to carry pedestrian traffic back and forth. Through the second tunnel, passengers finally reach the B2 level of Central Station, but they can transfer to Island line and Tsuen Wan Line only after a walking only a couple of hundred

120 Hong Kong Census Bureau. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/so20.jsp 121 Tan, Zheng. (2014). Conditions of the Hong Kong section: Spatial history and regulatory environment of vertically integrated developments. University of California, Los Angeles, PhD Dissertation. pp. 203. 136

meters more.

The primary function of the corridors is the easy and free transfer from Hong Kong

Station to Central Station. The ticketed areas of the two stations are connected via these long corridors so that passengers do not have to exit to the street and re-enter the other subway station. This internal connection reduces the foot traffic on the street and avoids exposure to rain and humidity in the summer. Station planners paid some attention to the environmental quality of the corridors. People in the Hong Kong–Central transfer corridor enjoy high six-meter ceilings, which are of double height at the hinge of the two segments. The railing of the moving walkway is decorated with fake flowers to soften the edge. Retail shops aligned the mezzanine level of Hong Kong Station to create an active edge but do not extend to the entire length of the corridors. The walls are covered with commercial advertisements; however, few people turn to see what is there. They are typically blank walls as seen aboveground.

A minimum of a few thousand people walk through the corridors at any given hour.

During rush hour, more than what was designed, 40,000 passengers use the corridors to make transfers at a maximum width of 14.4 meters, including a set of moving walkways.

This is equivalent to Level of Service E (LOS E) based on pedestrian traffic engineering standards.122 LOS E represents a state of restricted pedestrian movement and a condition of “design volumes approaching the limit of walkway capacity, with stoppages and interruptions to flow.”123

Despite the warnings from engineering standards, there is no sign of congestion.

Hong Kong residents walk through the passageway calmly and quietly. It is awkwardly

122 Highway Capacity Manual http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans/transportation/td_pedloschaptertwo.pdf 123 Ibid.

137

silent considering that tens of thousands of people are passing by. That is, these corridors are another quintessential example proving Whyte’s theory; there is no set carrying capacity in public space.

Carrying Capacity of a Corridor

In August 2017, I recorded ten 10-minute videos in rush hours, morning, afternoon, and evening. I counted the number of people passing through the Hong Kong–Central

Station passageway and observed people’s behavior in the corridor. The corridor is designed similarly to a two-way street. Moving walkways are located on both sides of the walls, and the center is left empty for walking people. This is the zone to handle overflow of walkway traffic. The central zone is divided by temporary railings in the middle; this configuration creates four zones of movement.

When not crowded, people follow the rules, walking where they are supposed to walk. Moving walkways are the first choice for many pedestrians. Until the walkway entrance begins to reach eight people per twenty square feet (2.5 ft2/person; or equivalent to LOS F), people tend to depend on moving walkways. It is natural to avoid unnecessary exercise, especially when there is the option not to walk. The walking corridor is purely functional, moving from point A to point B; therefore, people rather minimize their use of energy for such a functional activity. After the moving walkway is somewhat crowding, then slowly the central corridor fills up. When the pedestrian density reaches twenty-five people per thirty square feet (1.2 ft2/person; or equivalent to

LOS F) in the corridor area in the center, people again overflow beyond the central divider. No one complains about the trespassers from opposite side. No police officer pulls you over from strolling over the centerline. When the traffic from Hong Kong Station is overcrowded, outgoing traffic towards Central Station occupies 90% of the corridors, 138

leaving space for single-file incoming traffic.

The railings in the center seem useless. Hong Kong residents do not need such strict guidance; they can regulate themselves and allocate spaces in the most efficient manner. If the central zone is crowded, then people begin to congest themselves on the moving walkways. When the density doubles over twenty people per twenty square feet

(1 ft2/person), people begin to stay in place waiting for a clear path on the travellator.

During rush hour, the corridor and two travellators can carry 36,000 people, or two infantry divisions, without creating chaos. At this rate, it is meaningless to discuss the carrying capacity for these corridors.

Myth of Mechanized Sidewalks

A moving walkway or travellator looks almost the same as an escalator with the moving metallic belt, except the step does not rise. The moving walkway first appeared at Chicago’s World Fair in 1893 to carry disembarking passengers from steamers to the main gates effortlessly.124 One hundred thousand fairgoers chose to pay ten cents to walk on the 2,500-fott long Movable Sidewalk. It was basically a series of train cabins without the train cabin. Rows of benches allowed people to sit while they travelled. After fifty years, the first commercialized moving walkway was built in PATH’s Pavonia

Terminal without benches. Then, the new technology began to spread in transportation facilities like subway stations and airports, where the primary focus is on moving people quickly and efficiently.

Planners of MTR anticipated that this futuristic moving walkways would improve the pedestrian flow. However, experts have raised questions as to the efficiency of the travellators. "Moving walkways are the only form of transportation that actually slow

124 Bolotin, N. (1992). The World’s Columbian Exposition, Washington, DC: Preservation Press. pp. 56. 139

people down," said Dr. Seth Young of Ohio State University. He observed automated walkways at San Francisco and Cleveland airports and concluded that people walk much more slowly on travellators. Another OSU mechanical engineer, Dr. Manoj

Srinivasan, argued that “people slow down on walkways to reduce energy consumption.”125

Using travellators can mean a slower travel in the Hong Kong–Central Station corridor. Walking in the central zone without a travellator takes about one minute, while standing on the travellator is forty-five seconds slower at one minute and forty-five seconds. Only walking on the travellator will reduce one-third of the travel time at forty- two seconds. As moving walkways began to be congested at over twenty people per twenty square feet (1 ft2/person); however, people stop walking. Instead of pushing or yelling at people in front, Hong Kong residents are patient enough to wait until the path is cleared. The travel time on the moving walkway becomes slower than just walking in the corridor. Despite the station planners’ wish, having walkways slows people down in peak rush hour.

Unlike escalators in Moscow, travellators are less effective in facilitating social activities. People tend to socialize more when they walk. As I counted the number of people’s activities on travellator and walkway to see their behavior, I found more people have conversations with their friends, family, and colleagues when they are strolling on walkways. It is interesting to note that people share conversations on walkways twice as much as on travellators except in the afternoon. About 41% of walkway users talk to their companies while on walkways, whereas about 20% of people on travellators talk in

125 Alleyne, R. (2009, July 16). Using the airport moving walkways “actually slows you down.” The Telegraph. Accessed on 21 July 2017. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science- news/5836445/Using-the-airport-moving-walkways-actually-slows-you-down.html 140

7I=8C;AA;&CHDE&EAHCS&#HC:;@&K:?/KAC;:;@W&KAC;:;@&CHDE&EAHCW&7;?&8J8;:;@W&M8AMB8&:;&=E8&

K:?/D8G=:A;&AI&=E8&GACC:?AC&GA;=:;H8&=A&=7BX&KAC8&=E7;&M8AMB8&A;&=C7J8BB7=ACDS&&

[+I@>-!7\N#>8('5->!.$>>+,$>!5>$%!*$(I!J$(I!H/8/+$(!#$B8>,'!.-(/>8;!H/8/+$(!

"=&:D&;A=&GB87C&TE>&M8AMB8&MC8I8C&T7BXT7>D&7D&MB7G8D&IAC&=E8:C&G7DH7B&GA;J8CD7=:A;DS&

.;8&MADD:UB8&8\MB7;7=:A;&:D&=E7=&M8AMB8&7C8&KAC8&GHB=HC7BB>&I7K:B:7C&T:=E&T7BX:;@&=E7;&

=7X:;@&=C7J8BB7=ACDS&(E8>&?A&;A=&E7J8&=A&M7>&=AA&KHGE&7==8;=:A;&A;&T7BXT7>D&=A&@8=&A;&

7;?&AII&=E8&KAJ:;@&D:?8T7BXDS&1&KAC8&MB7HD:UB8&8\MB7;7=:A;&:D&=E7=&T7BXT7>D&7BBAT&=E8&

7MMCAMC:7=8&DM7=:7B&7CC7;@8K8;=&AI&=E8&GA;J8CD8CDW&D:?8/U>/D:?8S&(C7J8BB7=ACD&7C8&B:K:=8?&

T:=E&M7DD:;@&T:?=El&=E8>&7C8&?8D:@;8?&=A&7GGAKKA?7=8&=TA&M8CDA;D&TE8=E8C&D=7>:;@&:;&

=E8:C&MB7G8D&AC&M7DD:;@&U>S&(EHDW&:=&:D&?:II:GHB=&=A&D=7;?&D:?8/U>/D:?8W&7&;7=HC7B&T7>&=A&=7BX&

T:=E&=E8:C&GAKM7;:A;DS&";D=87?W&=E8&T:?8&CAAK&:;&=E8&K:??B8&AI&=E8&GACC:?AC&7BBATD&M8AMB8&

=A&GA;=:;H8&=A&KAJ8&=ECAH@E&T:=EAH=&TACC>:;@&7UAH=&DBAT:;@&?AT;&AC&X88M:;@&HM&T:=E&=E8&

M7G8&AI&A=E8CDS&&

><> Morning Rush Hour 18% 13% 69% 65% 3% 8% 23%

On Walkways On Travellators

Lunch 8% 30% 62% 62% 16% 15% 7% y Conversation

Afternoon 19% 81% 72% 16% 4% 9% Phone Standing

Time of D a Walking

Afternoon Rush Hour 10% 41% 49% 62% 20% 8% 10%

Evening 9% 24% 66% 77% 10% 12%

100% 50% 0 50% 100% Percent(%) Figure 41-Activities On Walkways vs. Travellators. People tend to talk to their company twice as much while they are on walkways

Moving walkways are not effective. As described above, the overall travel time is

reduced on walkways because of the congestion. Because of the delay, the capacity of a

walkway is lower than that of a conventional corridor, facilitating less social activity. A

prominent advantage of travellators is that they allow for reducing dynamic energy

consumption for walkers. This won’t be necessary for many young commuters, but the

physical advantage would help kids, babies, and senior citizens. However, the same

effect can be achieved by shortening the corridor, by avoiding long connections, and by

placing transit hubs closer together.

142

Morning Rush Hour 8,830 p/hr 27% 5% 38% 30% 18,500 p/hr

Toward Hong Kong Station Toward Central Station

Lunch 3,600 p/hr 37% 7% 15% 41% 4,650 p/hr y factor

Afternoon 4,150 p/hr 41% 10% 9% 40% 3,950 p/hr Corridor Travellator Time of D a

Afternoon Rush Hour 8,800 p/hr 28% 21% 19% 33% 9,300 p/hr

Evening 6,500 p/hr 41% 17% 9% 34% 4,800 p/hr

10000 0 10000 Count Figure 42-Pedestrian Traffic Volume Both Direction To and From Hong Kong Station and Central Station. Walkways are used more during morning and afternoon rush hour.

Price Tagging on Flow of People

Hong Kong–Central Station can accommodate the staggering volume of pedestrian

flow underground. The primary goal of corridors, mezzanine floors, or tunnels is to

guarantee efficient passenger movement in confined spaces and to facilitate efficient

ticketing operations. In addition to the original goal, there are also hidden intentions

behind adding these circulation spaces in the station. These spaces are not essential;

alternate pedestrian systems can facilitate the required function moving people from A to

B, such as sidewalks on the street level and skywalks connecting the buildings above.

Alain Chiaradia, an Associate Professor and Master of Urban Design Director in the

University of Hong Kong, claims that adding this non-essential circulation is a monopoly

143

of pedestrian flow because MTR has sole control of the flow and because passengers have no choice over route. Placing public transit system means monopolizing the flow of people by consolidating destinations and manipulating nodes. Several subway lines and an airport express train merge in Hong Kong–Central Station. MTR built the corridors to connecting stations and to adjacent buildings, and subway planners aligned shops along the corridors. People have no choice but to pass through. “Even if you don’t want to go through the shopping mall, you still have to go through the colonnade of retail shops.”126

MTR rented spaces in the subway station to retail owners by the volume of pedestrian traffic. This is the successful business model of MTR: a monopoly on the flow of people.

The capitalization on flow of people first started in airports. Airport operators have realized that it is difficult to make a profit from flying and aviation activities alone. In the

1920s and 1930s, airport managers tended to narrow the deficit by bringing the “sight- seeing public” to the new and futuristic buildings.127 In 1930, amenities such as swimming pools or miniature golf courses were introduced at the Philadelphia Airport.

These amenities were the main contributors to revenue; concessions accounted for 36% and the swimming pool for 10% of profit, while aviation activity only amounted to 6%.128

The retail strategy spread throughout the world: adding commercial programs along the monopolized flow of passengers. Airport developers added concessions, hotels, saunas, movie theaters, florists, and nightclubs to airports.

Soon, transit planners began to adopt the new retail strategies. The original transit mall underneath the first World Trade Center in New York City was an example of such

126 Interview with Alain Chiaradia 127 Franzheim, K. (1930, April). The Public Point of View Comfort and Amusement Must be Provided. Airports. pp. 26. 128 Edge, K. (2009). Buy, Sell, Roam: The Airport Calculus of Retail. In M. Orvell & K. Benesch (Eds.), Public Space and the Ideology of Place in American Culture. New York: Rodopi. pp. 222. 144

a strategy. The foot traffic from PATH station had to go through the corridors of shops to reach the street or the office buildings above. For retail consultants, the endless stream of commuters is translated into a stream of potential customers.

The monopoly seems to work in Hong Kong. Moreover, combining the transit system with retail and shopping malls is a “fruitful symbiosis.”129 Underground

passageways and mezzanine levels are prone to desertion as passenger volume

decreases in off-peak hours. To activate these spaces, station planners aligned shops

along the corridors and around the mezzanine. The shops are convenient and activate

the space at some extent. Compare to many underground public spaces without any

shops at all, it is more pleasant and safe to walk due to the better maintenance and

round-the-clock security. From the capitalization of the flow, Hong Kong residents enjoy

affordable subway fares for commute without government subsidy. MTR can sustain

itself with the revenue from the property development.130 It is one of the few public transit operators whose stock is regarded as a favorable investment after MTR announced its

Initial Public Offering (IPO) in 2000. Now MTR invests and develops projects in cities around the world, including London, Melbourne, and Stockholm.131

Mezzanine

The Airport Express mezzanine is an example of the monopoly of flow. As discussed in history of Hong Kong Station, this is the result of circulation strategy based on computer simulation to avoid any congestion. Originally, Airport Express was planned to be operated at 4.5-minute intervals with 3,700 passengers at peak hours.

129 Al, Stefan. (2016). Mall city : Hong Kong’s dreamworlds of consumption. Honolulu : University of Hawaiʻi Press, pp. 2. 130 Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2009). 131 Nawas. (2011). pp. 13. 145

#8DM:=8&=E8&C:@ACAHD&GAKMH=8C&D:KHB7=:A;W&=E8&GHCC8;=&1:CMAC=&$\MC8DD&D=7=:A;&:D&

?8D:@;8?&IAC&7&@C87=8C&8\G8DD:J8&G7M7G:=>&=E7;&TE7=&:=&:D&HD8?&IAC&;ATS&(C7:;D&CH;&8J8C>&

=8;&=A&=T8BJ8&K:;H=8DS&(E8&C:?8CDE:M&AI&!A;@&ZA;@&1:CMAC=&8\MC8DD&:D&aNWOOO¶aaWOOO&

M7DD8;@8CD&M8C&?7>S&(E:D&=C7;DB7=8D&:;=A&7;&7J8C7@8&AI&IAHC&EH;?C8?&M7DD8;@8CD&M8C&

=C7:;&7;?&NWaOO&M7DD8;@8CD&M8C&EAHCl&TE:GE&:D&B8DD&=E7;&7&=E:C?&AI&TE7=&T7D&MCAMAD8?S&

4;B:X8&=E8&MB7;W&M7DD8;@8CD&7CC:J:;@&7;?&?8M7C=:;@&7C8&;A=&D8M7C7=8?&UH=&UA7C?&A;&=E8&

D7K8&MB7=IACKS&(E8&;AC=E&MB7=IACK&:D&;A=&:;&HD8W&7;?&=E8&GA;;8G=:;@&GACC:?ACD&7C8&7BDA&

GBAD8?&AIIS&(E8&K8]]7;:;8&B8J8B&T7D&=E8&C8DHB=&AI&AJ8C8D=:K7=:A;&7;?&K:DG7BGHB7=:A;&:;&

=E8&GAKMH=8C&D:KHB7=:A;l&=E8&IBAAC&:D&;A=&;8G8DD7C>&=A&AM8C7=8&=E8&D=7=:A;S&

[+I@>-!7WNV+>=$>/!4c=>-''!D-^^8(+(-![;$$>)!O/!+'!6>$B,-,!/$!'->9-!,+%!'@%!/$!$55+6-!B$>3->'!8(,!/$@>+'/'!+(! ;@(62!2$@>)!

#8DM:=8&=E8&K8]]7;:;8&IBAAC&U8:;@&=E8&AH=GAK8&AI&K:DG7BGHB7=:A;W&:=&:D&7;&7IIAC?7UB8&

C8=7:B&DM7G8&IAC&DK7BB&UHD:;8DD8D&=A&MCADM8CS&3E:B8&=E8&IHBB/DG7B8&"F'&97BB&:D&BAG7=8?&A;&

><= top of Hong Kong Station, mom and pop stores can be found in the Airport Express mezzanine. This “non-essential” mezzanine is the home of a salad bar, one of the most famous dim sum franchises, a Japanese ramen bar, a Korean Ginseng store, a flower shop, a sandwich shop, a bank branch, and a few other souvenir shops, constituting a miniature city street in Hong Kong Station. The mezzanine is not crowded except during the lunch hour. Financiers, tourists, and Hong Kong residents line up for Xiao Long Bao and Shrimp Shumai attracting hundreds of people waiting in the corridor.

The cheaper rent in underground mezzanine allows start-up and small businesses to compete and coexist with corporate headquarters and high-end retail shops.132 For example, the utmost luxury shopping mall and underground transit hub are grafted at the grade level such as IFC Mall and Hong Kong Station. The two structures are quite different from each other in terms of design strategy and interior finishes. While IFC Mall boasts the utmost luxury for the global bourgeoisie, the Hong Kong Station mezzanine is essential for the working class. Once Jane Jacobs demanded a mixture of newer and older buildings for new ideas and entrepreneurs, these underground spaces have become subterranean examples of “the generators of diversity.”133

Conclusion: What works and what does not?

Urban designers have praised Hong Kong as the quintessential example of the compact city and high-density transit oriented development. More than 90% of all trips in

Hong Kong are made via transit; and the city has a very low per capita energy consumption for transportation.134 A series of constraints drove Hong Kong to become

132 Hyang Mi, Kim. 2015-09-04. “Seoul Underground Spaces Transformed Into Incubator for New Culture and Business” Kyunghang News http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?code=210100&artid=201509042128595 133 Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. pp. 143. 134 Cervero, R. (1998). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington DC: Island Press. 147

the model for sustainable development. The hilly topography of Hong Kong drove people to concentrate on the shoreline, which allowed the most efficiency in constructing a public transit system. The pioneers of MTR devised “Rail-plus-Property” to address concerns about high construction costs and insufficient funding by combining real estate development with an infrastructure project. By integrating high-density and mixed-use communities with the mass transit system, Hong Kong’s living clusters are examples of the most sustainable cities in the world.135

Planners of underground concourses boast of their achieving utmost efficiency.

Wide and high-ceiling spaces are built underground to maintain the free flow of pedestrians. Additional floors and corridors are built based on scientific engineering simulations. Despite various engineering and environmental features, these underground thoroughfares are not amenable to people. Spaces are too vast and empty; it is almost too sterile, lacking opportunities for social activities. Partly, the traffic capacity is being over-engineered. Usage of Airport Express in Hong Kong Station is 30% of what was predicted. It is not common to find variables and assumptions that do not match to mathematical models. Maybe we should reconsider relying solely on statistics and simulations when designing a space for millions of people to use.

People adjust themselves before spaces are over-crowded and there is no carrying capacity. Whyte’s lesson from New York City’s public space study is still applicable to underground corridors in Hong Kong. New technology does not always solve engineering problems and improve the life of the public. Travellators are not resilient in handling high-volume foot traffic. These machines work under the density of one person per square foot; beyond that range, it becomes slower than just walking. However,

135 Al, Stefan. (2016). 148

walking in the corridor is more flexible and consistent. We might want to reconsider the

“efficiency” of designing underground public spaces.

The hidden city of Hong Kong has the potential to be a “cosmopolitan canopy.”136

Elijah Anderson, a renowned sociologist, defined the physical and social setting to

relieve conflicts of social and ethnical classes. Cosmopolitan Canopy refers to “settings

that offer a respite from the lingering tensions of urban life and an opportunity for diverse

peoples to come together.”137 Anderson believes that racial conflicts can be overcome by reducing social distance and tension as expressed in a wariness of strangers. To achieve this goal, it seems creating working public spaces is one potential solution.

Without a viable transit option, financiers, expats, tourists, foreign domestic workers, and

Hong Kong residents must share the public spaces in subway stations every day.

Casual contact is guaranteed among these diverse social groups. A remaining question is that of how underground public spaces can facilitate interactions.

136 Anderson, E. (2011). 137 Ibid., pp. xiv. 149

References:

Al, Stefan. (2016). Mall city : Hong Kong’s dreamworlds of consumption. Honolulu : University of Hawaiʻi Press,.

Alleyne, R. (2009, July 16). Using the airport moving walkways “actually slows you down.” The Telegraph.

Anderson, E. (2011). The cosmopolitan canopy : race and civility in everyday life (1st ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Boddy, Trevor. (1992). Underground and Overhead: Building the Analogous City. In Variations on a theme park : the new American city and the end of public space (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Bolotin, N. (1992). The World’s Columbian Exposition, Christine Laing. Washington, DC: Preservation Press.

Carmona, M. (2012). Capital spaces : the multiple complex public spaces of a global city. Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge,.

Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Cervero, R. (1998). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington DC: Island Press.

Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2009). Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions. Urban Studies, 46(10), 2019–2043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009339431

Cooper-Marcus, C. (Ed.). (1998). People places : design guidelines for urban open space (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Dennys, N. B. (1867). The treaty ports of China and Japan. A complete guide to the open ports of those countries, together with Peking, Yedo, Hongkong and Macao. London,: Trübner and co.

