DESCRIPTION:
Site
The proposed historic district, comprising Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, is
located between West 62nd and 66th Streets, bordered by Broadway, and Columbus and
Amsterdam Avenues. Situated along the eastern boundary of Lincoln Square, it is within New
York City’s Upper West Side. The buildings of Lincoln Center occupy approximately ten of its
sixteen acres, while its park, plazas and parking facilities occupy the remaining six acres. The
campus is surrounded by institutional, residential and commercial structures.
To the south of the center, between West 60th and 62nd Streets, and Columbus and
Amsterdam Avenues, is the Lincoln Center campus of Fordham University, consisting of an
open plaza, enclosed by the 4-story Schools of Business, Education and Social Service (1962),
and the 13-story School of Law (1969). Both are modern, glass-curtain-wall buildings, clad in
limestone. Occupying this same block to the west, is a modern, residential tower, rising in the
center of its open lot. To the west of the performing arts center, located between West 61st and
64th Streets, and Amsterdam and West End Avenues, is a public housing project called the
Amsterdam Houses. This public housing is comprised of twenty-two 6-story, brick residential
units, as well as a health center/clinic, a nursery school and a playground. On the same lot,
occupying the western portion between West 63rd and 64th Streets, are the former Phipps Houses.
These apartment buildings consist of four, 6-story, brick, H-plan buildings, along West 63rd
Street (1907); and two, 6-story, brick apartment houses containing a central courtyard, along
West 64th Street (1911). Both were promoted as model tenements by builder Henry Phipps.
Further north, between West 64th and 65th Streets at Amsterdam Avenue, is the mustard-colored,
1
poured-in-place-concrete and glass, Fiorello LaGuardia High School, designed by the Juilliard
School’s associate architect, Eduardo Catalano, and completed in 1985. Between West 65th and
66th Streets, also on Amsterdam Avenue, is Martin Luther King, Jr., High School (1975), a
darkly-tinted glass box with a self-weathering steel curtain wall structure situated on an elevated
plaza. The northeast corner of the school’s plaza contains an enormous, cube-shaped, memorial
sculpture by William Tarr, also composed of self-weathering steel, and featuring quotes in basrelief from Martin Luther King, Jr. Directly north of the junior high school, on an elevated
superblock occupying West 66th and 70th Streets, is the 5-story American Red Cross building, a
glass-curtain-wall structure with gray-granite-aggregate cladding and retaining walls.
Outside of the proposed historic district, yet contained within the northwestern portion of
the Lincoln Center campus between West 65th and 66th Streets, are two towers which are
integrated into each other. The privately-owned 3 Lincoln Center, is a 60-story condominium
that rises out of the base of the Lincoln Center-owned Samuel B. and David Rose Building, a 28story, mixed-use building. Sheathed in dark glass, 3 Lincoln Center is located on the southeast
corner of West 66th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, and was completed in 1991. Its base, which
occupies the entire westernmost portion of the lot between West 65th and 66th Streets, references
the Roman travertine-and-glass Juilliard School to the west, through its use of pink buff Valder
granite cladding and square-window fenestration. The Samuel B. and David Rose Building
contains dormitories, administrative, performance and rehearsal spaces, parking facilities, as well
as a branch of the New York Public Library and a firehouse on its ground floor facing
Amsterdam Avenue. This building was designed by Davis, Brody & Associates and completed
in 1992. Sandwiched between these towers to the west, and the Juilliard School to the east, is the
1-story Romanesque-Revival style, Church of the Good Shepherd, constructed in 1887 and
designed by J.C. Cady & Co., the architect of the original Metropolitan Opera House.
2
On the north side of West 66th Street, between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway,
sequentially heading east, are a series of mixed-use, 1960s residential apartment houses, built of
white, glazed brick, and consisting of 21-, 13- and 10- stories, respectively. At the eastern end of
the block, at the northwest corner of West 66th Street and Broadway, is a steel-and-glass, 30story, mixed-use condominium, constructed in the early 1990s. Directly across the street, on the
east side of Broadway, is Lincoln