Edge, K. (2009). Buy, Sell, Roam: The Airport Calculus of Retail. In M. Orvell & K. Benesch (Eds.), Public Space and the Ideology of Place in American Culture. New York: Rodopi.

Franzheim, K. (1930, April). The Public Point of View Comfort and Amusement Must be Provided. Airports.

Freeman Fox and Partners. (1970). Hong Kong Mass Transport Further Study. Hong Kong. 150

Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1967). Hong Kong Mass Transport Study. Hong Kong.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings : using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Home, R. K. (2013). Of planting and planning : the making of British colonial cities (Second Edition.). Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge,.

Hope, E., Ryan, E., & Ryan, K. (2002). The City in Architecture: Recent Works of Rocco Design Limited. Mulgrave, Victoria: Image Publishing.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Menges, A. (2009) Arup : Hong Kong station. Stuttgart :

Nawas. (2011). Moving Experience: The MTR’s First 36 Years. Hong Kong: MTR.

Shelton, B., Karakiewicz, J., & Kvan, T. (2011). The making of Hong Kong : from vertical to volumetric. London: Routledge.

Tan, Z. (2014). Conditions of the hong kong section: Spatial history and regulatory environment of vertically integrated developments. University of California, Los Angeles, PhD Dissertation.

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Whyte, W. H. (1988). City : rediscovering the center (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.

151

CHAPTER 6

FROM THE NECROPOLIS TO THE CIVIC FORUM, PARIS

Introduction

La Canopée des Les Halles, the latest revitalization in the Paris city center, opened on the 6th of April 2016 after the destruction and redevelopment of the site. The 2,000 square-foot umbrella floating 75 feet above the ground is impossible to pass unnoticed.

Next to la Canopée, le Jardin Nelson-Mandela, a public garden is scheduled to reopen in

2018 after the renovation.

However, what you see on the ground is not everything you get in Les Halles. There are layers of history and basement floors buried underneath. A regional shopping mall fills the three floors under the canopy. Juxtaposing the commercial program, the civic forum takes up the western half underneath the Nelson Mandela Garden. A regional rail hub for RER A, B, and C is located diagonally below the shopping mall. In addition to three RER lines, six Metro stations are spread between Les Halles and the Seine River.

The managers, architects, engineers, and citizens of Paris have explored the hidden city in Forum des Les Halles not as a second-class public space but as a unique opportunity to create a meaningful public realm in the city. The Forum and the shopping mall was an example of design democracy recalibrating the futuristic World Trade

Center in a civic forum. The civic organizations and design professionals successfully augmented the civic, cultural, and recreational use in Les Halles that had been missing from the vibrant and dense historical city. The passageways and gathering places in underground Les Halles are designed to be no different from the public spaces aboveground.

152

[+I@>-!77N*+,,-(!.+/&!$5!.28/-;-/NL-'!*8;;-')!L-'!*8;;-'!28'!/>8('5$>%-,!+/'-;5!5>$%!8!2+'/$>+6!%8>3-/]! />8('+/!6-(/->]!8(,!8!6+9+6!5$>@%)!O/!8;'$!=>-'->9-!/2-!=8>/!8(,!5@;;!2+'/$>&!$5!-9->&!=8I-!$5!/2-!/>8('5$>%8/+$(! +(!@(,->I>$@(,)!

>?6 The history of Paris subway was the pro-urbanists’ victory against the authoritarian urban renewal and the brutal infrastructure proposal. Parisians have loved their city.

They refused to adopt Barron Haussmann's proposal to widen the major thoroughfare and the public transit plans to create an elevated rail system. They believed that the modernization would eventually destroy Paris. The priority of Parisians was preserving the city's local culture and architectural and urban heritage. The subway was an alternative to increase transportation capacity in the center while keeping the streets and architecture intact. The engineers and architects proposed an underground civic forum to keep a civic park aboveground. The "people of the sun" volunteered to adopt a

"necropolis" to protect urban landscape of their city.

The architects and engineers of Les Halles awarded Parisian’s sacrifice with extending the aboveground public realm into the underground. The corridors and gathering places in the underground concourse of Les Halles are no different from the

aboveground public spaces. The Rue de Cinema is designed just like any other street in

Paris. The outcome is clear: people use the underground public spaces the same way

as aboveground. The vitality of the hidden city is not determined by its grade but by the

design of the space.

The history of the Paris Metro and the Les Halles redevelopment process has been

largely covered by French architectural historians. Pierre-Francois Large presents the

history of the emergence of Les Halles from 1100 and continues as to how Baltard's

Pavilion was built and demolished.138 Christian Michel documents the redevelopment

process from 1971 to 1991, and how the Forum des Les Halles was built after the

138 Michel, Christian. (1988). “Les Halles: La renaissance d’un quartier 1966-1988” 154

beloved food market.139 The design competition schemes and the process in 2004 are

described in "Paris-Les Halles: Concours 2004."140 The competition winner of the new master plan, David Mangin, and Jean-Marc Fritz describe the process after the 2004 competition.141 Rosemary Wakeman summarizes the process of Les Halles’

redevelopment from the social and political standpoint.142 The history of Paris Metro is

worth the review. Benson Bobrick's book "Labyrinths of Iron" has been the frequent

reference for this study overviewing and comparing the history of the subway in different

countries.143 Mark Ovenden collects valuable plans and drawings for the Metro.144 Sybil

Canac demonstrates how the architecture and the design of Paris Metro have

transformed from the beginning.145 Lastly, Michel Dansel documents life in the subway in

1975 for comparison.146

“People of the sun” volunteered for a “necropolis” to save their city

Paris is the birthplace of the public transit system. Since the 1400s, the streets and alleyways in Paris have been clogged by "mule drivers, wagoners, and carters.”147

Streets were considered as unsafe places because of horses and chariots. In 1662,

Blaise Pascal, the renowned philosopher, asked Louis XIV for permission to organize a public carriage system in Paris that was equipped with eight seats, drawn by two horses.

These carriages traveled major routes in Paris, covering 150km of total length with 25

139 Large, P.-F. (1992). “Des Halles au Forum : métamorphoses au cœur de Paris” 140 “Paris-Les Halles : concours 2004.” 141 Bougnoux, F., Fritz, J.-M., & Mangin, D. (2008). “Les Halles : Villes intérieures = Interior cities : projet et études Seura architectes, 2003-2007.” 142 Wakeman, R. (2007). “Fascinating Les Halles.” in French Politics, Culture & Society, 25(2), pp. 46–72. 143 Bobrick, B. (1982). “Le Style Metro.” In “Labyrinths of iron, a history of the world’s subways.” 144 Ovenden, M. (2009) “Paris underground : the maps, stations, and design of the Métro” 145 Canac, S., & Cabanis, B. (2014). “Paris métro : histoire et design.” 146 Dansel, M. (1975). “Paris-Métro / sous la direction.” 147 Bobrick. (1982). pp.135. 155

lines.148 The Omnibus system had been successful carrying Parisians around the city

until the mid-nineteenth century.

However, an additional public transit system was necessary to handle the increased population. By 1850, Paris expanded twice as much beyond its geographical boundaries, and its population reached 1.5 million. Omnibuses or medieval streets did not have enough capacity to handle the traffic demand from the increased population and the growing economy.149 Other competing metropolises had built or planned to

incorporate underground railways to move their citizens around; London's tube was

inaugurated in 1863, and Berlin's Ringbahn was in operation since 1871, and New York

City's elevated rail opened in 1872.150 Although Paris was the birthplace of the public

transit system, the subway was new to Parisians until the twentieth century.

Architects, engineers, and government officials generated their visions for future public transportation. They used the opportunity to test innovative architectural and infrastructural ideas. Over 50 years until 1900, almost 60 rail and subway proposals had been published. In general, proposals could be categorized into three types of track configurations: underground, at grade, and elevated. Few proposed to improve the existing at grade system; Camilo Pissaro preferred horse-drawn carriages on the street in 1897.

The subway was one of the many transit alternatives considered in public discussion. Floremond de Kerizouet, an engineer, drafted the transit plan connecting the central marketplace of Les Halles to Gare du Nord (1846) and Gare de Lyon (1849).151

However, the plan was put on hold because of the revolution in 1851 by Louis-Napoleon

148 Dansel. (1975). pp. 4. 149 Bobrick. (1982). pp.137. 150 Dansel. (1975). pp. 15. 151 Ovenden, (2008). pp. 8. 156

Bonaparte, or Napoleon III. In 1854, Eduard Brame and Eugene Flachat revived de

Kerizouet's plan, but submerged the rail lines underground because the two civil engineers were concerned about potential accidents between the freight line and pedestrians on grade level.152 They proposed a 1.3-mile long tunnel from Les Halles to

La Villette and to Gare du Nord, where coal-fired steam locomotives were supposed to run inside. Despite this realistic and believable proposal, the project was abandoned when they failed to find any supporters.153

The majority of proposals adopted an elevated rail system. Pierre Louis-Leger

Vauthier planned to place 19-mile-long railroads on 20-foot-high viaducts in his 1865

"Metro aerian" plan. Telle suggested an elevated railway on Haussmann's new boulevard in 1855. Louis Heuze abutted an elevated railway next to living apartments in

1877. He then later proposed a similar but lighter infrastructure at a 6th-floor level in

1882. Jean Chretien's 1881 proposal resembled current monorail but with earlier electric traction. Jules Garnier was ambitious to suggest a triple-deck-station system to increase capacity in 1882. A year later, he scaled down to a double-decker hoping it would not become an eyesore. Louis Abel Charles Tellier placed a station on a bridge over Seine

River in his 1891 scheme. Paul Haag's elevated railroad circumnavigated the Bastille.154

Each design proposal was vet against the public followed by a heated debate on the configuration and alignment of the transit system. In the discussion, experts heavily criticized the underground rail for its uncomfortable environmental conditions and

inadequate security. Being in tunnels is not preferred by Parisians, who are accustomed

to clear sky and sun aboveground. Heuze criticized underground spaces as "cold, humid,

152 Bobrick, (1982). pp.141. 153 Ovenden, (2008). pp. 9. 154 Ovenden, (2008), pp. 7-21. 157

gloomy, smoky, and fraught with danger" as he promoted the elevated rail proposal in

1882. Jules Garnier suggested that Parisians did not deserve to be in "a forestate of the tomb" for transportation. Charles Tellier believed that exposure to the subterranean environment would likely expose people to diseases like "pleurisy, bronchitis, and other maladies.”155 Some went beyond criticism; the subway was no place for "the ladies and the damsels. It is a den for rapists, and you cannot escape from it." Thus, "Hide your daughters.”156 Underground platforms were referred as "Necropolitain", a world of death.157 These environmental and psychological concerns were widespread among the

public.

Despite these condemnations, it is interesting to see why Parisians settled on

subway eventually in place of other options, elevated or at-grade rail. The subway was

the only way to preserve the beautiful architectural assets in the center of Paris. Other

proposals did not seem to be the most appropriate options to conserve the urbanity of

Paris.158 Parisians were familiar with the "Haussmannism," the authoritarian urban

renewal that destroyed their city to make room for cars and modern boulevards. On-

grade rail would repeat the mistake of the Haussmannian boulevards. It was evident that

the trestles and bridges from elevated rails would become eyesores in the infrastructure

rather than a lightweight modern structure, as designers insisted.159 Parisians had to

sacrifice their environmental desires and to tolerate "inherent darkness" in order to keep

their city intact.160

The construction of the first subway line began on 22nd November 1895. Fulgence

155 Bobrick. (1982). pp.143. 156 Dansel. (1975). pp. 19. 157 Bobrick. (1982). pp.142. 158 Ibid., pp.148. 159 Ovenden, (2008). pp. 7-21. 160 Bobrick. (1982). pp.143. 158

2:8;J8;=:8&MCAMAD8?&7&;8=TACX&AI&d&B:;8D&=A=7B:;@&dcXK&BA;@&U8=T88;&0AC=8&?8&

,:;G8;;8D&7;?&0AC=8&97:BBA=&7BA;@&=E8&;AC=E8C;&U7;X&AI&=E8&)8:;8&C:J8CSPdP&.;&P`=E&6HB>&

P`OOW&=E8&I:CD=&DHUT7>&B:;8&:;&07C:D&AM8;8?S&

9 :(*0#&!;<5!=&%-$#!>0(?8#'@+!4)-#8)%&!-$!-.&!"$#-&!980A.()&!B-8-($)CDEF!!

!8G=AC&-H:K7C?&G8B8UC7=8?&=E8&07C:D&98=CA&T:=E&E:D&:?:AD>;GC7=:G&@7=8T7>&

?8GAC7=:A;DS&-C7?H7=8?&ICAK&=E8&$GAB8&?8D&287H\/1C=DW&-H:K7C?&E7?&8\MBAC8?&E:D&AT;&

IACK&AI&1C=&%AHJ87H&:;&IHC;:=HC8&7;?&UH:B?:;@&AC;7K8;=DS&1D&=E8&07C:D&98=CAMAB:=7;&

+7:BT7>&'AKM7;>&GAKK:DD:A;8?&-H:K7C?W&E8&GC87=8?&D8=D&AI&G7D=:CA;&AC;7K8;=D&T:=E&

=E8&KA=:I&ICAK&^D=C7;?D&AI&B:B>S_PdY&!:D&8;=C7;G8D&GE7;@8?&=E8&8\M8C:8;G8&AI&=E8&?7CX&7;?&

I7G=AC>/B:X8&DHUT7>&=A&=E8&KHD8HKW&^7&[A>AHDW&J:J:?W&7;?&7J7;=/@7C?8&78D=E8=:GS_Pda&

-H:K7C?&UH:B=&7&=A=7B&AI&Pdb&@7=8T7>D&7CAH;?&07C:Dl&7;?&E:D&TACX&E7?&=A&U8&?:DGA;=:;H8?&

?H8&=A&=E8&I:;7;G:7B&GA;D=C7:;=D&:;&P`OYS&97;>&AI&E:D&U8BAJ8?&TACXD&7C8&?:DK7;=B8?&7;?&

PdPD8BS&gP`bchS&MMS&NYS& PdN&^98=CA&D=7=:A;&8;=C7;G8&0AC=8HME:;8&07C:D_&U>&9AA;:X&:D&B:G8;D8?&H;?8C&''&25&YSO& PdY&'7;7GS&gNOPahS&MMS&YQS& Pda&"U:?SW&MMS&aOS& >?B relocated; however, these are more than gateways. They are the emblem of the Paris metro and the art works exhibited in New York Museum of Modern Art and Staatliches

Museum in Munich.165

Les Halles

Les Halles has transformed from a local market, “the belly of Paris,” to "the symbol

of the golden age of French construction,” to ground zero for historic preservation, to a

public transit hub. In 1135, it was 26 years before Notre-Dame began its construction

when a public market started to appear in the current Les Halles site. The first public

market in the city became the focus of intense social life after King Philippe II Auguste

built two wooden structures to be a shelter for merchants in 1183. The market remained

unchanged through the Renaissance. Fountaine des Innocents was built in 1550 to

commemorate the cemetery of the Church of the Saints-Innocents. All cemeteries of

Paris had to move outside the city walls for sanitary reasons. On the opposite side, Halle

aux Blés was built in 1767 for the grain trading industry. It is a circular building anchoring

the far western end of Les Halles and became the Bourse de Commerce (Chamber of

Commerce).166

Ironically, the famous Baltard’s pavilions, the famous modern example of historic

preservation, were the outcome of a modernization plan of historic Les Halles to improve

public health and hygiene. Napoleon III, who announced himself as the Emperor of

France after three coup-d'etats in 1836, 1840, and 1848, saw the crowded market as a

symbol of the past. For him, the market was total chaos, spreading disease and foul

odor in his new empire. Thus, the Emperor ordered Victor Baltard to reorganize the

165 Ibid., pp. 52. 166 Michel. (1988). “Les Halles: La renaissance d’un quartier 1966-1988” pp.11-13. 160

market following Baron Haussmann's Les Halles redevelopment plan. In 1851, Les

Halles began its transformation led by Baltard, who had a close relationship with

Haussmann, was an ardent collaborator of Paris renovation plan, and started his pavilion design in 1951.167 Baltard presented a scheme of massive stone pavilions. However, the

Emperor wanted to remove existing buildings and order him to build "pavilions that are

like umbrellas.”168 Working with Felix Callet, Baltard designed the steel structure with a

glass roof, which lasted until 1970. Baltard and Callet's market pavilion provided high

ceilings and long span structures with natural light to the interior, which was suitable for

trading products. They even planned for fixtures and market stalls showing vegetable

shops, the meat market, and fish market.169

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the city officials proposed a plan for Les

Halles to move to the outskirts due to traffic congestion in the center. The city population

showed steady growth and hit 4 million in 1905. The transport costs of moving grains

and fresh produce to the center was too high because of traffic congestion. By 1950,

wholesalers preferred to relocate their business outside the city to keep costs down. In

1961, the ministers of the Interior, Finance, Public Works and Transport, Agriculture,

Construction, and National Commerce signed a decree authorizing the move of a

wholesale food market from Les Halles to Rungis near Orly Airport, 10 kilometers from

the southern border of Paris. The relocation was part of Haussmann's original vision to

relocate city center functions to the periphery.170 In 1969, the food markets began to move to Rungis from the center.

167 TenHoor, (2007). “Architecture and Biopolitics at Les Halles” in French Politics, Culture & Society, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 73-92. 168 Michel, (1988). pp. 12. 169 TenHoor, (2007). 170 TenHoor, (2007). 161

A new plan for regional rail lines only expedited the relocation of the food market. As early as the 1930s, the city's growth had expanded to the outskirt of Paris. Although the

Metro extended its service beyond the city's boundaries, it was still not enough to handle the increased transit demand. The Réseau Express Régional (RER: Regional Express

Network) was proposed to connect suburban commuter rails and metro lines seamlessly.

In 1968, the Council of Paris approved the network to be placed at a 20-meter subsurface to avoid any conflict with the Metro system. The Atelier Parisien d'urbanisme

(APUR: Paris Urbanism Agency, equivalent to a city planning department) planned to locate the RER transit hub at the soon-to-be-vacant Les Halles.171

The relocation of the beloved market was not welcomed by Parisians. The market was the social recollection of modern and contemporary Paris.172 Architects, artists,

politicians, and civic leaders demanded the preservation of Baltard's pavilion and public

input in redesigning Les Halles. As the Paris Council approved temporary cultural

activities under the canopy on March 1969, the dead space reverted to the festival place

for circuses, theaters, concerts, flea markets, exhibitions, and others over two months.

The civic movement groups, including Société Civile d'Etude pour l'Aménagement des

Halles (SEAH, later SEMAH), demanded public input in designing the Les Halle district

and preserving Baltard's pavilion. Over 2,500 people signed the petition to protect the

pavilion in 1971. Pablo Picasso held an exhibition there and attracted 70,000 visitors.

Orin Hein, an American collector, bid on the pavilion for 30 million francs for his personal collection.173

Architects and historians in particular wanted to preserve Baltard's pavilion buildings.

171 Ovenden, (2008). pp. 54-56. 172 Zola, É. (2009). “The Belly of Paris” 173 Michel, (1988). pp.88-91 162

Mies van der Rohe fully supported preserving "the symbol of the golden age of French construction." Peter Black, an architectural critic, argued that the pavilions were "the only examples of the nineteenth-century industrial architecture still existing in the world"; therefore, the demolition of the pavilions would be "a cultural loss without any excuse.”174

James Dillon, the American Ambassador to the United States, argued that it was his

duty "to safeguard the market.”175 Even Le Corbusier, who proposed Plan Voison in

1925 for Les Halles as part of his southwestern quad, supported preserving the pavilion.

However, none of these efforts worked. The last Baltard's pavilion was dismantled in

1971. Only one of Baltard's pavilions was designated a historic monument and relocated to Nogent-sur-Marne in 1971.176

Les Halles redevelopment is the continuing history of Parisians’ relentless love of

their city and culture. In 2004, 4 competition schemes were revealed including Jean

Nouvel, Rem Koolhass from OMA, Winny Maas from MVRDV, and David Mangin from

SEURA.177 Jean Nouvel internalized the park in the middle of the site and frame the park with his new buildings. He created three gardens at different levels, at grade, terrace, and on top of his roof structure. On the eastern end, a group of buildings at the periphery of the hole supporting the roof garden structure. Winy Maas focused on reorganizing underground programs while leaving all surface for park and clear story for underground space. By removing vehicle tunnels and the Forum, he created small urban blocks that were connected to underground streets. In a way, he completely subdued normal Paris urban blocks underground. Maas also had a grander vision for RER station. There were many subway stations are scattered around in Chatelet area. He extends grand subway

174 Large, (1992). pp.59. 175 Ibid., pp.59. 176 Bougnoux et al., (2008). “Interior City" 177 Paris-Les Halles : concours 2004. 163

concourse to tie platforms and mezzanines to consolidate the circulation. Rem Koolhaas decentralized the entry to the underground by scattering pylon like towers throughout the park. His proposal requires the partial intervention of underground space by puncturing through the slabs to build the pylons. The pylons work as entry buildings as well as other functions including office, commercial, and office. Koolhaas also propose an underground boulevard to connect subway stations in Chatelet with the principle of nodes and connectors. This in-part inspired the current connection network of Chatelet-

Les Halles.

Among the competition entries, David Mangier was selected as the winner. He respected the redevelopment history and intended to reintroduce the popular Baltard's umbrella back to Les Halles. Mangier covered the “hole” with the “canopy” representing the healing of the Les Halles district from rounds of urban renewal. He recreated the

urban fabric by reconnecting and interweaving promenades from French gardens. The

city officials acknowledged Mangier's design intent and proposed another design

competition for the roof. Patrick Berger won the competition with his undulating "la

Canopee" in 2008. Baltard's "umbrella" was reborn with David Manger and Patrick

Berger in 2015.

L’urbanisme Souterrain: Design Democracy in Les Halles

Before the underground urbanism, there were preceding modernist visions for Les

Halles. Corbusier fitted four of the eighteen cruciform towers in the southwestern quad of

Plan Voison in 1925. In 1958, Robert Lopez, a disciple of Le Corbusier, proposed a large

business complex from scratch comprising headquarter buildings, government offices,

hotels, consulates, and shopping centers that would revitalize the declining district. This

grand vision was shared by technocrats and politicians, including Charles De Gaulle, 164

who wanted to convert Les Halles as the new World Trade Center in Paris, "a version of

Le Corbusier's Ville Contemporaine.”178

However, the visions for a world trade center evolved into a civic forum per public

demand. APUR, the new planning organization in charge of the daunting, selected six

teams of architects to propose a "new capital." Claude Charpentier was the only one

who emphasized the restoration of Les the Halles district. Except for Charpentier, the

others boasted of their monumental vision of a massive modern economic complex with

a futuristic look. Parisians were outraged by the proposals.179 They thought they were too authoritarian and did not respect the architecture and history of Les Halles. Without public debate and close examination of feasibility, the Society of French Urbanists refused to approve the plan. The competition entries were the "Manhattanisation of

Paris" that "threatened destruction of the historic capital at the hands of modernism.”180

In 1969, APUR restarted the design process, incorporating comments from Parisians. It

was clear that Parisians did not want a new international trade center, but rather a civic

forum. The focus of the new design scheme was making an acceptable plan with various

civic programs including cultural, sports, commercial, and transportation functions.

Utudjian's underground urbanism was a compelling argument in the design of Les

Halles. The challenge for APUR was to build a public park and a civic forum together on

limited land in the city center. Edwardo Utudjian had promoted the idea to utilize

underused subterranean space to mitigate congestion and to relieve the pressures of

city expansion. He was one of the modernist architects who was interested in urbanism.

178 Wakeman, (2007). “Fascinating Les Halles” in French Politics, Culture & Society, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 46- 72. 179 Alice Thomine (2004) “About Les Halles in Paris: the leading role of the historian in the city (1960–1971)”, in The Journal of Architecture, 9:2, pp. 209-217, DOI: 10.1080/1360236042000230189 180 Wakeman, (2007). 165

FCAK&=E8&P`YODW&E8&MCAKA=8?&E:D&J:D:A;&IAC&H;?8C@CAH;?&HCU7;:DKS&!8&IAH;?8?&-CAHM8&

?i™=H?8D&8=&?8&'AAC?:;7=:A;&?8&Bi4CU7;:DK8&)AH=8CC7:;&g-$'4)hW&7;&7G7?8K:G&@CAHM&=A&

D=H?>&7;?&MCAMAD8&H;?8C@CAH;?&D=C88=DW&KHD8HKDW&D=AC7@8W&DGEAABDW&G:;8K7DW&

;:@E=GBHUDW&C8D=7HC7;=DW&7;?&=C7;D:=&EHUDl&7;?&E8&7BDA&MHUB:DE8?&7&[AHC;7B&IAC&

H;?8C@CAH;?&C8D87CGEW&e<8&9A;?8&DAH=8CC7:;S_PQP&4=H?[:7;&=8D=8?&E:D&H;?8C@CAH;?&

HCU7;:DK&IAC&:;?:J:?H7B&UH:B?:;@&MCA[8G=DS&FAC&8\7KMB8W&TE8;&DGEAABD&T8C8&BAAX:;@&IAC&

DM7G8D&=A&8\M7;?&:;&=E8&=:@E=&HCU7;&GA;=8\=&AI&07C:DW&4=H?[:7;&DH@@8D=8?&C8BAG7=:;@&

MCA@C7KD&T:=E&BAT8C&MC:AC:=>&:;&8\MADHC8&=A&B:@E=&7;?&7:C&=A&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?S&<:@E=&T7D&

;A=&=E8&MC:K7C>&GC:=8C:A;&IAC&7&M8CIACK7;G8&E7BBl&=E8C8IAC8W&E8&TAHB?&KAJ8&:=&H;?8C;87=E&

=E8&GAHC=>7C?DW&IC88:;@&HM&DM7G8&IAC&GB7DDCAAK&8\M7;D:A;S&

[+I@>-!7ZN.28/-;-/NL-'!*8;;-!R(,->I>$@(,!E-/B$>3)!H@SB8&!'/8/+$('!8(,!/2-![$>@%!8>-!S@+;/!+(6>-%-(/8;;&! 6>-8/+(I!6$(/>8'/+(I!@(,->I>$@(,!-c=->+-(6-)!

PQP&0:8CC8&#HII7H=W&gNOOdhS&^4;?8C@CAH;?&':=>/0B7;;:;@1&FC8;GE&UAC;&'A;G8M=&IAC&)HD=7:;7UB8&':=:8D&AI& (AKACCAT_&";=8C;7=:A;7B&)>KMAD:HKA;*4=:B:]7=:A;&AI&H;?8C@CAH;?&DM7G8&:;&HCU7;&7C87D&d/b& %AJ8KU8C&NOOdW&)E7CK&$B/)E8:XEW&$@>M=& >== (E8&DHU=8CC7;87;&J:D:A;&AI&<8D&!7BB8D&U8@7;&=A&@7:;&KAK8;=HKS&<8D&!7BB8D&T7D&

=E8&M8CI8G=&=8D=&=A&8\M8C:K8;=&T:=E&4=H?[:7;fD&J:D:A;&IAC&H;?8C@CAH;?&HCU7;:DKS&F:CD=W&=E8&

+$+&D=7=:A;&T7D&BAG7=8?&NO&K8=8CD&U8BAT&=E8&DHCI7G8&7;?&B8I=&7D&7;&AM8;&EAB8&IAC&

7BKAD=&=8;&>87CDS&"=&T7D&8GA;AK:G7B&=A&I:BB&:;&=E8&EAB8&;A=&T:=E&DA:BW&UH=&T:=E&DHUDHCI7G8&

D=CHG=HC8S&(E8C8IAC8W&=E8&AUJ:AHD&GEA:G8&:D&=A&I:BB&=E8&8KM=>&DHU=8CC7;87;&DM7G8&T:=E&

=EC88&IBAACD&AI&GAKK8CG:7B&7;?&GHB=HC7B&MCA@C7KDS&)8GA;?W&GHB=HC7B&7;?&DMAC=D&MCA@C7KD&

TAHB?&AGGHM>&KAD=&AI&=E8&AM8;&DM7G8D&A;&@C7?8&:I&104+&T7;=8?&=E8K&7UAJ8@CAH;?S&

3:=E&=E8&GA;G8C;D&IAC&E:D=AC:G&MC8D8CJ7=:A;&7;?&=E8&?8D:C8&IAC&G:J:G&DM7G8&:;&<8D&!7BB8DW&

7;&H;?8C@CAH;?&IACHK&T7D&=E8&C7=:A;7B&GEA:G8S&.;&=AM&AI&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&IACHKW&

+:G7C?A&2AI:BB&GAHB?&=C7;DIACK&=E8&AB?&K7CX8=&:;=A&7;&HCU7;&M7CX&:;&=E8&e;8A/GB7DD:G7Be&

D=>B8S&(EHDW&4=H?[:7;&:;D:D=8?&A;&7??:;@&=E8&FACHK&H;?8C@CAH;?&7D&7&M7C=&AI&=E8&MCA[8G=S&&

[+I@>-!7CN!1@-!,-!.+(-%8)!R(,->I>$@(,!'/>--/!B+/2!'$5/!8(,!86/+9-!S@+;,+(I!-,I-!

>=@ & [+I@>-!7GN#&=+68;!4c=->+-(6-!+(!R(,->I>$@(,!L-'N*8;;-'!/2>$@I2!;$(I!6$>>+,$>')!

,JF-7DEEFG-"DHN-VL-'FI-7OQQFI-

4;B:X8&A=E8C&U8BAT/@C7?8&GACC:?ACD&7;?&=C7;D:=&K7BBDW&=E8&E:??8;&G:=>&:;&<8D&!7BB8D&

T7D&?8D:@;8?&=E8&D7K8&T7>&7D&D=C88=D&7;?&MB7]7D&:;&07C:DS&)$91!&D8B8G=8?&07HB&

'E8K8=AJ&7D&=E8&7CGE:=8G=&=A&?8D:@;&=E8&FACHKS&";D=87?&AI&D=7GX:;@&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&

T:=E&BAT/G8:B:;@&C8=7:B&IBAACDW&E8&C8GC87=8?&7&DM:;8&AI&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&MCAK8;7?8&:;&=E8&

K:??B8&AI&=E8&D:=8&=E7=&C8D8KUB8D&=E8&7B=8C;7=:;@&7CGE8D&AI&)7:;=/$HD=7GE8S&(E8&DM:;8&

GA;;8G=D&GHB=HC7B&MCA@C7KD&:;&=E8&T8D=8C;&E7BI&AI&=E8&FACHK&7D&T8BB&7D&:=D&I:CD=&ME7D8&T:=E&

7&GAKK8CG:7B&K7BB&A;&=E8&A=E8C&D:?8S&.;&=E8&DAH=E8C;&D:?8&AI&=E8&GACC:?ACW&=>M:G7B&C8=7:B&

DEAMD&7C8&B:;8?&HM&:;GBH?:;@&7;&:G8&GC87K&DEAMW&D7;?T:GE&DEAMW&7;&7MM7C8B&D=AC8W&7;?&7&

)=7CUHGXDS&'AKKH;:=>&I7G:B:=:8D&7C8&7;GEAC8?&A;&=E8&AMMAD:=8&D:?8&AI&=E8&D=C88=S&(E8&

FACHK&:D&7&EAK8&AI&7H?:=AC:HKDW&7&J:?8A&B:UC7C>W&C8GAC?&B:UC7C>W&97:DA;&?8D&

'A;D8CJ7=AC:8DW&$DM7G8&0EA=A@C7ME:LH8W&DT:KK:;@&MAABW&@>K;7D:HKW&C7?:A&D=7=:A;W&d&

>=A cinemas, and 50 boutique shops. Five metro lines and RER lines serve the Forum with the flow of people.182 The Rue de Cinema is just like any street that can be found in modern Paris; Chemetov succeeded in creating an active street in an underground space.

Morning Rush Hour 985 p/hr 87% 2% 89% 7.7% 2,301 p/hr

To East (RER) To West (Louvre)

Morning 235 p/hr 87% 73% 464 p/hr

activity y Conversations

Lunch 506 p/hr 65% 31% 28% 62% 8.3% 745p/hr Phone Standing

Time of D a Walking

Afternoon 1,051p/hr 61% 34% 34% 58% 7.5% 1,114p/hr

Evening Rush Hour 3,170p/hr 59% 36% 36% 54% 7.3% 1,947p/hr

2000 0 2000 Count

Figure 49-Pedestrian Traffic Volume and Social Activities in Rue de Cinema. Much more social activities are observed compare to other effective corridors.

Just like the outlook of the Rue de Cinema, people use the corridor just like any

other aboveground pedestrian thoroughfare in the city. The Rue de Cinema handles

similar pedestrian traffic as Broadway near Times Square in New York City or other

streets in major metropolises including Oxford Street in London, Stroget in Copenhagen,

182 Bougnoux et al., (2008). “Interior City" 169

and George Street in Sydney.183 On average, over 5,000 people pass through the corridor in the peak evening rush hour. Commuters, tourists, library visitors, and retail workers share the underground promenade. Compared to other hidden cities, the pedestrian volume of the Rue de Cinema is equivalent to New York City's West

Concourse and Moscow's transfer corridor, but lower than Hong Kong’s Central Transfer corridor. However, Parisians have almost twice as many conversations in the underground promenade compared to New York City or Hong Kong; 36% of people were talking as they walked in the evening rush hour.

Why is the Rue de Cinema so successful? Several factors contribute to its success.

First, the diverse program and the way it is distributed help to activate the corridor. Food shops are lined up on the southern edge of Rue de Cinema while a library frames the passage on the north. Behind the corridor, apparel shops and other retail shops continuously invite pedestrians to walk through. The largest multiplex in Europe is anchored at the end of the passage, therefore creating a mix of uses attracting visitors.

Second, people do not mind being on the underground street of the Rue de Cinema.

Paul Chemetov's intention to reinterpret Eglise St-Eustache, one of Parisians' favorite architectural achievements, was successful. The space itself could use more illumination. However, the edges and ceiling of the corridor are primarily made of exposed concrete; therefore, the light diffuses with less efficiency than the gypsum boards with white glossy paint of a shopping mall. The film museum and the library have the real building enveloped by columns, mullions, and windows. The façade facing Place de Carree, the court to the RER station, is a less articulated version of Le Corbusier's

183 New York City Department of Transportation. (2008). “World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm” pp.18.

170

Ronchamp Chapel building elevation. A corridor in a transportation infrastructure can be transformed into a social space when it is designed as part of the city.

Effective Edges

Urban scholars have discussed the importance of the edge condition, or the relationship between building façades and public spaces. Christopher Alexander stressed the importance of edges: "if the edge fails, then space never becomes lively, …

… Space becomes a place to walk through, not a place to stop.”184 Allan Jacobs (1993)

is more focused on finding the appropriate proportion of building height and width of

public space and adding architectural details to building façades.185 Jan Gehl (1987) first

measured the edge effect by comparing active edges to passive edges. He argues that

the active façade generates 7 times more activity than a passive facade.186 Therefore,

he recommends designing an edge to fit the human scale, to be more transparenct, to

appeal to all senses, to add texture and details, to locate mixed functions, and to create

vertical rhythms on the façade.

Building on urban design literature and observations of several edge conditions of

this study, we could infer how different edges are more effective than others. This study

presented a series of different edges in underground concourses and examined how

different edge types attract people's eyes. In the West Concourse of New York City, the

retail edge catches people's eyes about 4 times more than bright media walls airing

commercials. In the Rue de Cinema in Paris, pedestrians turned their heads to food

vendors 2~3 times more than the transparent window of the library. In Hong Kong,

people were attracted by the advertisement slightly more than the blank wall. Retail,

184 Alexander et al. (1977). pp.753. 185 Jacobs. (1993). 186 Gehl. (1987). 171

8DM8G:7BB>&IAA?W&:D&=E8&KAD=&MCAK:;8;=&7G=:J7=AC&AI&8?@8DW&IABBAT8?&U>&=E8&=C7;DM7C8;=&

T:;?AT&AI&D=7=:G&7G=:J:=>S&1&E:@E/=8GE&K8?:7&T7BB&D88KD&=A&U8&B8DD&8II8G=:J8&=E7;&=E8&

7G=H7B&=C7;DM7C8;=&T:;?ATW&UH=&KAC8&HD8IHB&=E7;&7?J8C=:D8K8;=D&7;?&UB7;X&T7BBDS&"=&

TAHB?&U8&U8D=&:I&T8&GAHB?&=8D=&=E:D&E>MA=E8D:D&T:=E&C:@ACAHD&D=7=:D=:G7B&7;7B>D:D&7;?&

8\M8C:K8;=DS&!AT8J8CW&=E8&C8DHB=&TAHB?&;A=&U8&=AA&?:II8C8;=&ICAK&TE7=&T8&AUD8CJ8&:;&

8J8C>?7>&B:I8S&&

[+I@>-!<\N4,I-!4c=>-''+$(!+(!R(,->I>$@(,!.$(6$@>'-)!Q+-B!/$!/2-!@(,->I>$@(,!'B+%%+(I!=$$;!8(,!'/-='! 8>-!/2-!=;86-!5$>!/2-!/$@>+'/'!8(,!:8>+'+8('!B8+/+(I!5$>!%$9+-)!

7VW-EVFI-OSH-FGQDPFG-HJF-TGEFSYSVTGE-\O^F-VL-"JOHFQFH:'FI-7OQQFI_-

1C=&E7D&=E8&K7@:G7B&8II8G=&AI&GA;J8C=:;@&7&@BAAK>&7;?&GA;IHD:;@&GACC:?AC&:;=A&

DAK8=E:;@&B:J7UB8S&(E8&E7BBT7>D&:;&'E7=8B8=/<8D&!7BB8D&7C8&B8I=&7D&:;IC7D=CHG=HC8&C7=E8C&

=E7;&MHUB:G&DM7G8DW&UH=&07C:D:7;D&E7J8&?8KA;D=C7=8?&EAT&=A&=HC;&=E8D8&DM7G8D&:;=A&

>@; something else. Unlike the Forum Les Halles and its newer update of the shopping mall,

Chatelet-Les Halles subway stations maintain the original design and layout from the early twentieth century. The narrow tunnels interconnect five stations. Since these stations were planned and built in an uncoordinated manner, the tunnels make acrobatic connections between platforms through horizontal and vertical maneuvers. The subterranean labyrinth is one of the unusual places to observe the rich culture of Paris.

However, it comes alive when artists infuse art in the tangled corridors.

This was not thinkable before the update of Les Halles. The underground labyrinth in Chatelet left many unsupervised corners that were used by bums and harassers.

Cecilia, a civil engineer and resident of Les Halles, "tried to avoid Chatelet Les Halles if possible" because "it is confusing and difficult to find ways around. And the stations are dirty and unsafe. I had an incident in the concourse. A group of guys was harassing me in the concourse, but police could not do anything." Cecilia was not alone; Parisians considered Les Halles as one of the most dangerous places in the city.

Security was a significant problem when social control of the neighborhood slowly deteriorated. The Les Halles district lost more than half of its residents, from 20,000 to

9,000 during the renewal in the 1970s to 1980s.187 In the mid-1980s, the Forum des Les

Halles suffered from vandalism and more serious crimes; the district became a crossroads for drug trafficking. All kinds of drugs were sold, including heroin, L.S.D., cocaine, and hash; “more than 15% of drugs in Paris are dealt within Les Halles” per Le

Figaro's report. Police and management officers patrolled and monitored every corner with security cameras; however, it was not enough to improve the safety of the district.188

In addition to the poor environmental quality and security, wayfinding was another

187 Wakeman, (2007). 188 Large, (1992). p.118 173

reason for the area’s notoriety. It is almost impossible to navigate these tunnels and stations without getting lost; it is a quintessential example of the underground maze.

Experienced commuters have enough know-how to find their way to a street or to transfer to other subway platforms. The uniform design standard plays a critical role in confusing people. Tunnels look the same; dark gray paved floors, white tiled walls, concave ceilings. Advertisements and blue strips on the wall give people little idea of where they are. Lines 1, 14, and 4 converged at Chatelet Station and connected by a set of tunnels creating an "H"-shaped network. Lines 7 and 11 also align their stations parallel with the northern bank of Seine River. The parallel layout of stations and multiple connections make it even more difficult to orient oneself. My advice to unskilled visitors is to follow the crowd not to be lost in this labyrinth. Either the Internet or GPS navigation is not helpful to tourists because there is no map of this tangled underground world.

Despite the lack of a wayfinding strategy, the underground maze of Chatelet is an unusual place to enjoy the rich culture of Paris. The corridors are full of commuters transferring from regional commuter rails to metro lines. The real action takes place here. In the middle of the busy traffic, it is not uncommon to observe a group of musicians having a quick recital on the corner of the maze. The casual musicians show a variety of repertoires from classical music, Spanish guitar, jazz quartet, brass band, to

Russian Kalinka that might have been more appropriate in Moscow. These musicians made a careful choice picking the perfect spot for their concert. The intersection of several transferring routes converges in the favored place to perform. The concave roof even makes the acoustics ideal for a casual recital.

174

& [+I@>-!<0N.$(6->/$!+(!#@((-;'!$5!.28/-;-/NL-'!*8;;-')!.$%%@/->'!8(,!/$@>+'/'!$5/-(!'/$=!S&!8(,!289-!8! S>-83!5>$%!/2-+>!;$(I!v$@>(-&!/2>$@I2!/2-!@(,->I>$@(,!%8^-)!

"=&:D&;A=&H;HDH7B&=A&D88&=E8D8&KHD:G:7;D&:;&DHUT7>&D=7=:A;DW&87D:B>&=HC;:;@&7;&

:;IC7D=CHG=HC8&:;=A&7&DAG:7B&DM7G8S&'AKKH=8CD&7;?&=AHC:D=D&7C8&7==C7G=8?&U>&=E8&

M8CIACK7;G8D&7;?&DM7C8&GE7;@8D&IAC&=E8&KHD:G:7;DS&";&P`bcW&7;&7GGAC?:A;:D=&GAHB?&

GABB8G=&KAC8&=E7;&YO&IC7;GD&7;&EAHCS&(E8>&=AHC8?&7CAH;?&D8J8C7B&DHUT7>&D=7=:A;DW&

:;GBH?:;@&+8MHUB:LH8W&'E7=8B8=W&7;?&9A;=M7C;7DD8&T:=E&7&=:@E=&DGE8?HB8S&37B=]8D&AI&

,:8;;7&T7D&7&KAC8&MCAI:=7UB8&C8M8C=A:C8&IAC&07C:D:7;Dl&EAT8J8CW&GB7DD:G7B&:;D=CHK8;=D&

7;?&KHD:G&=8;?&=A&7==C7G=&I8T8C&M8AMB8&=E7;&=E8&@H:=7C:D=&T:=E&MAM&KHD:GSPQ`&&

PQ`D8BW&gP`bchS&MMSbcS& >@? !

[+I@>-!@+/!H/8(,!+(!/2-!#@((-;)!O/!+'!8(!;8(,%8>3!/$!$>+-(/!$(-'-;5!+(!/2-!@(,->I>$@(,!;8S&>+(/2)!

";&7??:=:A;&=A&=E8&KHD:G&J8;H8W&DK7BB&I87=HC8D&DHGE&7D&7&B:==B8&ICH:=&D=7;?&D88K&=A&

E8BM&7G=:J7=8&=E8&K7]8&AI&'E7=8B8=/<8D&!7BB8DS&1=&=E8&:;=8CD8G=:A;&AI&=EC88&GACC:?ACD&ICAK&

<:;8D&PW&aW&PPW&7;?&PaW&7&ICH:=&D=7;?&D8BBD&7MMB8DW&U8CC:8DW&U7;7;7DW&AC7;@8DW&CAD8DW&7;?&

;8TDM7M8CDS&(E8&DE7GX&E7D&=E8&D7K8&BAAX&=E7=&G7;&U8&IAH;?&7UAJ8@CAH;?l&:=&D88KD&AH=&

AI&MB7G8&UH=&D=:BB&TACXDS&,:DH7BB>W&=E8&@C88;&ICH:=&DE7GX&UC87XD&=E8&UB7;?&T7BB&T:=E&TE:=8&

=:B8DS&(E8&J7C:8=>&AI&ICH:=D&7??D&D7=HC7=:A;&=A&=E8&GABB8G=:A;&AI&GABAC&:;&=E8&?HBB&GACC:?ACS&

07DD:;@&GAKKH=8CD&AI=8;&D=AM&U>&=A&UH>&=E8:C&ICH:=&IAC&=E8&?7>S&"=&:D&7&KA;AMAB>&AI&=E8&

8;=:C8&PWOOO/IAA=/BA;@&H;?8C@CAH;?&K7]8&:;&'E7=8B8=/<8D&!7BB8DW&D:;G8&=E8C8&7C8&;A&C8=7:B&

DEAMDl&=E8&GBAD8D=&DEAM&:D&BAG7=8?&A;&=E8&K8]]7;:;8&IBAAC&AI&=E8&+$+&D=7=:A;S&"=&:D&

H;X;AT;&TE>&=E8&AT;8C&E7D&=E8&H;GA;=8D=8?&MC:J:B8@8S&!AT8J8CW&:=&:D&A;8&AI&=E8&I8T&

>@= landmarks to help orient oneself in the underground maze.

Efficient But Ineffective

The small fruit shack and the musicians have been effective in turning the harsh corridors into active public spaces. The express corridors and the travellators might be efficient in handling heavy foot traffic, but not so much in making meaningful places for the residents and tourists of Paris. The station managers and engineers have raised concerns about wayfinding strategy as the large volume of transfer traffic is handled by sets of narrow corridors.

The idea to add these entirely new corridors as the solution for wayfinding and capacity partly came from the 2004 design competition. Rem Koolhaas and his team proposed underground boulevards from RER station to Line 11 to the southern end of the Seine River. They created nodes to consolidate the corridors and link the nodes to the street level directly. Arup developed Koolhaas's idea further and realized the vision.

Two transfer corridors are added to connect the RER station to metro stations to improve pedestrian mobility. One is a 250-meter-long corridor equipped with three travellators under the existing Line 4 rail tracks. The travellators carry over 12,500 people per hour during evening rush hour in both directions. Only 8.5 per cent of travellator users were having conversations, a quarter of what we saw in the Rue de

Cinema. The second corridor connects the RER station to the Line 4 platforms directly.

The corridors are poorly lit, and the dark paving makes the space look even bleaker.

The third passageway connects Line 1, 4, and 14 to Line 11 and 7 stations. The corridor has a one-way travellator and seems to be ideal for moving people efficiently through the underground maze. These corridors might be an example of efficient passages to move people faster without clogging pedestrian traffic; however, maintaining the rate of travel 177

is all about the new corridors. During rush hour, the two passages are unexpectedly quiet. It is difficult to imagine thousands of pleasant Parisians travelling through the hallways. The new express corridors are not effective public spaces.

Comparing Three Plazas

The vitality of public space is not determined by the location, i.e., aboveground or below ground, but by the physical setting of the open space. That is, underground public spaces are not always gloomy and unsafe, as well as the fact that being aboveground does not guarantee an effective public space. This trend has been observed in underground public spaces in other cities. In Moscow, subway station central halls were places in which people socialized. In Canary Wharf, the uncharacterized edge on the waterfront attracted many smokers. And in Hong Kong, the less conspicuous mezzanine floor of Airport Express was the new place for diversity in the city of layers. A series of public spaces in Les Halles presents an opportunity to test the hypothesis; location does not matter much, but the design matters a great deal.

There are three similar plazas situated in different settings. They are the Plaza at the Fountain of Innocent, an outdoor court, Patio Pina Bausch, a sunken plaza at the center of La Canopee, and Place de Carree, an indoor forecourt of the RER station underground. These plazas are similar in size but have different environmental and design qualities. It is a unique setting to test how different activities and people each plaza facilitates and attracts.

The plaza surrounding the Fountain of Innocent is a pleasant outdoor plaza that can be seen anywhere in Paris. Pierre Lescot designed the plaza in the French Renaissance style in 1550. It is an almost square shape with a circular fountain in the middle. The fountain is placed a couple of steps below the plaza level and framed by raised steps, 178

MCAJ:?:;@&MB7G8D&=A&D:=&7;?&C8D=S&(E:D&:D&7&LH:;=8DD8;=:7B&$HCAM87;&MB7]7&7==C7G=:;@&

=AHC:D=DW&DEAMM:;@&K7BB&TACX8CDW&D=H?8;=DW&7;?&7&I8T&EAK8B8DD&M8AMB8S&(E8&MC8?AK:;7;=&

7G=:J:=:8D&:;&=E8&DLH7C8&7C8&D:==:;@W&87=:;@&BH;GEW&7;?&=7BX:;@&=A&IC:8;?DS&3E8;&=E8&IAHC&

8?@8D&AI&=E8&MB7]7&7C8&GCAT?8?W&M8AMB8&BAAX:;@&IAC&7&MB7G8&=A&C8D=&AJ8CIBAT&=A&=E8&

87D=8C;&D=8MD&AI&=E8&DLH7C8&I7G:;@&=E8&+H8&28C@8CS&

[+I@>-!S8(!=;8^8!+(!:8>+'!

(E8&0B7G8&?8&'7CC88&:D&BAG7=8?&7=&=E8&?:J:?:;@&B:;8&AI&=E8&;8T&7;?&AB?&FACHKDS&"=&:D&

=E8&IAC8GAHC=&AI&=E8&+$+&H;?8C@CAH;?&8;=C7;G8&7=&=E8&87D=8C;&8;?&AI&=E8&+H8&?8&

':;8K7S&(E8&:;?AAC&MB7]7&E7D&7&?AHUB8&AC&=C:MB8&G8:B:;@&7;?&:D&IC7K8?&T:=E&C8=7:B&DEAMD&

7;?&=E8&KH;:G:M7B&B:UC7C>S&(E8&AC:@:;7B&?8D:@;&:;=8;=:A;&T7D&=A&GC87=8&7&IACHK&

H;?8C@CAH;?S&!AT8J8CW&=E8&@C7;?&J:D:A;&T7D&C8?HG8?&7D&GHB=HC7B&7;?&C8=7:B&MCA@C7KD&

G7CJ8?&AH=&DM7G8S&";D=87?W&=E8&MC:K7C>&HD8&AI&=E8&MB7]7&:D&IAC&M8AMB8&T7:=:;@&IAC&=E8:C&

IC:8;?DS&(E8&I7JAC8?&T7:=:;@&MB7G8D&7C8&=E8&M8C:K8=8CD&AI&=E8&DLH7C8D&TE8C8&=E8>&G7;&

>@B D88&=E8&8\:=&AI&=E8&+$+&D=7=:A;S&1BDAW&:;&=E8&G8;=8CW&M8AMB8&@7=E8C&7CAH;?&=E8&K7DD:J8&

DHMMAC=:;@&GABHK;DS&&

[+I@>-!<7N:;86-!,-!.8>>--)!V(!@(,->I>$@(,!'k@8>-!5>$(/+(I!141!'/8/+$(')!

$LH:?:D=7;=&ICAK&=E8&=TA&MB7]7DW&07=:A&0:;7&27HDGE&:D&BAG7=8?&7=&=E8&G8;=8C&AI&=E8&

;8T&<7&'7;AM88S&"=&:D&A;&=E8&D7K8&B8J8B&7D&=E8&0B7G8&?8&'7CC88W&A;&U7D8K8;=&YW&UH=&:=&:D&

8\MAD8?&=A&=E8&AH=?AACDS&(E8&DH;X8;&MB7]7&:D&7BDA&GAJ8C8?&U>&07=C:GX&28C@8CiD&<7&

'7;AM88&D=CHG=HC8S&(E8&DLH7C8&:D&DHCCAH;?8?&U>&7&=C7;DM7C8;=&@B7DD&I7~7?8&T:=E&=E8&

8;=C7;G8D&=A&=E8&DEAMM:;@&K7BB&A;&IAHC&8?@8DS&$DG7B7=ACD&7;?&D=7:CD&GA;;8G=&=A&=E8&

DH;X8;&MB7]7&?:C8G=B>&ICAK&D=C88=&B8J8BS&1I=8C&8DG7B7=:;@&?AT;&=A&=E8&DLH7C8W&7&I8T&

U8;GE8D&7C8&BAG7=8?&A;&=E8&M8C:ME8C>&AI&=E8&DH;X8;&GAHC=S&";&HCU7;&?8D:@;W&DH;X8;&

MB7]7D&E7J8&U88;&GC:=:G:]8?&7D&H;?8CHD8?&DM7G8l&EAT8J8CW&=E8&0B7G8&?8&'7CC88&:D&

?:II8C8;=&U8G7HD8&AI&:=D&G8;=C7B&BAG7=:A;&7;?&G:CGHB7=:A;&D=C7=8@>S&"=&:D&=E8&IAG7B&MA:;=&AI&=E8&

>A7 <7&'7;AM88&DEAMM:;@&K7BBW&T:=E&K7;>&?:II8C8;=&7G=:J:=:8D&7D&J:UC7;=&7D&A=E8C&MB7]7DW&

TE8=E8C&:;?AAC&AC&AH=?AACS&&

& [+I@>-!<--!:;8^8')!:-$=;-P'!86/+9+/+-'!5$;;$B!/2-!5-8/@>-'!$5!-862!=;8^8)!

>A> ";&GA;J8;=:A;7B&T:D?AKW&=E8&=EC88&MB7]7D&TAHB?&DEAT&?:II8C8;=&7G=:J:=:8D&C8@7C?B8DD&

AI&:=D&BAG7=:A;S&28G7HD8&=E8&?8;D:=>&AI&HD8CD&7;?&7G=:J:=:8D&7C8&:;?:II8C8;=&:;&<8D&!7BB8Dl&

=E8C8&7C8&DB:@E=&J7C:7;G8DS&$7GE&MB7]7&EAD=D&7G=:J:=:8D&=E7=&GACC8DMA;?&=A&=E8&I87=HC8D&AI&

=E8&MB7]7S&(E8&7KMB8&D87=:;@&:;&=E8&FAH;=7:;&AI&";;AG8;=&7==C7G=D&=AHC:D=D&7;?&AII:G8&

TACX8CD&TEA&T7;=&=A&8;[A>&=E8&DH;B:@E=&?HC:;@&=E8&BH;GE&EAHCS&(E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&DLH7C8&

MCAJ:?8D&7&MB87D7;=&8;J:CA;K8;=&T:=E&7:C/GA;?:=:A;:;@&7;?&E87=:;@&DA&=E7=&M8AMB8&?A&;A=&

K:;?&DM8;?:;@&7&I8T&K:;H=8D&T7:=:;@&H;?8C@CAH;?S&(E8&DH;X8;&MB7]7&7BDA&EAD=D&D:K:B7C&

7G=:J:=:8D&7D&A=E8C&MB7]7DW&UH=&T:=E&7;&8K8C@:;@&=C8;?S&

[+I@>-!$''N'-6/+$(!#2>$@I2!L-'N*8;;-'!D8;;)!*+,,-(!=;8^8'!8(,!'/>--/'!8>-!/@63-,!+(!@(,->(-8/2! h8>,+(!E-;'$(ND8(,-;8!

"=&:D&:;=8C8D=:;@&=A&AUD8CJ8&=E7=&DKAX:;@&:D&GA;G8;=C7=8?&:;&=E8&0B7G8&?8&'7CC88S&

)KAX:;@&07C:D:7;D&7C8&;A=&?:II:GHB=&=A&I:;?&:;&=E8&G:=>l&=E8>&7C8&KHGE&KAC8&=AB8C7;=&AI&

DKAX:;@&=E7;&C8D:?8;=D&AI&A=E8C&G:=:8DS&(E8&DH;X8;&MB7]7&T7D&=E8&MC:K7C>&MB7G8&IAC&

DKAX8CD&=A&@8=&=A@8=E8CS&'AKM7C8?&=A&=E8&AH=?AAC&MB7]7&TE8C8&I8T8C&M8AMB8&T8C8&

DKAX:;@&7;?&=A&=E8&:;?AAC&DLH7C8&TE8C8&:=&:D&AUJ:AHDB>&:KMAB:=8&=A&DKAX8W&=E8&0B7G8&?8&

'7CC88&:D&7BKAD=&7&G:@7C8==8&BAH;@8&7I=8C&BH;GE&AC&K:?/KAC;:;@&7;?&K:?/7I=8C;AA;S&&

"=&:D&;A=&GB87C&TE>&DKAX8CD&7C8&IAH;?&KHGE&KAC8&:;&=E8&DH;X8;&MB7]7&C7=E8C&=E7;&

AH=D:?8S&08AMB8&BAAX&IAC&MB7G8D&=E7=&K88=&=E8&?8D:C8?&8;J:CA;K8;=7B&LH7B:=>&IAC&=E8:C&

7G=:J:=:8DS&"=&D88KD&=E7=&DKAX8CD&=8;?&=A&B:X8&=E8&UBHCC8?&8?@8&AI&AH=?AAC&7;?&:;?AACS&(E8&

8;J:CA;K8;=7B&7==C:UH=8D&IAC&DKAX:;@&7C8&=E8&8\G8BB8;=&J8;=:B7=:A;&IAC&=A\:G&@7D8D&7;?&

D=8;GEW&UH=&MCA=8G=8?&GAJ8C&;A=&=A&8\=:;@H:DE&=E8&G:@7C8==8S&(E8C8IAC8W&T8&I:;?&K7;>& >A; DKAX8CD&:;&7&MB7G8&T:=E&DHGE&LH7B:=>l&=E8&D=C88=&7CG7?8D&AI&7;&AII:G8&UH:B?:;@&:;&

0E:B7?8BME:7&7;?&&8;=C7;G8&:;&07C:DS&(E8&GAJ8C8?&DH;X8;&

MB7]7&:D&7;&7BKAD=&M8CI8G=&D8==:;@&D7=:DI>:;@&=E8&8;J:CA;K8;=7B&LH7B:=>&IAC&DKAX8CDS&1=&=E8&

D7K8&=:K8W&:=&:D&=E8&GBAD8D=&D8K:/AH=?AAC&DM7G8&:;&=E8&K7DD:J8&H;?8C@CAH;?&DEAMM:;@&

K7BBS&

[+I@>-!-,$%+(8(/!86/+9+/+-'!+(!:8/+$!:+(8!_8@'62)!!

"VGMQTIDVGU-&JOH-WVSKI-OGE-WJOH-EVFI-GVH_-

#8KAGC7G>&:;&=E8&?8D:@;&MCAG8DD&E7D&U88;&A;8&AI&=E8&D:@;:I:G7;=&GE7BB8;@8D&:;&<8D&

!7BB8D&C8?8J8BAMK8;=&E:D=AC>S&!AT8J8CW&?8D:@;&?8KAGC7G>&E7D&U88;&=E8&KA=:J7=:A;&IAC&

MC8D8CJ:;@&=E8&7CGE:=8G=HC7B&7;?&GHB=HC7B&E8C:=7@8&AI&07C:DS&4CU7;:D=D&:;&07C:D&?:?&;A=&@:J8&

HM&=E8&G:=>&ICAK&!7HDDK7;;iD&C8;8T7B&MCA[8G=DW&DHCC8;?8C&<8D&!7BB8D&AJ8C&=E8&G7M:=7B:D=&

>A6 vision for the International Trade Center, nor desert Les Halles as a center of drug activity. Instead, they have proposed new ideas, vetted against the criticism, implemented the plan, and updated the project. The enduring love of their city allows

Paris to remain the cultural capital of the world.

Emmanuel de Lanversin, the Director General of SemPariSeine, agreed that the updated Forum is much better considering the cost invested. Compared to New York

City's Calatrava PATH Station, the renovation of the Forum cost 1 billion US dollars. He said it is too early to tell the definite outcome of the project. However, he has seen many signs of success; crime is reduced, businesses are prospering, and young people and families from suburban communities are visiting Les Halles more often than before.

The emphasis on the economic aspect of redevelopment needs to be reconsidered because the magnitude of redevelopment is different. While NYC had gone through a total transformation of underground and aboveground developments, Parisian retained most of the underground structure and shopping layouts, but refurbishing interiors and the superstructure on top. Therefore, it is too early to tell if Les Halles is also a cost- efficient underground redevelopment.

The pro-urban tradition replicated the success of aboveground in the underground.

Treating the Rue de Cinema just like any other street in Paris was the main reason for the success of the underground corridor. Compared to the other two transfer corridors, the Rue de Cinema is the defining example of a transit hub corridor. It is as efficient as the other transfer corridors carrying over 5,000 people per hour; however, the quality of social activities is not compromised in the process.

The managers of underground infrastructure have believed that technological innovation will solve critical issues. And yet, blind faith often exacerbates the problem.

184

The underground labyrinth in Chatelet-Les Halles may be inefficient in terms of pedestrian mobility, but it has shown that the maze can be activated by a small intervention of Parisian culture. If the underground realm cannot be rethought and rebuilt from scratch, wayfinding could be improved by small design and cultural approaches, which has been the steady tradition for Parisians.

References:

Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language : towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bobrick, B. (1982). Le Style Metro. In Labyrinths of iron, a history of the world’s subways. New York : Newsweek Books,.

Bougnoux, F., Fritz, J.-M., & Mangin, D. (2008). Les Halles : Villes intérieures = Interior cities : projet et études Seura architectes, 2003-2007. Marseille: Parenthèses.

Canac, S., & Cabanis, B. (2014). Paris métro : histoire et design. Issy-les-Moulineaux: Massin.

Dansel, M. (1975). Paris-Métro / sous la direction. Paris: Dauphin.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings : using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Graaf, S. de. (2004). “Terminus” les Halles : les Halles, hier, aujourd’hui / Serge de Graaf. Paris: Edition K2.

Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 185

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Large, P.-F. (1992). Des Halles au Forum : métamorphoses au cœur de Paris / Pierre- François Large ; [préface de André Wogenscky]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Mangin, D. (2016). Mangroves urbaines : du métro à la ville : Paris, Montréal, Singapour / David Mangin, Marion Girodo, avec Seura Architectes. Paris: Dominique Carré.

Michel, C. (1988). Les Halles : la renaissance d’un quartier, 1966-1988. Paris : Masson,.

Miquel, P. Petite histoire des stations de métro. Paris : A. Michel,.

New York City Department of Transportation. (2008). World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm.

Ovenden, M. (2009). Paris underground : the maps, stations, and design of the Métro / Mark Ovenden. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books.

Paris-Les Halles : concours 2004. (2004). Paris : Moniteur :

Pike, D. L. (2005). Subterranean cities : the world beneath Paris and London, 1800-1945 / David L. Pike. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0512/2005012280.html

TenHoor, M. (2007). Architecture and Biopolitics at Les Halles. French Politics, Culture & Society, 25(2), 73–92.

Thomine, A. (2004). About Les Halles in Paris: the leading role of the historian in the city (1960–1971). The Journal of Architecture, 9(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360236042000230189

Utudjian, É. (1972). L’Urbanisme souterrain. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Wakeman, R. (2007). Fascinating Les Halles. French Politics, Culture & Society, 25(2), 46–72.

Zola, É. (2009). The belly of Paris / Emile Zola ; translated and with an introduction by Mark Kurlansky. (Vol. Modern Library ed.). New York: Modern Library.

186

CHAPTER 7

THE INVENTED UNDERGROUND IN CANARY WHARF

Introduction

Canary Wharf is the new Central Business District, located 5 miles east from the existing financial center, the Square Mile, in London. Underneath the soaring skyline of

Canary Wharf, an extensive transit hub, three public transit lines, and an underground

concourse interweaving the stations, is supporting the financial center of London. It is the defining example of transit-oriented development, serving 120,000 inhabitants on

100 acres of land with a density of 4 Gross Floor Area Ratio (GFAR).190 Over 80% of the workers and residents use public transit for commuting: a model of the compact city and sustainable city.

Canary Wharf is an outcome of technological, political, and architectural innovations. The first subway was not possible without engineering innovations, the technology of underground tunneling, and the "smokeless locomotive." The London

Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) invented a new role of government. It created the business-friendly atmosphere for the private sector to facilitate the sluggish industrial harbor redevelopment in the Docklands. Lastly, the skyline of Canary Wharf was not possible without the innovative vision by Von Clemm and Gooch Ware

Travelstead.

The underground concourse of Canary Wharf is the main street of social and everyday activities for the employees and residents. A mile-long retail corridor weaves

190 FAR is an indicator of development density. It is a ratio of total development floor area divided by total land area. While FAR is concerned with the development density within the parcel, GFAR includes supporting land such as roads, sidewalks, parks, and other public infrastructures. 187

through lobbies of landmark towers, bank headquarters, sidewalks, and waterfront promenades, together establishing a weatherproof realm. The architects and master planners had to invent a new grade to overcome program constraints and topographic challenges. At the invented underground, the three Canary Wharf stations were interconnected by the extensive pedestrian network, creating an expanded hub. Thus, the underground concourse became the heart of social activities in Canary Wharf.

The vibrant urban life is concentrated at the invented grade, not on the street. There are a few reasons for this contrasting result. The population density of Canary Wharf is not enough to serve both below- and above-grade public realms, as with other hyper- density metropolises. Retail, the activator of the street, has been excluded from the street due to building security concerns. Therefore, the master planners had to internalize the high street underneath the landmark towers. The outcome is predictable; less conspicuous waterfront edges and arcades are occupied by less desirable activities, such as smoking.

The history of the subway in London and Canary Wharf is extensively covered by historians and urban planners. London's Underground history is well documented by

Day, Bobrick, Howson, and Ovenden. The redevelopment history of London Docklands and Canary Wharf has been the interests of urban planning and real estate development.191 As seen in the previous history of downtown redevelopment, there were many social concerns, especially regarding local identity. Sue Brownil reviewed the redevelopment process and argued that Canary Wharf was an outcome of neoliberal market theory against local prosperity, resulting in the loss of local community.

191 Cox, A. (1995). “Docklands in the making : the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs, 1981-1995.”. Fainstein, S. S. (2001). “Creating a New Address II: Docklands.” In “The city builders : property development in New York and London, 1980-2000.” 188

:(*0#&!

>AB Philanthropic Motive and “Fireless Locomotive”: The Birth of the Subway

The subway system was born in London; the modern marvel was not possible

without English engineers' technological innovation. The subway was one of the many

fruits of economic, political, and technological success in the Victorian United Kingdom.

The English operationalized the steam engine, which was invented by Spanish inventor

Jeronimo de Ayanz y Beaumount in 1686,192 and improved on a larger scale by Scottish

inventor James Watt in 1769. The engine was adopted in different industries to run

factories and mills. Furthermore, they invented steam locomotive trains by putting the

engine on a carriage for transportation. The first railroad system was built in September

1830; Liverpool and Manchester Railway connected the port in Liverpool and mills in

Manchester to allow faster transport of raw materials, finished products, and passengers.

Combined with Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the English enjoyed Britain's

"Golden Years" based on booming economic, social, and scientific progress.193 Finally, the English used the technology to transport people in the crowded city center.

Due to economic growth, London showed a dramatic increase in population and suffered from overcrowding in the center. From 1811 to 1851, the city's population doubled from 1.1 million to 2.3 million.194 The English version of the “omnibus”, starting in 1829, was not enough to move people around efficiently. Each day, 200,000 people entered the city on foot, 15,000 people on ferries and about 800 horse-drawn coaches

made 7,400 trips prior to 1836.195

The subway was proposed as an ultimate solution to simultaneously solve traffic

192 Davids, Karel & Davids, Carolus A. (2012). “Religion, Technology, and the Great and Little Divergences: China and Europe Compared, C. 700-1800.” pp.207. 193 Bernard Porter, (1994). “Britannia's Burden: The Political Evolution of Modern Britain 1851–1890” Chapter 3 194 Bobrick, B. (1982). “Labyrinths of iron, a history of the world’s subways.” pp.91. 195 Bobrick, (1982), pp.93. 190

congestion and as a philanthropic act to support the public. Charles Pearson, a politician and the Solicitor to the City of London, was known for his humanitarian perspective on social issues; he had been at the forefront of social movements, promoting equal rights for Jews and the abolition of the slave trade. He also believed that a city needs a rapid and inexpensive transportation system to serve the public in Victorian London. Unlike the rich, the poor did not have money or carriages to commute long distances to avoid the center for country residences. Thus, public transportation was a critical means to realize the Utopian Movement that Pearson was fascinated with for a time. As railway systems reached the fringe of London beginning in 1836, Pearson realized that a connecting rail system would help the city's traffic congestion. However, he was not a fan of the at-grade rail system due to the noise and pollution from the trains. Borrowing

Marc Isambard Brunel's vision for an underground railway throughout London, Pearson proposed the first subway in London, drilling a tunnel through Fleet Valley to Farringdon in 1845.196 Next year, he presented an underground “Railway Terminus and City

Improvement Plan” with a central railway station located in Farringdon.

When Pearson proposed the first subway in the world, Londoners did not

understand what it was. Instead, they fully trusted their engineers and the new

technology that had brought the English such great wealth and power. For example, the

Industrial Revolution had added significant growth to the country and the world. The

English invented a railroad system by putting the steam engine on tracks. It was this

technological and engineering innovation that allowed the UK to lead the world in terms

of economy, technology, military, and in almost all aspects in the mid-1800s. Thus, it was difficult to question or ignore the new ideas that engineers proposed to society.

196 Ovenden, (2013). “London Underground by design,” pp.10. 191

Despite the blind faith in new engineering innovations, the public had concerns about being underground, including poor ventilation and lighting. Victorians were terrified of the dark. To reduce anxiety from being underground, subway engineers borrowed the same lightings from Hyde Park and the Embankment to light station platforms in hopes that this design feature would help the passengers psychologically.197 In addition to

lighting, the primary challenge for the subway was the ventilation of fumes and polluting

particles from the steam locomotive. Joseph Locke complained that tunnels in England

with atrocious ventilation had "the taste of cheap port.”198 The typical coal0burning

locomotive was not a feasible option for confined tunnels.

To address the ventilation problem, three ideas were tested in operating the

underground rail without fouling the air: cable traction, atmospheric caper, and "fireless

locomotive." Cable traction was adopted from the funiculars, as seen in San Francisco.

A set of cables is buried in the ground, and rail cars are pulled from each end. Cable

traction might be okay for shorter distances; however, it was not appropriate for a longer

route. Brunel proposed atmospheric train, or air-propelled railway, as an alternative. It is

similar to cable car system except an atmospheric train used vacuum pipe instead of a

cable. By creating suction from one side of the tube, the train was moved to the other

side by the atmospheric force from the difference in pressure. It required pumping

stations to maintain the pressure. This was a viable option until the failure of South

Devon Railway in 1848; the event frightened the railway promoters, and Brunel's plan

was discarded.199 Lastly, John Fowler, a railway engineer who had collaborated with

Pearson, devised an existing steam engine to be a "fireless locomotive." The

197 Ibid., pp.11. 198 Bobrick, (1982). pp.95. 199 Day, (1963). “The story of London's Underground,” pp.2. 192

conventional locomotive was not suitable for operating in confined tunnels because it needed to burn coal. Fowler’s modified engine recharged water and pressurized steam at the terminals and ran the entire length without burning coal. Since there was no open fire in the tunnel, fume and smoke were not produced in the process. Fowler's proposal was welcomed by the authorities; this was adopted in many underground rail system until electric locomotives were invented by Werner von Siemens in Berlin in 1879.200

On January 1863, the first public subway, the Metropolitan, opened to the public.

Commissioned by William Bruchell, the North Metropolitan built a subway line after significant amendment of Pearson's original scheme. The line connected Bishop's Road,

Paddington, to Farringdon Street, less than a 4-mile subway line. The subway was a success, carrying 10.3 million passengers a year and 26,500 passengers a day for the first six months.201 This success was the outcome of engineer innovation and the

Londoners’ belief in science and technology.

Invention of Public-Private Partnership: Revitalizing the Docklands

Arguably, the London Docklands is the first model of a public-private partnership, which had significant influences on planning in the US and Europe. Similar model kick- started docklands regenerations and land reclamation projects in cities including

Rotterdam, Barcelona, and Songdo.202&203 Despite the criticisms of the Docklands

redevelopment, it was not possible to revitalize an industrial port in the vibrant financial

center without reinventing the partnership among government officials, bankers, and real

200 Bobrick, (1982). pp.97. 201 Day, (1963). pp.1. 202 Sagalyn, L. (2007). Public/Private Development: Lessons from History, Research, and Practice. In Journal of American Planning Association. Vol.73. Issue.1. pp.7-22. 203 Kim, Y.J., Choi, M.J., (2018). Contracting-out public-private partnerships in mega-scale developments: The case of New Songdo City in Korea. In Cities, Vol.72. pp.43-50.

193

estate developers. The coalition of the UK and the US devised an unusual way of public- private collaboration to expedite crippled urban redevelopment policy. Canary Wharf, a new central business district, was built from scratch on the northern end of the Isle of

Dogs, where the West India Dock had operated until 1981.

The London Docklands had gone through several booms and busts for the last couple of centuries. The West India Docks opened in 1802, importing bananas, sugarcane, fruits, and vegetables from India, South Africa, and New Zealand, and it was the "busiest port in the world."204,205 In the mid-nineteenth century, the docks saw its economic culmination when the shipbuilding industry moved to the Isle of Dogs. But this did not last long; the shipbuilding industry relocated to Northern England close to iron and coal by the late 1860s.206 During World War II, the 21,000-working-class population

plummeted to 9,000 due to the intense German bombing over the Isle of Dogs.207 The

Docklands showed a brief recovery but went through another bust in the mid-1960s, and

was officially closed in 1980.

As the Docklands did not show any sign of recovery, the government had a clear

intention to redevelop the industrial port. However, the proposed plans were criticized

heavily by the public. A series of design studies were carried out with community

initiatives. In 1971, Peter Walker, the Secretary of State for the Environment,

commissioned a planning report of the Docklands with "centralized coordination with

private expertise.”208 The consulting group brainstormed 18 different schemes for the

Docklands area, ranging from building a new town, a safari park, or reorganizing the

204 Fainstein, (2001). “Creating a New Address II: Docklands,” pp.182. 205 Hardy, (1983b). “Making sense of the London Docklands : processes of change” 206 Foster, (1998). pp.16. 207 Ibid., pp.27. 208 Carmona, (2009). “The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, five planning models, twelve plans, thirty- five years, and a renaissance … of sorts” in “Progress in Planning,” vol. 71(3), pp.87-151. 194

traditional East End.209 However, the proposals failed to address the needs of local

governments and communities. The residents in the Docklands wanted a robust

economic basis to guarantee their employment and decent and affordable housing. The

plan was not aligned with the local agenda, therefore leading to criticisms from local

communities and governments.

Learning from their previous mistakes, a new group, the Docklands Joint Committee

(DJC) was established to represent 5 London boroughs and the Docklands Forum and

Joint Dockland Action Group in 1974. The DJC had pronounced interest in adding social

housing in the new Docklands as well as economic development to increase industrial

employment.210 In 1976, the DJC drafted the London Docklands Strategic Plan with the

goals of utilize redevelopment for housing, environmental, employment, and economic

improvement so that East and Inner London could share the benefits of capital

improvement and economic growth.211 The plan had a strong physical vision. Green corridors in the middle connected the neighborhoods to the Thames riverfront. Two district centers were located on the north and along with a new subway line in the south.

Stakeholders reached a consensus, since the plan followed a local agenda and was flexible enough to incorporate changes in the future.

However, nothing much happened after the strategic plan had been published, even with the endorsement of local communities.212 The success of the plan depended on public financing from the UK government. However, the DJC failed to attract the

Government's interest in funding the redevelopment.213 Ad hoc development projects

209 Carmona, (2009) 210 Nicholson, 1989 211 Docklands Joint Committee, (1976). “London Docklands Strategic Plan,” pp.3. 212 Carmona, (2009) 213 Official Webpage London Dockland Development Corporation “History” retrieved on 7 December 2017. http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/beforelddc/ 195

were occasionally submitted to the boroughs for approval. Developers did not care about the DJC's plan, nor could the officials not reject the underwhelming proposals. While the

DJC produced a workable plan, they did not have the means to implement it.

As the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was established in

1980 based on the Local Government, Planning and Land Act of 1980, the dormant

Docklands Redevelopment slowly gained momentum for implementation. The LDDC is a powerful authority that can acquire and dispose of land and establish and enforce all planning matters within the boundaries of the Docklands. The goal of LDDC was aligned with the DJC's Strategic Plan in 1976; the LDDC would regenerate the district to develop modern industry and commerce, as well as to accommodate housing and social facility needs.214

The London Docklands became one of the most controversial urban experiments in contemporary urban planning because of the role of the LDDC. The traditional role of government is a regulator and approver. In the redevelopment of the Docklands, the

LDDC played a somewhat unconventional and multi-faceted role in both public and private sectors. Unlike the DJC, the LDDC had a firm belief in the private market, relying on market-led redevelopment instead of government intervention. "Non-planning" seemed to be the natural motto for the business-friendly LDDC; the officials in the LDDC believed that “people would be allowed to build what they liked.”215 They enticed private developers to enjoy the regulation-free environment of the Docklands. Sue Brownill

(1990) pointed out that the LDDC was "the flagship of the radical right's attempts to

‘regenerate' inner city area by minimizing public sector involvement and the maximizing

214 Cox, (1995). “Docklands in the making : the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs, 1981-1995” pp.8. 215 Ibid., pp.9 196

private sector's.”216 Getting the job done seemed to be the most important goal of the

organization.

The emphasis on free market and the reliance on private sectors were in part

because the LDDC did not have enough public funds to carry out the massive

development and infrastructure improvement. The LDDC deferred the responsibility for

building the roads serving the individual parcels. The Canary Wharf Group had to

construct the internal road to help their tenants. The critical transit systems, DLR and

JLE, were partially funded by the developers. As the private sector shared the

responsibility of government, they became an important stakeholder in the decision-

making process. As government designated the Docklands as an Enterprise Zone in

1982, light industry and service industry began to move into Docklands; printing

companies and warehouses relocated there, as well as social housing projects in the

mid-1980s.

Invented “Manhattan-on-Thames”

Michael Von Clemm and Ware Travelstead, a banker and a real estate developer,

were the visionaries that made “Manhattan-on-Thames” possible. The political and

economic context in 1985-1987 demanded a new financial center. However, the

Docklands redevelopment was primarily for residential communities with light industry

supporting the residents, based on the 1976 plan by DJC. The vision a non-planned low-

density printer factory was changed when Michael Von Clemm, the chairman of Credit

Suisse First Boston (CSFB), visited the site.217 Von Clemm had a different vision for the site; he imagined a trading floor for his investment bank (CSFB), which was not possible

216 Sue, (1990). “Developing London's Docklands : another great planning disaster?” pp.1. 217 Brown, (2017) 197

to find in the center of London. The proximity to the city center and the acreage for large- floor plate office buildings were appealing to the chairman.218

Von Clemm's vision was realized when Gooch Ware Travelstead, an American real estate developer, established a “consortium” including to Credit Suisse First Boston,

Morgan Stanley Investment, First Boston Real Estate, and Travelstead himself.

Travelstead hired Skidmore Owings and Merrill LLP (SOM) in Chicago to develop a master plan for Canary Wharf in 1985. SOM presented a vision for the high-rise financial district with three 60-story office towers accounting 10 million square foot of prime office development on 71 acres of Canary Wharf.219 The plan was submitted in September

1985 and approved by the LDDC Board less than a month later.220

Despite the support from the LDDC, Travelstead's vision for modern skyline was

criticized by politicians, the city council, and architecture critics. Nicholas Ridley, a

devoted conservative party member close to Margaret Thatcher, disapproved of the plan

as a replica of North American high-rises on British soil. The Greater London Council

accused the LDDC of unlawful approval of Travelstead's project; they argued the towers

were out-of-scale, contradicting local plans and damaging the historic view corridors.221

Critics mocked the plan as "generic skyscrapers, a lot of American crap, well-built, but still crap.”222 Buchanan pointed out that Canary Wharf was a suburban development

despite its central location. The grid plan represented an "architectural zoo, with a

different beast in each plot.”223

218 Brown, (2017) 219 Carmona (2009). pp.103. 220 Oc, Taner, and Steven Tiesdell, (1991). “The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), 1981-1991: A Perspective on the Management of Urban Regeneration” in “The Town Planning Review,” vol.63(3). pp.311-330, p.317. 221 Brown, (2017). pp.80-81. 222 Walters, (2007). “Designing community : charrettes, master plans and form-based codes,” pp.47. 223 Buchanan, (1988). “What city? Docklands” in “The Architectural Review,” November, pp. 38-40. 198

The criticisms of the plan were not the only obstacle to Travelstead's Canary Wharf development. Transporting people to and from the new development was the most challenging task. The Isle of Dogs has suffered from the lack of public transit and road infrastructure since the early 1980s.224 Initially, the LDDC envisioned low-density development in the district and did not anticipate the scale of Canary Wharf. The 10 million square feet of office space development in Canary Wharf would add 40,000 to

60,000 jobs to the new business district.225 The current and planned infrastructure could

not handle the magnitude of the increased traffic demand. Furthermore, the planned

road and light rail lines were delayed or scaled down due to financial constraints.

The LDDC alone was not able to establish a new CBD in the Docklands. The bankers and real estate developers of Canary Wharf played the critical role in implementing the vision. Providing roads and services has been a core conventional responsibility of the public sector. Local governments collected taxes from individual owners to supply public goods. In Canary Wharf, this traditional role of government was transferred to or shared with the private real estate developers. These private entrepreneurs contributed a significant amount of money towards the city infrastructure, including DLR, JLE, and local roads. Olympia & York inherited from the Travelstead consortium the promise to provide 250 million pounds to the DLR for improvement. O&Y also paid 450 million pounds for JLE, accounting for 20% of the estimated construction costs.226

Additionally, the developers had to build local roads due to the shortage of government money flowing into the LDDC. It is an efficient model to expedite a slow

224 Cox, (1995). pp.11. 225 Oc, Taner, and Steven Tiesdell, (1991). pp.317. 226 Mitchell, Bob (2003). Jubilee Line Extension: From Concept to Completion. 199

development process and to fund public infrastructure under small local government.

The flip side is that private developers gain control of the public realm as they pay for it; that is, streets, parks, and plazas are losing their “publicness.” The public realm becomes diluted as the developers have more to say about the public infrastructure. The added value that Von Clemm and Travelstead saw in 1984 was believed to be shared by the citizens of London. Instead of paying for corporate tax over the profits, which could be used for general welfare or improvement for the entire city, the LDDC and Canary

Wharf reinvested in infrastructure that the project could have benefited from.

Reinventing the Hub and the Grades

The culture of invention continued in Canary Wharf. The underground concourse of

Canary Wharf is not technically underground but aboveground. The ironic designation of the grade is the outcome of the developers' vision of transit-oriented development to integrate public transit with the building lobbies and the architects’ improvised design to consolidate street retail into an underground public space. The newly invented underground was successful enough to redirect people on the street to below grade.

In Canary Wharf, four stations, including one under construction, serve over

105,000 office workers and 12,500 residents.227&228 There are three Canary Wharf

stations. One stop is from the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) system. Another station from

the Crossrail system will open in 2018. The other is one of the two stops from the

Docklands Light Rail (DLR) system, Canary Wharf, and Heron Quay. The DLR Canary

Wharf Station is attached to the western edge of the landmark tower in the center, One

227 "Heron Tower becomes tallest building in The City". BBC News. 21 February 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2017. 228 Census 2011 QS103EW - Age by single year https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Borough_statistics/Ward_profiles/Canary-Wharf-FINAL- 10062014.pdf 200

Canada Square. Another DLR station, Heron Quay, is located across the second dock south. DLR Canary Wharf and Heron Quay are located on the second level above street level serving 33,000 passengers daily. DLR Canary Wharf Station sits on top of the

Canary Wharf Mall connected to the circular court, while Heron Quay has an underground link to the Canary Place Mall under Bank Street. For JLE system, another

Canary Wharf Station is located under the reclaimed dock in the middle. The wharf was framed with steel sheet piles and pumped the water out to construct the JLE subway station. Later, a shopping mall and a public park was built on side and on top. Exiting the station via the elegant glass-roofed arch, an entrance to the main concourse is located on the right side passing Reuter Plaza. Commuters also have direct connections from the JLE mezzanine, Canary Place to the south and the main concourse to the north. On average, the JLE station serves 189,500 trips on weekdays.229 For Crossrail, a subway stop is built under the sailboat-like building in the North Dock; however, this stop is not yet connected to the Crossrail system. Foster and Partners, who also designed the JLE station, boast its roof garden covered by a geodesic structure above. The Crossrail station building has 4 floors of retail shops above the platform and the mezzanine level.

The stations and retail shops draw commuters, residents, and visitors to the underground concourse and Canary Wharf around the clock.

The main concourse, a central spine, and arms of narrow corridors interconnecting buildings in the invented underground were not part of the original vision when the LDDC approved Travelstead's master plan in 1985. To avoid massive underwater excavation, a new notion of the street was created by elevating the ground level 20 feet above the dock. The urban designers at Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill LLP added a new platform

229 "Multi-year station entry-and-exit figures" (XLS). London Underground station passenger usage data. Transport for London. March 2017. Retrieved 28 May 2017. 201

interweaving the complex circulation of parks, plazas, streets, offices, and stock trading floors. Under the new platform, parking, loading docks, and service circulations filled out the three levels of new underground floors. The two realms, public and private, intersected at the proposed DLR Canary Wharf station. At the intersection, the glass- roofed "Canary Concourse" was proposed to house retail shops, restaurants, and other amenities.230

Refining the master plan, “Canary Concourse” evolved into the underground concourse for two reasons. First, the designers wanted to maintain the connection throughout the central open space from the original master plan. The vision for the central green was compromised as Olympia & York took over Canary Wharf; they added a 50-story-tower in the center of the central green. The Canadian developers invited

Cesar Pelli, who was the chief architect of the World Finance Center (WFC) in New York

City, to design the landmark. Olympia & York wanted a tower similar to Pelli's design in

New York City. Pelli presented One Canada Square, an 850-foot tower in the same family of WFC but with a reflective aluminum curtain wall on the exterior. In combination with the new landmark tower, the grand vision for the glass-roofed transit hall was scaled down to a transit shopping podium. The master planners and the architects agreed that the connection from the DLR station to the other side of the project must be maintained.

Therefore, a central corridor under One Canada Square was proposed, providing the connection through the structural core of the tower.

Second, the underground concourse was a rational solution to address the security requirements of the banks. Most of the Canary Wharf tenants were banking and financial industry headquarters, and they had particular preferences in terms of security. The

230 Image credit: SOM, (1985). “Canary Wharf Master Plan.” 202

bankers were resistant to the idea of adding retail shops in the ground level of their buildings.231 Inviting un-checked public crowds to their property seemed to be an obvious

threat to the bankers. Since having an active and continuous retail edge on the street

was not an option, the master planners devised retail shops to be consolidated into the

central corridor. Retail shops have not required a window to the outside, but will enjoy

concentrated foot traffic. Therefore, extending the transit concourse throughout the

blocks seemed to be the solution for security issues as well as for retail.

The central concourse on the invented grade is a connecting tissue that ties three

separate Canary Wharf stations into one hub. Instead of the conventional hub with direct

links to and from connecting stations, the stations in Canary Wharf hub is loosely linked

via the underground concourse. People still have to pay if they want to transfer to

another system with cash or using the consolidated smart payment system, as known as

Oyster card. The planners of Canary Wharf were not obsessed with direct connections,

unlike Hong Kong and Paris, where the direct connections via expensive tunnels were

the predominant solution for efficiency. Instead, Canary Wharf adopted a cheaper but

effective way to transfer.

The invented grade has been successful in Canary Wharf. It was the vehicle to

reduce construction costs by not excavating under water. The physical connections

between JLE station and the underground concourse are efficient enough to handle the

volume of commuters. The lack of coordination between the developer and

transportation authority left some incoherent connections; however, this inconsistency

does not impact the efficient commuter traffic during rush hours.

231 Interview with Daniel Ringlestein 203

:(*0#&!

"=&:DW&EAT8J8CW&7TXT7C?&=A&;7J:@7=8&=E8&MHUB:G&C87BK&:;&'7;7C>&3E7CIS&(E8&

C8:;J8;=8?&@C7?8D&D:KHB=7;8AHDB>&DE7C8&=E8&GE7C7G=8C:D=:GD&AI&:;?AACW&AH=?AACW&

H;?8C@CAH;?W&7;?&7UAJ8@CAH;?S&(E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&GA;GAHCD8&AI&'7;7C>&3E7CI&:D&;A=&

=8GE;:G7BB>&U8BAT&@C7?8l&:=&:D&7UAJ8@CAH;?&UH=&U8BAT&=E8&?8D:@;7=8?&D=C88=&B8J8BS&(E8&

GA;IB:G=:;@&GE7C7G=8C:D=:GD&AI&:;?AAC&7;?&AH=?AACW&AC&=E8&?H7B:=>&AI&7UAJ8@CAH;?&D=C88=D&

7;?&DH;X8;&AH=?AAC&MB7]7D&7=&=E8&D7K8&=:K8W&:D&=E8&GA;=C:UH=:;@&I7G=AC&IAC&=E8&GA;IHD:A;S&

'EC:DW&7;&7CGE:=8G=W&7@C88?&=E7=&e"=&:D&GA;IHD:;@&DAK8=:K8DS&37>I:;?:;@&D=C7=8@>&;88?D&=A&

U8&C8=EAH@E=S&m&mS&"=&:D&7;&AH=?AAC&DM7G8&UH=&DH??8;B>&:;?AAC&DM7G8&7=&=E8&D7K8&

=:K8SeNYN 08AMB8&=8;?&=A&U8&KAC8&GA;IHD8?&U>&C8:;J8;=:;@&=E8&@C7?8DS

NYN&";=8CJ:8T&T:=E&'EC:D& ;7< 9

:(*0#&!ER518)8#H!I.8#,!1$)%$0#+&!()!J$#)()*C!/-!(+!8%-(28-&'!7H!%$??0-&#+!()!-.&!?$#)()*C!

"OGOSN-&JOSL-"VGMVTSIFU-(LLDMDFGH-OGE-(LLFMHDPF--

(E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&GA;GAHCD8&:D&7&MB7G8&AI&J:UC7;=&7;?&C:GE&HCU7;&B:I8&:;&'7;7C>&3E7CIS&

(E8&G8;=C7B&GA;GAHCD8&:D&7D&UHD>&7D&7;>&D=C88=&:;&A=E8C&G8;=C7B&UHD:;8DD&?:D=C:G=D&G7;&U8S&

37J8D&AI&M8AMB8&IBAT&:;=A&=E8&G8;=C7B&GA;GAHCD8&ICAK&=E8&6<$&7;?&#<+&D=7=:A;DS&$J8C>&

GAC;8C&AI&=E8&GACC:?ACD&:D&I:BB8?&T:=E&7;&7CK>&AI&GAKKH=8CD&K7CGE:;@&=A&=E8:C&AII:G8Dl&

`OWOOO&:;GAK:;@&M7DD8;@8CD&ICAK&6<$&D=7=:A;&7;?&NcWOOO&ICAK&#<+&M7DD&U>&=E8&

GA;GAHCD8&8J8C>&KAC;:;@SNYY&&

(E8&DM8BB&AI&B:I8&7G=:J7=8D&=E8&GACC:?ACD&7;?&MB7]7D&7=&BH;GE=:K8S&!H;@C>&I:;7;G:8CDW&

7GGAH;=7;=DW&7;?&B7T>8CD&B:;8&HM&:;&ICA;=&AI&D7B7?&DEAMDW&D7;?T:GE&D=7;?DW&GA;J8;:8;G8&

D=AC8DW&7;?&ICH:=&[H:G8&DE7GXDS&6HD=&M7D=&;AA;W&=E8&IAA?&J8;?ACD&7C8&LH:GXB>&AJ8CCH;&U>&

NYY&(C7;DMAC=&IAC&D&NOPY/NOPc& ;7? =E8&GCAT?S&(A&7??C8DD&=E8&DEAC=7@8&:;&7K8;:=:8DW&'7;7C>&3E7CI&-CAHM&:;GACMAC7=8?&

6HU:B88&0B7G8W&7&DEAMM:;@&K7BB&H;?8C&=E8&6HU:B88&07CXW&:;&=E8&=E:C?&ME7D8&7;?&7;A=E8C&

K7BB&A;&=AM&AI&=E8&HMGAK:;@&'CADDC7:B&D=7=:A;S&(E8&DHUD=7;=:7B&GAKMA;8;=&AI&=E8&K7BB&:D&

=E8&IAA?&GAHC=&:;GBH?:;@&%7MAB:&M:]]7W&1K8C:G7;&?:;;8CW&7&67M7;8D8&C7K8;&U7CW&7;&

1K8C:G7;&U7CU8GH8&MB7G8W&7;?&KAC8&8GB8G=:G&I7D=&IAA?&[A:;=D&ICAK&7CAH;?&=E8&TACB?&

7==C7G=&TACX8CDS&'AH;=B8DD&TACX8CD&?A&;A=&K:;?&=C7J8B:;@&=A&=E8&AMMAD:=8&D:?8&AI&=E8&

?:D=C:G=&=A&8;[A>&=E8:C&BH;GE&:;&6HU:B88&0B7G8&7;?&'CADDC7:B&0B7G8S&FAC&=E8&G8;=C7B&GACC:?ACDW&

=E8&U8;GE8D&:;&=E8&K:??B8&7C8&7BT7>D&GA;@8D=8?&T:=E&@ADD:M&7;?&[AX:;@S&(E8&B:==B8&

C8G8DD8D&:;&GACC:?AC&T7BBD&7C8&=E8&I7JAC8?&DMA=D&IAC&87=:;@&BH;GE&7BA;8&AC&T:=E&GAKM7;>S&

(E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&MHUB:G&DM7G8&:D&7D&7G=:J8&7D&K7;>&AI&=E8&7T7C?/T:;;:;@&M7CXD&7;?&

MCAK8;7?8D&:;&'7;7C>&3E7CIS&

9 :(*0#&!ED5B$%(83!8%-(2(-(&+!()!18)8#H!1$)%$0#+&!S$#8)*&T!+(--()*U!A()QT!+-8)'()*VC!B$%(83!8%-(2(-(&+!8#&!%$)%&)-#8-&'! 8#$0)'!-.&!)$'&+!&O%&A-!-.&!%&)-#83!%#$++!S+&%-($)!%V!

(E8&8KM=>&M7CXD&7;?&D=C88=D&:;&=E8&KAC;:;@&=HC;&:;=A&UHD=B:;@&MB7G8D&[HD=&7I=8C&;AA;&

TE8;&AII:G8&TACX8CD&D=CABB&?AT;&IAC&=E8:C&BH;GES&5AH;@&I:;7;G:8CD&@7=E8C&:;&'7UA=&)LH7C8W&

6HU:B88&0B7G8W&+8H=8CD&0B7]7W&'7;7?7&)LH7C8W&7;?&7;>&AH=?AAC&AM8;&DM7G8S&F7;G>&

T7=8CICA;=&C8D=7HC7;=D&7C8&I:BB8?&T:=E&T8BB/?C8DD8?&U7;X8CDS&"=&:D&;A=&?:II:GHB=&=A&I:;?&

[A@@8CD&C7G:;@&?AT;&=E8&T7=8CICA;=&MCAK8;7?8&7CAH;?&=E8&TE7CIS&6HU:B88&0B7G8&:D&

8DM8G:7BB>&J:UC7;=&?HC:;@&BH;GE=:K8&7;?&:;&=E8&7I=8C;AA;S&(E8&D8CM8;=:;8&M7=ED&7BA;@&

M7=GE8D&AI&=E8&IAH;=7:;&7C8&MC8I8CC8?&IAC&AII:G8&TACX8CD&=A&=7X8&7&T7BXS&07=GE8D&AI&B7T;& ;7= 7C8&AGGHM:8?&U>&>A@7&GB7DD8D&AC&BAH;@:;@&GAHMB8DS&0B8;=>&AI&=C88D&7;?&U8;GE8D&7BT7>D&

7==C7G=&M8AMB8&=A&GAK8S&&

:(*0#&!EF518)8#H!J833!(+!,(33&'!P(-.!$,,(%&!P$#Q&#+!,$#!30)%.C!!

(E8&J:UC7;=&7UAJ8@CAH;?&MHUB:G&DM7G8D&T8C8&;A=&MADD:UB8&T:=EAH=&8\MBAC:;@&=E8&

DHU=8CC7;87;&C87BKW&D:K:B7C&=A&07C:D&H;?8C@CAH;?&HCU7;:DKS&(E8&P`Qb&K7D=8C&MB7;&

7BBA==8?&A;B>&Nz&AI&=E8&C8=7:B&MCA@C7K&AH=&AI&=E8&=A=7B&PO&K:BB:A;&DLH7C8&IAA=&AI&

?8J8BAMK8;=S:8B&+:;@B8D=8:;W&=E8&4CU7;D:@;&#:C8G=AC&:;&).9&

AJ8CD7T&=E8&MB7;;:;@&AI&=E8&=E:C?&ME7D8&AI&'7;7C>&3E7CIW&C8G7BB8?&=E7=&e+8=7:B&T7D&;A=&

=E8&:;:=:7B&:?87S&"=&T7D&7;&7I=8C=EAH@E=S&(E8&C8=7:B&MCA@C7K&@C8T&7D&=E8&?8K7;?&IAC&

DEAMM:;@&:;GC87D8?&7D&ME7D8&?8J8BAM8?Se&1D&'7;7C>&3E7CI&E7D&K7=HC8?W&=E8&?8J8BAM8C&

7GX;ATB8?@8?&=E8&;88?&IAC&KAC8&C8=7:B&7;?&D8CJ:G8&IAC&8KMBA>88D&=A&D=7>&:;&=E8&?:D=C:G=S&

(E8&?8J8BAM8C&T7;=8?&7&GA;J8;=:A;7B&DEAMM:;@&K7BB&UH:B?:;@&7UAJ8&=A&U8&7??8?&A;&=E8& ;7@ southern edge of the JLE station for more retail. "For the First phase, the client was not willing to spend much money on infrastructure. However, building underground was expensive. As the demand for retail increased, they started building three levels of underground throughout."234 Ringlestein continues, "SOM changed the plan and put the

shopping mall into the underground to preserve space for the public park. Also, in later

phases, the developer has a much better financial ability and flexibility to support

underground."235

Unexpected Outcome of the Reinvented Grades

Adding a shopping mall underneath a park and inventing a new grade have been effective to address the programmatic issue and need for public spaces. However, it was not perfect. Several unexpected outcomes resulted from the reinvented grade. First, the streets of Canary Wharf lacked vibrant activity as well as pedestrians. The streets of

Canary Wharf showed little sign of congestion while the underground concourse was packed with office workers for commuting and for lunch. Obviously, the weather played a big role in winter and early spring in London; indoors was more pleasant and warmer than outdoors. However, weather alone was not enough to explain the contrast between the sidewalks and the underground public space. As discussed above, the streets of

Canary Wharf are missing the critical element: the retail or active building frontage inviting people to the ground level. The ground floors are predominantly occupied by lobbies of bank headquarters. Therefore, employees tend to go to the underground concourse for their everyday chores and amenities. Phil Treddle, the managing director of the Canary Wharf Group, commented that the security problem has been eased these

234 Interview with Daniel Ringlestein 235 Ibid., 208

days. The bankers now allow adding coffee and sandwich shops to address the criticisms of street life. However, the spotty addition is not yet enough to vitalize the entire street.

Second, while the street was deprived of vital life, smoking was repeatedly observed on the streets. Many people utilize the sidewalks as their smoking parlor. Smokers have a strict schedule to replenish nicotine in their bloodstream, mid-morning, the second half of lunch hour, and mid-afternoon. They can be found behind the massive columns of office buildings, under arcades along sidewalks, and under the DLR tracks. There are many places optimized for smoking throughout Canary Wharf.

It is interesting to observe that the street was not the only place to observe the smokers. Without exception, the smokers are found at the fuzzy boundary between indoor and outdoor. Most often smokers gather around the less visible parts of cities, including alleys and open-air arcades. One hypothesis is that smoking has a negative connotation, so smokers try to hide from non-smokers or their bosses. However, it was the opposite case in Paris. Parisians were not shy about smoking, and the conspicuous central sunken plaza was filled with fumes from smokers all the time.

The second hypothesis is that there are specific spatial attributions for people smoking. The smokers prefer the spaces with both indoor and outdoor characteristics.

They must be outside for ventilating toxic gases and fumes from cigarettes, and yet they want to stay inside to avoid cold and rain. The blurred spaces such as arcades satisfy both environmental needs for the smokers, ventilation and climate protection. Thus, arcades, canopies, and sunken gardens are the perfect locations for smokers to light up their cigarettes.

209

:(*0#&!EW5X$%8-($)!$,!B?$Q()*!()!18)8#H!I.8#,C!N.&!+A8%&!P(-.!7$-.!()'$$#!8)'!$0-'$$#!%.8#8%-&#(+-(%+!(+!,82$#&'! A38%&!,$#!+?$Q&#+!-$!*&-!-$*&-.&#C!

4;?8C&=E8D8&GA;?:=:A;DW&GAJ8C8?&UH=&8\MAD8?&DM7G8DW&C8@HB7=:A;&7;?&MAB:G>&7C8&;A=&

8II8G=:J8&U8G7HD8&=E8&8;J:CA;K8;=7B&7==C:UH=8&:=D8BI&:D&=E8&7==C7G=:;@&I7G=AC&IAC&=E8&

DKAX8CDS&1D&UH:B?:;@&AM8C7=:A;&K7;7@8CD&D88&=E8&GA;G8;=C7=:A;&AI&DKAX8CDW&7&B7C@8&e;A/

DKAX:;@e&D:@;&T:BB&U8&MAD=8?&;87CU>&=A&AHD=&=E8&DKAX8CDS&!AT8J8CW&D:@;D&7C8&;8J8C&

8II8G=:J8S&08AMB8&E7J8&=E8:C&AT;&T7>D&AI ?:DC8DM8G=:;@ 7H=EAC:=>l&DAK8&B87;&7@7:;D= =E8&

T7BBW&A=E8CD&C8D=&=E8:C&7CKDW&7;?&A=E8CD&HD8&=E8&D:@;D&IAC&7DE=C7>DS&"CA;:G7BB>W&7&e;A/

DKAX:;@e&D:@;&:D&=E8&:;?:G7=:A;&AI&=E8&U8D=&MB7G8&=A&DKAX8&:;&=E8&G:=>S&&&

1&I8T&M7C=D&AI&'7;7C>&3E7CI&GA;D=:=H=8&=E8&DKAX:;@&8;J:CA;K8;=S&"&K7MM8?&=E8&

BAG7=:A;&AI&DKAX8CD&IAH;?&7CAH;?&'7;7C>&3E7CIS&(E8&9A;=@AK8C>&MCAK8;7?8W&'CADDC7:B&

MCAK8;7?8W&7;?&!8CA;&jH7>&MCAK8;7?8&7C8&IC8LH8;=&MB7G8D&=A&DMA=&DKAX8CDS&(E8D8&

=EC88&DM7G8D&E7J8&D:K:B7C&GA;?:=:A;Dl&=E8>&7C8&7CG7?8?&DM7G8D&H;?8C;87=E&D=C88=D&AC&

UH:B?:;@D&ICA;=:;@&DK7BB&G7;7BDS&(E8>&7C8&=E8&B8DD&MCAK:;8;=&M7C=&AI&=E8&G:=>&T:=E&=E8&UB7;X& ;>7 T7BB&7D&7&U7GX?CAMS&3E8;&=EC88&8;J:CA;K8;=7B&GA;?:=:A;D&7C8&K8=W&B8DD&MCAK:;8;=W&AM8;&

7:CW&7;?&T87=E8C&MCA=8G=8?W&=E8C8&:D&7&E:@E8C&MCAU7U:B:=>&AI&DMA==:;@&DKAX8CD&:;&=E8&?:D=C:G=S&

:(*0#&!E;5B?$Q()*5A#$)&!&)2(#$)?&)-T!+-#&&-!8#%8'&U!0)'&#!%8)$AHU!8)'!730##&'!+A8%&!

.I=8;&=E8&UBHCC8?&DM7G8&AI&=E8&7CG7?8&:D&I7;=7D:]8?&U>&7CGE:=8G=D&7;?&HCU7;&

?8D:@;8CDS&"=&8B8J7=8D&eAC?:;7C>&D=C88=&7CGE:=8G=HC8&=A&=E8&B8J8B&AI&I:;8&HCU7;&?8D:@;S_NYd&";&

M7C=:GHB7CW&=E8&7CG7?8D&:;&$HCAM87;&G:=:8D&:;&EA==8C&GB:K7=8D&7C8&8II8G=:J8&MHUB:G&DM7G8DS&

(E8>&MCAJ:?8&M8?8D=C:7;D&T:=E&MCA=8G=:A;&ICAK&DH;B:@E=W&T:;?W&C7:;W&7;?&^C7K&C7:?8C_&7D&

T8BB&7D&7&MB87D7;=&DEAMM:;@&8;J:CA;K8;=SNYb&(E8&C8G8DD8?&@CAH;?&IBAAC&MCAJ:?8D&=E8&

78D=E8=:G&8II8G=&AI&eD8:]:;@&=E8&IBAT&AI&DM7G8eW&7D&:;&=E8&0:7]]7&?8@B:&4II:]:SNYQ&(E8&

NYd&9AH@E=:;W&gNOOYhS&^4CU7;&?8D:@;&*&D=C88=&7;?&DLH7C8W_&MMSPac& NYb&9AH@E=:;W&.G&V&(:8D?8BBW&gP```hS&^4CU7;&?8D:@;&*&AC;7K8;=&7;?&?8GAC7=:A;W_&MMSNQS& NYQ&27GA;W&gP`bahS&^#8D:@;&AI&':=:8DW_&MMSPPN& ;>> arcades define the internal courts, allowing a visual tension between the existing view and the emerging view, "hereness and thereness.”239

However, the arcades in Canary Wharf are closer to American arcades rather than

to European classic examples. They are the cousins of Privately Owned Public Space

(POPS) in New York City, which are internalized plazas for a density bonus.240 These

"as-of-right" arcades have "a little use to the public.”241 The American imported arcade hardly constitutes a "soft edge" because the inner layer of the spaces is a sterile glass wall without access points or things to look at except receptionists greeting visitors and security guards in lobbies.

Effective Underground Intersections

What is the most effective way to design an underground concourse? Since Canary

Wharf Concourse has a various configuration of underground spaces, it is a case of investigating the relationship between the corridor design and the resulting behavior of people. The design of an underground pedestrian intersection is one of the critical elements for the success of the underground realm. If the intersection is designed to be a place, then it becomes a center of gravity in terms of social, retail, and cultural activity.

Canary Wharf Concourse consists of one central spine and three arms; one east- west spine from Cabot Place through Churchill Place under Canada Square and three north-south connections along Reuter Walk, Jubilee Walk, and Canada Walk. While the east-west spine provides major circulation for the DLR station, the other three north- south connections link the JLE station and future Crossrail station to the office towers in the center.

239 Cullen, (1961). “Townscape” 240 Whyte, (1980). “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces,” pp.76. 241 Kayden, (2000). “Privately owned public space : the New York City experience,” pp.301. 212

(E8&?8D:@;&AI&=E8&H;?8C@CAH;?&MHUB:G&DM7G8&:D&7&DK7C=&GA;=8KMAC7C>&7MMB:G7=:A;&AI&

+AU&ZC:8CiD&HCU7;&DM7G8DS&1??:=:A;7BB>W&=E8&DE7M8&AI&:;=8CD8G=:A;&D88KD&=A&U8&C8B7=8?&=A&

=E8&J:=7B:=>S&(E8&87D=/T8D=&DM:;8&:D&J7C>:;@&GA;I:@HC7=:A;D&7D&GE7;@:;@&=E8&T:?=E&7;?&=E8&

DE7M8&AI&=E8&GACC:?ACS&1=&=E8&GC:=:G7B&;A?8DW&=E8&:;=8CD8G=:A;D&=A&=E8&;AC=E/DAH=E&

GA;;8G=:A;D&MC8D8;=&7&T:?8&C7;@8&AI&@8AK8=C>W&G:CGHB7CW&GCADDW&7CGE8?W&AJ7BW&7;?&(/

:;=8CD8G=:A;DS&$7GE&GA;;8G=:;@&GACC:?AC&T7D&?8D:@;8?&IAC&7&?:II8C8;=&M8?8D=C:7;&G7M7G:=>l&

EAT8J8CW&=E8&GACC:?AC&T:?=E&T7D&H;:IACK&7=&d/b&K8=8CDS&&

:(*0#&!E<5Y07(3&&!I83Q!90#()*!X0)%.!=$0#C!N.&!738)Q!P833!%8)!7&!8%-(28-&'!P(-.!8!+(?A3&!'&+(*)!()-&)-($)U!8!+?833! ()'&)-!+A8%&!-$!+(-!()!-.&!P833C!!

;>6 Bellmouth Walk Canada Walk Crossrail Walk Heron Quay Walk Jubilee Walk Montgomery Walk

4000 Morning Rush Hour

3000 2,826 p/hr

2,100 p/hr 2000

91% 1,026 p/hr 92% 1000 654 p/hr 80% 498 p/hr 7% 57% 180 p/hr 93% 19% 43% 9% 0 1.4% 6.4%

4000 Lunch Montgomery Walk 3,170 p/hr 3000 2,727 p/hr

2000 72%

87% 1,301 p/hr

1000 812 p/hr 78% 57% 560 p/hr 534 p/hr 27% 70% 43% activity 14% 40% 24% 12% 54% Conversation 0 7.9% Passing Performance 4000 Afternoon Sitting

Count (pp/hr) Standing

3000

2000 1,677 p/hr

1,052 p/hr 1000 784 p/hr 84% 493 p/hr 531 p/hr 80% 79% 328 p/hr 78% 85% 18% 75% 16% 0 20% 17% 13%

4000 Evening Rush Hour 3,993 p/hr 3,401 p/hr

3000

84% 2000 85% 1,518 p/hr 1,194 p/hr

1000 72% 504 p/hr 79% 13% 234 p/hr 15% 27% 71% 85% 20% 0 1.5% 29% Bellmouth Walk Canada Walk Crossrail Walk Heron Quay Walk Jubilee Walk Montgomery Walk

Figure 66-Pedestrian Corridor Traffic Volume. Corridors are activated during lunch hour for meeting and greeting while more traffic can be observed during rush hours.

214

A circular intersection is effective, as seen at Cabot Place. Passengers from the

DLR arrive by escalators to Cabot Place, the focal point of a shopping mall and a transit stop. The little circular court is framed with coffee shops, a Japanese lunch place, and a bakery on the underground level; multiple floors of retail shops and food courts are stacked on top. William Whyte's emphasis on "sight lines" is demonstrated in the court.242

The oval intersection at Canada Place is another working example of the underground intersection. The master planners doubled the width and curved the shape of the corridor in order to upgrade the passageway to a square. Benches and food stands were placed in the middle to furnish gathering places. Coffee and juice bar attracts passersby in the morning, and a long line of bankers and office workers in front of the salad bar activates the oval square during lunch. A convenience store and a supermarket also enjoy an untold number of potential customers. The light well helps to bring daylight to the underground Waitrose market; however, the natural light is not the primary reason for people to gather at the intersection. Rather, the performance venues and advertisement events by Waitrose seem to capitalize on the foot traffic.

Unlike the other two curvy-shaped intersections, the busiest intersection under One

Canada Square is not the most effective underground street corner. As seen in Hong

Kong, the underground intersection in Central Station was the defining example of

Whyte's street corner supported by much foot traffic and crisscrossing routes of movement. Instead, the cross-shaped intersection is framed with blank walls guarded by security personnel. This constraint has resulted from the conflicting ideas of the landmark tower and the central spine. As the two grand ideas overlaid on top of each

242 Whyte, (1980). pp.51. 215

other, the central concourse had to navigate through the core walls of the landmark tower above. It is a critical spot to maintain the structural integrity and the vertical circulation of the tower. Therefore, there is not enough room for retail and another active programs. Workers and residents of Canary Wharf do not want to stay near the security guards or the police carrying semi-automatic rifles, even though it might be the “safest” place in the city.

North-South Connecting Corridors: Design of Passageways

As the central spine shows the variety of intersection typologies, the north-south connecting corridors present a range of underground corridor edges. The variation is to help wayfinding strategy; it is a more delicate way to characterize each passageway instead of color-coding the walls with bright primal colors. There are 6 similar but different corridors mixing edge types including active retail, advertisement, blank wall, wall with benches incorporated, and show window for merchandise. The assortment of edge types presents a rare opportunity to test the effectiveness of edges in an underground concourse.

No two underground corridors share the same characteristics in Canary Wharf.

Canada Walk and Jubilee Walk are the primary accesses from the JLE station. The two major thoroughfares handle 2~10 times more pedestrian traffic during rush hour than others. The other four corridors handle less foot traffic in general; however, Montgomery

Walk and Bellmouth Walk show a significant volume of pedestrians in the afternoon.

Thoroughfares are less effective public spaces than small local corridors. The distinction between major and minor thoroughfares is clear when we observe how people use the corridors. Passages handling a large volume of traffic tend to show less social activity than other local corridors. In local corridors, 20~40% of pedestrians 216

converse with their friends and colleagues while Canada Walk and Jubilee Walk show only half of what other local corridors do. Bellmouth Walk, Heron Quay Walk, and

Crossrail Walk are most popular during lunch because they lead to major food courts and restaurant alleys.

The small design interventions play some role in turning an efficient corridor into an effective public space. The walls of Canada Walk and Heron Quay Walk incorporated benches and artwork along the way, which become casual places for lunch and coffee.

Heron Quay Walk is an unnecessary connection; however, the marketing managers of

Canary Wharf Group turned the empty space into a concert hall by installing a piano. In the afternoon, a few amateur pianists have their own musical concerts seen by unconcerned passersby.

Conclusions: What works and what does not?

Compared to the underground corridors in other cities, Canary Wharf has been more successful in converting corridors into effective underground public spaces. The intensity of social activity has been considered to be a good indicator to evaluate a public space.243 The underground corridors in Canary Wharf are effective public spaces.

People in Canary Wharf had an equivalent rate of conversation to New York City's

Oculus. It is three times higher than Hong Kong's Central-Hong Kong Passageway.

The multi-level public realm is too much for the workers and residents to provide enough social control for every corner of Canary Wharf. Office workers use the public areas nine to five. Commuting residents use the city mostly after work. However, Canary

Wharf lacks visitors and tourists who activate the city in the afternoon and the evening.

Each demographic and social class use the city only part-time, and yet, the inhabitants

243 Gehl, (1988). 217

of Canary Wharf are not diverse enough to cover both day and night, weekdays and weekends, or all four seasons.

Density and mixed-use seem to be an antidote for the part-time city. While the public realm of Canary Wharf suffers slightly with two levels of the public realm, the

Central District in Hong Kong utilizes all the three levels of the public realm: underground corridors, streets, and elevated walkways. A population density of 29,000 people per square kilometer and 80,000 transient population in the Central District simply does not allow for leaving any corner unoccupied. Tourists and expats visiting Lan Kwai Fong and

SOHO maintain the minimum level of "eyes on the street.”244 The LDDC anticipates more residential and retail functions to be added on the outskirts of Canary Wharf for diversity. Almost three decades after the opening of Canary Wharf, it is still a young city in terms of replicating the urban diversity of London.

244 Jacobs, (1961). “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” p.56. 218

References:

Bacon, E. N. (1974). Design of cities. (Rev. ed.). New York,: Viking Press.

Bennett, D. (2004). The architecture of the Jubilee Line Extension [electronic resource] / David Bennett ; with photographs by Dennis Gilbert. London: Thomas Telford. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/book/10.1680/taotjle.30886

Bobrick, B. (1981). Labyrinths of iron, a history of the world’s subways / by Benson Bobrick. New York: Newsweek Books.

Bonavia, M. R. (1981). British rail, the first 25 years / Michael R. Bonavia. North Pomfret, Vt.: David & Charles.

Brown, J. (2017). If You Build it, They Will Come: The Role of Individuals in the Emergence of Canary Wharf, 1985–1987. The London Journal, (42:1), 70–92.

Brownill, S. (1993). Developing London’s Docklands : another great planning disaster? London : Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.,.

Buchanan, P. (1988). What city? Docklands. The Architectural Review, November, 38– 40.

Carmona, M. (2009). The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, five planning models, twelve plans, thirty-five years, and a renaissance … of sorts. The Isle of Dogs: Four Development Waves, Five Planning Models, Twelve Plans, Thirty-Five Years, and a Renaissance . . . of Sorts, 71(3), 87–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2008.10.001

Cox, A. (1995). Docklands in the making : the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs, 1981- 1995. London: Athlone Press published for the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

Crossrail project : infrastructure design and construction / edited by Mike Black, Christian Dodge and Ursula Lawrence. (2015). London: ICE Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/book/10.1680/cpid.60784

Cullen, G. (1961). Townscape. London: Architectural Press.

Day, J. R. (1963). The story of London’s Underground, by John R. Day. London: London Transport Board.

219

Docklands Joint Committee. (1976). London docklands : a strategic plan ; a draft ... for public consultation. London: The Committee ; London : Docklands Development Team.

Edwards, B. (1992). London docklands : urban design in an age of deregulation / Brian Edwards. Boston: Butterworth Architecture.

Fainstein, S. S. (1994). The city builders : property, politics, and planning in London and New York. Oxford, UK ; Blackwell,.

Fainstein, S. S. (2001). Creating a New Address II: Docklands. In The city builders : property development in New York and London, 1980-2000 (2nd ed., ). Lawrence : University Press of Kansas,.

Foster, J. (1998). Docklands: Cultures in Conflict, Worlds in Collision. Hoboken : Taylor and Francis,.

Hall, P. (2013). Underground as City Maker: London Versus Paris, 1863–2013. The London Journal, 38(3), pp. 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1179/0305803413Z.00000000029

Hardy, D. (1983a). Making sense of the London Docklands : people and place.

Hardy, D. (1983b). Making sense of the London Docklands : processes of change.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Kayden, J. S. (2000). Privately owned public space : the New York City experience. New York: John Wiley.

Kim, Y.J., Choi, M.J., (2018). Contracting-out public-private partnerships in mega-scale developments: The case of New Songdo City in Korea. In Cities, Vol.72. pp.43-50.

Moughtin, C. (1999). Urban design : ornament and decoration (2nd ed.). Oxford ; Architectural Press,.

Moughtin, C. (2003). Urban design : street and square (3rd ed.). Amsterdam ; Architectural Press,.

Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (1991). The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), 1981-1991: A Perspective on the Management of Urban Regeneration. The Town Planning Review, 62(3), pp. 311–330.

Ogden, P. (1992). London Docklands : the challenge of development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 220

Ovenden, M. (2013). London Underground by design. London : Penguin Books,.

Powell, K. (2000). The Jubilee Line Extension / Kenneth Powell ; foreword by Roland Paoletti. London: Laurence King.

Sagalyn, L. (2007). Public/Private Development: Lessons from History, Research, and Practice. In Journal of American Planning Association. Vol.73. Issue.1. pp.7-22.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill LLP. (1985). Canary Wharf Master Plan. Chicago.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill LLP. (1987). Canary Wharf Master Plan - Design Guideline. Chicago.

Sue, B. (1990). Developing London’s Docklands : another great planning disaster? London: Paul Chapman.

Walters, D. (David R. ). (2007). Designing community : charrettes, master plans and form-based codes (1st ed.). Amsterdam ; Elsevier/Architectural Press,.

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

221

CHAPTER 8

LESSONS FROM HIDDEN CITIES

What Can We Learn from Hidden Cities?

The preceding chapters have discussed the historical background, the resulting underground spaces, and user behavior in underground public spaces in major

metropolises around the world. These examples show that the corridors and gathering

spaces in the underground concourse can be fine public spaces in space-hungry urban

centers. These five hidden cities around the world offer a wide spectrum of economic

possibilities and social potential. Underground spaces can be many things: public

spaces for everyday use, civic centers, financial vehicles for expensive public transport

infrastructures, architectural symbols, and social and cultural assets.

In this chapter, I will summarize the lessons derived from the case studies and

discuss problems and potential solutions. By balancing efficiency and effectiveness in

planning underground public spaces, these infrastructures can mutate into cities of

opportunity. By evaluating efficiency, effectiveness, and possibility of each element of

hidden cities, designers can learn how to plan and utilize an underground concourse to its full social potential.

Evolution of Hidden Cities

Underground concourses have evolved from a mere physical connection from street

to subway platform, to a network of corridors separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic,

and to an integral element of transit-oriented development in city centers. The five

222

E:??8;&G:=:8D&7;?&=E8:C&DHUT7>&D>D=8KD&DEAT&EAT&=E8D8&DHU=8CC7;87;&D=CHG=HC8D&E7J8&

8JABJ8?&=A&?:D=:;G=&DM7=:7B&8B8K8;=D&AI&=E8D8&?7>DS&

[+I@>-!ZCN[+9-!*+,,-(!.+/+-'!

;;6 The primary function of the early underground concourse was providing a physical connection between aboveground and underground. In early subway stations, a few steps connecting street sidewalks to the platforms were the entirety of such subterranean structures. The Paris Metro and New York City MTA stations are examples of stations which are located just below street level, connecting subway platforms to sidewalks.

The vertical connectors would remain the same without environmental improvement through technical innovations. The biggest challenges in utilizing underground infrastructure were its poor environmental quality, dark, dampness, and fumes. In

London, the “smokeless locomotive” was the landmark innovation to implement underground public transit for the first time. As the ventilation and vertical transportation technology advanced, the subway system could extend beyond the shallow tunnel.

London and Moscow subways were built in deep tunnels to maintain structural integrity away from adjacent buildings and to avoid conflict with other underground infrastructures, including sewers, water mains, and communication systems.

The attention to the aesthetic improvement alleviated passengers’ psychological concerns. Early stations in London’s Tube brought the same street lighting furniture from the beloved Hyde Park to assure subway users that underground space is the same as aboveground. In Paris, Hector Guimard’s Art Nouveau style entrance pavilions transformed the factory look of the metro system into museums. Moscow Metro took a step further and recreated Art Deco and Neo-classical “palaces” underground. Both technical and aesthetic improvements were essential for the evolution of hidden cities.

The isolated underground infrastructure began to form an underworld network as multiple lines and stations were interconnected as a system. Transfer tunnels were

224

introduced to maximize the network effect among subway stations. As seen in both Paris

Chatelet and Moscow Okhotny Ryad stations, subway planners created a network of corridors linking adjacent stations for efficient use of the transit system. The isolated subway stations in Paris and Moscow are connected by ad hoc tunnels. These connections were an efficient tool to expand the service coverage of the district as well as a free-transfer environment; however, they are ineffective in way-finding in the underground.

Traffic separation, a modern planning principle, was another motivation for connecting the tunnels. The conflict among different transportation modes was considered as a design failure in the twentieth century, especially vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Adding underground corridors was one of the frequent techniques to separate pedestrians from cars. Dey Passageway and West Concourse in New York City are the defining examples; both corridors are planned to minimize waiting and jaywalking across major vehicle thoroughfares. These tunnels expanded the reach of hidden cities.

The extensive underground network was too valuable of an urban asset to be left unused. Office and retail owners were eager to capitalize on the flow of foot traffic from transit stations. Okhotny Ryad Mall in Moscow and Landmark Mall in Hong Kong are directly connected to subway stations, creating an ecology of transit systems and malls.

Tunnels are attached further to pipeline the commuters to malls. Brookfield Mall in

Battery Park City is connected from WTC PATH Station beneath West Avenue via West

Concourse. The extension strategy became popular among transit developers and mall owners.

Instead of the private sector monopolizing the fruits of transit-oriented-development from tax money, the public sector devised a real estate development tool to exploit the

225

added value around a transit station. Since the increased property value was from the public capital investment, it was natural to be reinvested in making a public transit system affordable. Hong Kong’s Rail and Property demonstrated how to share the added value from a transit station to recirculate the financial revenue into the welfare of public.

Canary Wharf is another example of how private developers supported a public transit system. The partnership between private and public sectors have proven effective to entice private developers to chip in developing expensive public transit system in return to the profit capitalizing on transit-oriented development. The new financial models have been widely accepted by property and transit developers and have disseminated around the world.

Kit-of-Parts for Hidden Cities

Through the history of the evolution of hidden cities, the derived spatial elements are the kit-of-parts to design an efficient and effective underground concourse.

Entrances, corridors, gathering spaces, horizontal and vertical connections, art and culture, and retail in underground concourse have changed their functional roles and social meanings throughout the evolution. Some are more efficient, while others are more effective. I will discuss the functional and social potential of each spatial element in hidden cities in the following sections.

Entering the Underground

Entering underworld does not have to be a difficult routine for metropolitan lifestyles.

Architects have explored the seamless transition from the aboveground to underground worlds. A separate entrance portal is a common way to connect street sidewalks to

226

underground concourses. The portals can be austere stairwells with subway signs, as we can see in New York City, but it also can be artfully decorated, as in Paris. Hector

Guimard incorporated the motif of “strands of lily of the valley” into cast-iron metro entrances. 245 His artworks have been celebrated as the symbol of Paris Metro over a century.

Subway architects have developed tactics to transform a simple spatial transition of outdoor to indoor into a dramatic experience. In Moscow, subway head buildings are located at important corners of plazas or either ends of park as anchors. These buildings are landmarks that are easily visible from street and the centralized vertical circulation shaft to the underground infrastructure at the same time. The location itself emphasizes its role as a landmark to create a memorable image of the city.246

In addition to the location, architectural expression of entrance plays a role in transforming an underground infrastructure into a landmark. Foster and Partners created

“half-egg-shaped glass domes” to celebrate the arrival at Canary Wharf. Through a

“parade of escalators,” bankers and lawyers ascend to the waterfront plaza.247 In New

York City, Calatrava presents commuters from New Jersey suburbs with the most

dramatic architectural experience in the Empire City. As the commuters disembark

PATH trains, the white-ribbed hall filled with natural light appears in front of them. Many

ways have been explored to commemorate the arrival of commuters, tourists, and

shoppers at underground concourse.

245 Canac, (2014). pp. 39. 246 Lynch, K., (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge [Mass.]: Technology Press. 247 Fosters and Partners Website. Project information. Retrieved on 12-Feb-2018. https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/canary-wharf-underground-station/ 227

& [+I@>-!ZGNU+55->-(/!4c=->+-(6-!$5!4(/->+(I!R(,->I>$@(,!#>8('+/!

;;A & [+I@>-!ZMN#&=-'!$5!H=8/+8;!~@8;+/&!K2-(!4(/->+(I!R(,->B$>;,!

;;B Wayfinding

Wayfinding underground can be improved when both the underground and aboveground are related to each other. Simplifying access sequence from aboveground to the main pedestrian traffic collector can help people to orient themselves better. For a deep tunnel system, Moscow’s direct connection to platform via escalators seems to be a viable solution instead of having passengers drift through to the mezzanine level. It is easier to relate the underground platform to the streets above when people make few turns.

Intuitive and simple access sequence to underground is the key to improve wayfinding in the underground; shallow tunnels are much more effective than deep tunnels. In Paris and New York City, the close integration between the shallow tunnels and street helps passengers to orient themselves. The direction of the track follows an on-grade vehicle traffic system. Passing a few steps below, the subway platform is located parallel to the street above. Therefore, it is less confusing for people when both above and underground are closely related.

Wayfinding can be difficult when an underground concourse is furnished with retail shops at mezzanine floor. Even with a large sign and clear color-coding of corridors, it is difficult to locate entrances to Hong Kong Central Station. After a few turns in stairwells and narrow corridors, passengers feel lost when they arrive at the mezzanine floor. The mezzanine floor is completely isolated from the street despite the purpose of mezzanine being to consolidate circulation and for better wayfinding. Endless rows of retail shops, merchandise, and signs distract people and take away their sense of direction. The mezzanine floor of Central Station in Hong Kong is the quintessential example of how

230

wayfinding strategy and retail strategy can contradict each other and confuse people because both retail and signs sends mixed signals.

Moving Around the Underworld

When Vincent Ponte envisioned Montreal’s Underground, subterranean corridors were “more than a pedestrian thoroughfare; it will be an environment that people may enjoy all day long.”248 Underground corridors are essential spatial elements for people to

move around and for “social and commercial encounter and exchange” as streets and

promenades.249

ong − Centr Hong K

15000

10000 Count (pp/hr)

5000 w Escalators Mosco est Concourse alk NYC W alk alk is Rue Cinema Jubilee W Par alk Canada W Bellmouth W alk y W alk ail W y W Crossr Montgomer Heron Qua 0

4 8 12 16 Width(m)

Figure 70-Corridor Width and Pedestrian Traffic Volume.

However, underground corridors have not made full use of their social potential.

Instead, the design of underground spaces has been dominated by engineering principles; that is, uninterrupted and free flow of pedestrian movement was the utmost priority for the subway station planners. Corridors have been designed as thoroughfare

248 Boddy, T. (1992). Underground and Overhead: Building the Analogous City. In Variations on a theme park : the new American city and the end of public space (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang. 249 Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp.4 231

in underground. After surveying the corridors in hidden cities, it is clear that corridor width and volume of foot traffic have a close relationship as shown above. For every meter increase in corridor width, the capacity of corridor increased by 670 people per hour. In other words, the traffic capacity is determined by the corridor width.

Crossrail Walk

Paris Rue Cinema 30

Heron Quay Walk

Bellmouth MontgomeryWalk Walk

20 Conversation(%)

Jubilee WalkCanada Walk NYC West Concourse

Moscow Escalators

Hong Kong − Central

4 8 12 16 Width(m)

Figure 71- Corridor Width vs. Conversation Rate. Narrower corridors show higher rate of conversation.

The efficiency and capacity of pedestrian traffic are two of the important design

criteria, but they are not the sole criteria in designing corridors. The survey of corridors

supports the idea that the large volume of passing pedestrians alone does not activate the corridor.250 When the traffic volume per unit of width is compared with the ratio of how many people are having conversations, there is a clear inverse relationship between the two, as seen above. In the corridors with 400 people per hour per meter, people tend to have more conversation than corridors with heavier traffic. The figure above confirms the previous findings of Whyte (1980) and Gehl (1987) with respect to

250 Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987 232

outdoor public spaces; the quantity is not as relevant as the quality of space in activating public spaces.

alk ail W Crossr is Rue Cinema Par 30 alk y W

Heron Qua alk y W alk

Montgomer Bellmouth W

20 ersation(%) v Co n

alk alk est Concourse Canada W ubilee W NYC W J w Escalators Mosco

10 al

ong − Centr Hong K

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 Pedestrian per Width (pp/hr/m)

Figure 72- Conversation vs Count per Meter of Corridor Width. Smaller corridors with fewer traffic show higher rate of conversation

Multiple explanations of the results are possible. First, the scale of the corridors

might have caused such difference. The corridors in Canary Wharf tend to show more

people talking to each other than others. The width of these corridors ranges from 4 to 6 meters with low ceiling height. People talk more in a narrower corridor, which is better fit for human sensory experience. Second, the corridors with less traffic are suitable for accommodating social activities. Major thoroughfares, such as Hong Kong transfer corridor, Moscow escalator banks, Jubilee Walk and Canada Walk in London, and West

Concourse in New York City are primary routes for transit access. Therefore, they show a lower ratio of conversation in the passageways. Conversely, the local corridors connecting places show less foot traffic but higher levels of conversation. In sum, regardless of explanations, a too wide and too crowded passageway is difficult to make into a social place in an underground setting. 233

& [+I@>-!CWN.$;;-6/+$(!$5!.$>>+,$>'!

;6< Bellmouth Walk Canada Walk Crossrail Walk Heron Quay Walk Jubilee Walk Montgomery Walk Rue de Cinema Transfer Corridor West Concourse (London) (London) (London) (London) (London) (London) (Paris) (Hong Kong) (NYC)

30000 Morning Rush Hour

27,346 p/hr 2%

25000

20000

15000

10000

5,006 p/hr 5000 3% 2,826 p/hr 2,100 p/hr 9% 700 p/hr 1,026 p/hr 7% 498 p/hr 180 p/hr 654 p/hr 43% 6% 12% 19% 40% 0

activity 10000 Lunch Conversation 8,254 p/hr Passing 8%

5000 3,170 p/hr 3,356 p/hr 2,727 p/hr 27% 22% 812 p/hr 12% 1,301 p/hr 560 p/hr 247 p/hr 1,281 p/hr 40% 24% 27% 54% 35% 0

10000 Afternoon 8,113 p/hr

Count (pp/hr) 8%

5000

5,117 p/hr 784 p/hr 2,012 p/hr 493 p/hr 328p/hr 1,677p/hr 531p/hr 1,052 p/hr 36% 17% 20% 17% 16% 13% 18% 23% 0

20000 Evening Rush Hour 18,147 p/hr 7%

15000

10000

5,117 p/hr 5000 3,993 p/hr 4,255 p/hr 3,401 p/hr 37% 16% 25% 18% 1,518 p/hr 504 p/hr 234 p/hr 1,194 p/hr 20% 17% 23% 16% 0

Bellmouth Walk Canada Walk Crossrail Walk Heron Quay Walk Jubilee Walk Montgomery Walk Rue de Cinema Transfer Corridor West Concourse (London) (London) (London) (London) (London) (London) (Paris) (Hong Kong) (NYC)

Figure 74-Pedestrian Traffic Count for Underground Thoroughfares. Higher volume of traffic has less to do with conversation rate 235

Rue de Cinema in Paris is an exception to the general rule. It is 9.2 meters wide and carries more than 2,300 pedestrians per hour. The corridor is a major thoroughfare linking surrounding districts to the metro and the regional commuter rail station, RER.

However, the corridor shows much a higher rate of social activity. The seeming difference is the design of the underground corridor. Paul Chemetov reproduced Saint-

Eustache in the underground setting and named Rue de Cinema. The underground promenade has all the components that can be seen in any aboveground street, sandwich shops, cafés, and libraries. Rue de Cinema is furnished with a real building façade. Thus, people behave the same way as in any narrow passageway.

People are design-compliant. The environmental characteristics of spaces determine the activities and pattern of use, as seen in Rue de Cinema and other corridors. If we want to activate underground public spaces, then we need to send the users the message that the underground is not different from the aboveground.

Waiting for Trains and Meeting Friends

Gathering spaces in underground concourse can help a city center’s public space shortage. New Yorkers would wait for their friends in a hip street café but never on a subway platform with fouled air. However, this is routine for Muscovites and Hong

Kongers. The subway platforms in Moscow are the perfect gathering places for commuters. Muscovites arrange rendezvous with their friends on the platform. The central hall of Teatralnaya Station is the defining example of a busy urban plaza plus tens of thousands of commuters passing by. The appropriate design of the central hall is one of the reasons for its success. The platform and central hall have enough seating and soft edges that people can linger around. Hong Kong’s Central station is an example of how utmost population density can activate underground gathering places. Despite 236

the lack of architectural finesse, the continuous volume of pedestrian traffic activates every corner of the station, and it is impossible to find an unsupervised corner. The

quality of space and the density of users are the determining factors in the success of

the gathering spaces in underground concourse.

People’s behaviors in the gathering places in underground concourse are not

different from those of parks and plazas in the aboveground when underground places

share characteristics with outdoor public spaces. People tend to stay longer in a place

where they feel safe and see enough seating available. However, managers and

operators of underground concourses and subway stations have been uninterested in

accommodating the essential public space features, seating, street cafés, and soft edges. Installing potential obstacles in the main egress has been discouraged in underground public space. The managers fear benches and seating being occupied by unwelcome homeless people. Therefore, the necessary features in public spaces have been largely undersupplied. For example, there is only one bench for the entire WTC-

Fulton Station in New York City. When a person sits on the floor of the Oculus hall, security guards or police will escort him out instantly. People do not use the underground concourses as much as public spaces aboveground, not because of its subterranean location but because these essential features are missing in the underground.

237

& [+I@>-!C+(I!:;86-'!+(!R(,->I>$@(,!.$(6$@>'-!

;6A Small and “Tactical” Design Intervention

The hard infrastructure can be transformed into a meaningful public space with small design interventions. In Canary Wharf, a simple indentation on the blank wall of

Jubilee Walk changes a corridor into a lunch place for office workers. A piano in Heron

Quay Walk changes the character of the empty corridor. In New York City, the unauthorized side tables and chairs in West Concourse turn a thoroughfare into a promenade for office workers in the afternoon.

In reclaiming the oversized underground infrastructure as vibrant public spaces, tactical urbanism is also promising in the underground. Lydon and Garcia (2015) argued that decentralized, bottom-up, low-cost, low-tech, small scale urban design tactics are useful to turn underused space into a place.251 Users can transform an empty parking lot into a temporary food court with a few benches, food trucks, and buckets of paint. With these tactics, the underutilized public space will become a meaningful place for people.

“Tactical Urbanism” is not new in the underground. The retail stand in Dey Street

Concourse connecting Fulton Center and PATH WTC is one of the tactics vitalizing the

sterile corridor. Small retail stands are fitted to hide the blank wall behind them without

being in the way of commuters. A flower shack and candy stand in Fulton Center make a big difference in the dark transit hub by bringing life to the futuristic-looking building. Both lessons from aboveground and underground public spaces can be helpful to turn the engineered non-spaces into social places.

Edges in Hidden Cities

Tunnels with long blank walls seem to be inevitable choice for underground planners. However, these barren corridors can be bustling streets and promenades

251 Lydon, M., Garcia, (2015). Tactical urbanism : short-term action for long-term change. 239

when they accommodate soft edges in these unseasoned tunnels. As seen in the underground concourse, there are different types of edge conditions. Advertisements are an easy and profitable way to cover blank walls at a nominal cost. Hong Kong Station’s

transfer corridor completely wallpapered its entire length with commercial

advertisements. Contrary to the expectations, the static posters rarely draw pedestrians’

attention. In New York City, Westfield Mall managers took a step further and enlivened

the advertisements with a 300-foot-wide digital screen. A digital media wall is better than

the posters. However, it does not provide the same level of intensity as other soft edges

in the underground.

It is an urban design axiom that a soft edge is the fundamental element for

successful places. The same lesson is also applicable in the underground. West

Concourse in Oculus are the proofs that real ice cream shops, cafés, and bank offices

with real people in them. The retail frontage is more effective in attracting pedestrian

eyes than high-technology media wall. Rue de Cinema in Paris is another successful

example. The edge furnished with sandwich shop, ice cream shop, and café is more

effective attracting people’s eyes than the glass windows for the library on opposite side.

These examples demonstrated how soft edges in an underground corridor can activate

the passageway just as streets and promenades aboveground.

We need a design strategy for treating the hard edges in underground corridors.

When the long corridor is unavoidable, it is best to add real shops along the way. Cafés

and ice cream shops work better than apparel stores, bank offices, or libraries if there is

enough room. To improve existing corridors or to work within limited space, small or

temporary sales stands can help in softening the edge. Adding benches or incorporating

sitting space on the wall is another way to activate the edge, as seen in Canary Wharf.

240

#:@:=7B&K8?:7&T7BB&7;?&D=7=:G&MAD=8CD&DEAHB?&U8&7&B7D=&C8DAC=W&D:;G8&=E8>&E7J8&B:==B8&8II8G=&

A;&UA=E&7?J8C=:D8K8;=&7;?&7G=:J7=:;@&DM7G8DS&

[+I@>-!CZNU+55->-(/!4,I-!.$(,+/+$('! ;<> Transit Mall to Business Incubator

Contrary to conventional wisdom, retail is not an essential part of underground concourse. When the MTR subway planners invented ‘Rail and Property’ to finance the expensive subway system, they anticipated that retail shops along the long corridors would become critical elements both to fund the project and to activate underground public space. However, the convenience stores in Hong Kong – Central Station are far from being an essential part of everyday life in underground transit hub. In Tung Chung

Line mezzanine level, three competing convenience stores of a franchise are located on the same mezzanine level. The composition of tenants is not effective creating a retail anchor; rather, they are piggy-backing redundant shops. Moscow is the proof of the retail myth. Despite retail’s non-existence in Teatralnaya Station, it is the most active subway station. Retail is therefore a non-essential program in hidden cities.

If we need commercial program, retail can be the “generators of diversity” in subterranean setting.252 Due to cheaper rents, the stores in underground concourse can

be the incubator of a local economy competing against the global franchise. The underground spaces in Seoul’s CBD allows startup businesses to compete and coexist with corporate headquarters. On the mezzanine floor of the Airport Express Station in

Hong Kong, small shops complement the high-end luxury department store in the IFC

Mall above. Office workers, tourists, financiers, and foreign domestic workers share a table for lunch in dim sum places. In New York City, the young immigrants support their families with the small shack in the Dey Passageway, as others do from the food trucks on Water Street in Lower Manhattan. Financing the expensive infrastructure is not the sole purpose of the retail in transit hub; it can also contribute to social and economic

252 Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. p. 143. 242

diversity in cities.

Art and Culture

Furnishing the empty underground infrastructure with art and culture can instantly transform a non-space into a place. Busking and music performance in underground concourses changed the character of the corridors in Paris and London. The labyrinth of

Chatelet-Les Halle was less depressing with Russian Kalinka. A piano in an underused

corridor made an impression on disoriented tourists in Canary Wharf. Setting aside the

antiquated ideologies, the animal sculptures in Ploschad Revolutssi Station help to

initiate informal contacts between fellow Muscovites and tourists from capitalist

countries.

As art and culture has a temporal effect on vitalizing the underground public spaces,

architecture has a lasting effect on transforming non-spaces into places. The integration

of art and architecture has been explored in many underground settings. The Sky

Reflector-Net in the Fulton Transit Hub is one of the defining examples of such

integration. The MTA Arts & Design program has commissioned many artists and

architectural projects to improve people’s experience in transit. James Carpenter

designed aluminum mirrors funneling skylight to the basement to help orient people, as

well as improving the experience of the transit system. It is difficult not to discuss

architecture of Calatrava’s PATH WTC Station. The cost overrun is a controversy for the

building; however, the psychological value of the grand architectural gesture has

unmeasurable benefits to both tourists and commuters. Calatrava redefined the station

architecture from a transient space to a global destination.

243

[+I@>-!CCNV>/!8(,!.@;/@>-!+(!*+,,-(!.+/+-')!V>/!$5!8(&!3+(,'!B+;;!2-;=!+%=>$9-!@'->!-c=->+-(6-!+(! @(,->I>$@(,!6$(6$@>'-!

;<< Funding and Place-making of Hidden Cities

Underground structure is expensive to build and difficult to amend in nature.

Therefore, an appropriate financial model is critical to the success of underground concourse. All underground infrastructure projects have been criticized because of their financial burden on the public sector. Hidden cities are easy targets for political challenges and unfair attacks because they are always associated with unforeseen changeovers in engineering and financing. The controversial 4 billion USD for

Calatrava’s Oculus is one of the many cases of such criticism. However, this is not a unique case; Moscow’s subway station was unfit for the crippled economy of the Soviet

Union in the 1930s, Hong Kong’s MTR was considered premature in the 1970s, and

Jubilee Line and Dockland Light Rail were projected as financially infeasible for Canary

Wharf. Any underground projects will not be free from the criticisms on cost overrun in the future.

Hidden cities are successful when place-making is placed on the top of the priority list. Four out of five underground concourse we examine are associated with some form of private involvement, with the exception of Moscow. In the public sector, the primary focus of infrastructure is on cost-saving, whereas in the private sector, especially transit mall developers, the goal is on selling and renting the project. Thus, place-making is essential in the market-driven project. ‘Rail and Property’ in Hong Kong or ‘Private Public

Partnership’ in London are effective both in funding expensive underground infrastructure and in place-making. However, Moscow is not an outlier. Kaganovich intended to create distinct places for the working class as a gift from the state; place- making was at the core of early Moscow metro development.

245

Table 1-Comparison of Five Hidden Cities

Unit New York City Hong Kong Moscow Paris London

Total City Population (2010) people 8,175,133 4) 7,389,500 11,500,000 2) 2,243,833 5) 55,200,000 6) Average City Population Density pp/skm 28,271 1) 6,544 3) 5,694 2) 29,732 1) 18,636 1) Adjacent District Manhattan Central 1st Arrondissement Millharbour District Population Density pp/skm 27,826 8) 20,057 3) unkown 9,200 9) 90,000 7) Citywide Subway System PATH & MTA MTR Metro Metro Underground/Tube Annual Ridership bil pp/yr 2.8 8) 1.6 3) 2.5 2) 1.5 9) 1.4 7) Average Dailly Ridership mil pp/day 9.2 8) 4.4 3) 9.3 2) 4.2 9) 5.0 7) Total Length km 416.2 8) 174.7 3) 325.9 2) 205.0 9) 402.0 7) System Open yr 1904 8) 1979 3) 1935 2) 1900 9) 1863 7)

Station WTC PATH + Fulton Hong Kong - Central Okhotny Ryad Chatelet-Les Halles Canary Wharf Governing Body Port Authority, MTA MTR Central Government APUR LDDC Developer Port Authority, MTA MTR Metrostroi SemPariSeine Canary Wharf Group Primary Designer Santiago Calatrava, Rocco Yim, Arup I. Fomin, A. Dushkin David Mangin SOM, Foster Characteristics Public Corporation Public Private Public Corporation Government Public Corporation with IPO in 2001 Partnership (3P) Design Process Competition Negoiated contract Competition Competitions Private Contract

Financing Strategy Insurance + Rail-Plus-Property Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Private Developer Federal Tax Design Intention “not a single station “easy maintenance” transit oriented "new public square" should be similar to "Civic Forum" “unity” of architecture development another.” "Palace of Proletariat" Cultural and "Symbol of recovery" Efficient throughfare a transit hub "National Pride" Commercial Hub Daily Traffic pp/day 140,765 11) 250,000 15) 283,110 14) 750,000 13) 245,438 12) Total Length m 2,319 1,524 2,883 2,986 1,730 Average Corridor Width m 12.0 10.0 6.8 3.8 7.4 Corridor & Stiars Total Floor Area sqm 42,406 28,257 19,114 22,288 16,425 Connected Subway Platform Floor Area sqm 14,825 6,912 11,048 8,089 14,755 Ticketing Mezzanine Floor Area sqm 3,508 5,736 2,998 10,299 11,474 Retail Mezzanine Floor Area sqm 3,516 7,221 - - - Connected Shopping Mall Floor Area sqm 45,162 9,601 32,990 66,955 72,548 Number of Exits ea 53 20 21 18 23

Name of Major Corridor West Concourse Hkg-Ctr Corridor Transfer Corridor Rue de Cinema Canary Concourse Length m 223 258 160 98 379 Width m 12 13.5~20 6.77 9.1 5.7~12 Ceiling Height m 6.8 4.5~7.2 3.8 8.2 3.5 Average Foot Traffic Rush Hour pp/hr 5006 8897 4725 5117 5017

1) IDTP, People Near Transit: Improving Accessibility and Rapid Transit Coverage in Large Cities https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/People-Near-Transit.pdf 2) Capital Fact for Russia https://www.worldscapitalcities.com/capital-facts-for-moscow-russia/ 3) 2011 Population Census Summary http://www.census2011.gov.hk/pdf/summary-results.pdf 4) 2010 US Census 5) 2010 France Census https://www.apur.org/en/our-works/paris-ever-rising-population-results-1st-january-2010-census 6) 2010 Population estimate https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011censuspopulationandhouseholdestimatesforenglandandwales/2012-07-16 7) the Office for National Statistics is Millharbour, in the middle of the island, with a population density equivalent to 90,000 people per km2 as of 2014. https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/we-re-denser-manhattan-isle-dogs-responds-claims-nimbyism-3270 8) Current New York City Population http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/current-future-populations.page 9) Paris Arrondissement Population Density http://www.demographia.com/db-parisdensityanal.htm 10) Praveen Duddu, 2014. "The World's Top 10 Busiest Metro http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-top-10-busiest-metros-4433827/ 11) PATH Ridership Report https://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/2017-PATH-Monthly-Ridership-Report.pdf MTA Annual Ridership http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm 12) TfL, Underground Service Performance, Entry and exit figures by station, 2015 https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/multi-year-station-entry-exit-figures.xls DLR Passenger Journeys 2013-2015 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/up_to_date_dlr_entry_exit_statis 13) RATP Chatelet Les-Halles Station Introduction https://www.ratp.fr/groupe-ratp/newsroom/innovation/ouverture-de-la-porte-marguerite-de-navarre-nouvel-acces-direct-la 14) Moscow Metro Statistics http://www.nashtransport.ru/rus/msk/metro/lines/ 15) Menges, A. (2009) Arup : Hong Kong station. Stuttgart

246

Conclusion

Although the cross-section of underground concourses in international context seems perplexing, the lesson from five hidden cities is simple. The underground concourse has developed in a way that emphasizes efficiency of the infrastructure. The underground has been largely discounted in terms of its social potential. The cases above have demonstrated that the endeavor to make an efficient and effective place can transform an underground infrastructure into a hidden city. This chapter outlined the recipe for designers and engineers to plan and utilize underground concourses.

References:

Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language : towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Boddy, T. (1992). Underground and Overhead: Building the Analogous City. In Variations on a theme park : the new American city and the end of public space (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Canac, S., & Cabanis, B. (2014). Paris métro : histoire et design. Issy-les-Moulineaux: Massin.

Cullen, G. (1961). Townscape. London: Architectural Press.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings : Using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Lydon, M., Garcia, (2015). Tactical urbanism : short-term action for long-term change.

Lynch, K., (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge [Mass.]: Technology Press.

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces. 247

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSION: URBAN DESIGN IN HIDDEN CITIES

The social and cultural potential of underground concourse have been largely ignored due to its connotations. The gloomy and dark underground spaces are the outcome of inappropriate designs. Urban design principles can help reordering the priorities in the planning of underground concourses. The balance of efficiency and effectiveness is the key to retrofitting the underground infrastructure. The underground concourse has the potential to become the connective tissue of the fragmented public realm in contemporary city centers.

Hidden cities are the proofs of such spatial and social potential being realized in our city centers. They are financial vehicles to fund expensive underground infrastructure and affordable public transportation. They are essential elements in facilitating the vision for a sustainable future by concentrating development and connecting to other nodes through a shared transit system. The architecture of these transit hubs can symbolize

“recovery from terrorist attack,” “national pride” of state power, and honoring the history of citizen engagement in urban design. The public spaces of underground concourse may be arguably the only places where different classes and peoples are exposed to each other through passive contact in everyday basis. Hidden cities are one of the playing fields where socially heterogeneous individuals come together and help

“break[ing] down social structures and produc[ing] increase mobility, instability and insecurity.”253 We have failed to recognize the potential of subterranean urban structure

253 Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44,(No. 1 (Jul., 1938),), 1–24. 248

because of the heavy crossings of everyday life in them.

The lack of interest in hidden cities by architects and urban designer is one of many reasons for underground spaces being ineffective. Roland Paoletti, the chief architect who dedicated his life in designing and managing two successful subway systems, Hong

Kong’s MTR and London’s JLE, says that “underground engineers” and “pliable designers” have “produced labyrinthine tunnels and ad hoc formless space.”254 However, it is not fair to blame the apathy entirely on them. The underground transit concourse was not “an interesting proposal” for renowned architects and urban designers. They had little interest in working on underground cities. Furthermore, designers have limited knowledge of how subsurface public spaces should work because the focus of study has been on outdoor public spaces, squares, plazas, and streets. As a result, the underground engineers received little help on the design of underground concourses.

There have been previous attempts in history to shift the focus of urban development from efficient thoroughfares to effective places. Exploring urban problems of the early twentieth century, a group of scholars believed that applying new technology was the ultimate solution to deal with urban congestion; express trains, automobiles, telephones, radios, and skyscrapers can help overpopulated cities. Another group explored solutions to urban problems by amplifying the benefits of urban life. The second group believed that functional efficiency was only a partial solution for them. The other half consisted of the immeasurable economic, social, and political virtues of city life supported by diversity. They appreciated the values of urban life and challenged the singleminded focus on efficiency in modern urban planning practices.255 Collectively,

254 Powell, K. (2000). The Jubilee Line Extension / Kenneth Powell ; foreword by Roland Paoletti. London: Laurence King, p.7. 255 Jacobs, 1961; Sitte, 1898; Cullen, 1961; Lynch, 1961; Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987; Barnett, 1974 249

these urban scholars also inspired urban design as a discipline.

Now is the time to carry on the tradition of urban design in underground concourse.

Corridors and gathering places in underground concourses are not different from streets and plazas above the ground. People react the same way regardless of the grade; the unpopular use of underground public space is derived from poor design not the grade.

Urban designers have explored ways to recalibrate the mobility driven and underused urban spaces into vibrant places. A little attention to the place-making in underground concourse would greatly enliven the places; adding enough sittings, softening the hard edges, facilitating “triangulation props”, involving designing to human scale, improving

“legibility” and “imageability”, and treating the underground and the aboveground public spaces the same way. The hidden cities are the proofs how the lessons learned in last half a century could be easily adopted in retrofitting underground concourses.

References:

Barnett, J. (1974). Urban design as public policy: Practical methods for improving cities. [New York]: Architectural Record Books.

Cullen, G. (1961). Townscape. London: Architectural Press.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings : Using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge [Mass.]: Technology Press.

Powell, K. (2000). The Jubilee Line Extension / Kenneth Powell ; foreword by Roland Paoletti. London: Laurence King.

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44,(No. 1, 1–24.

250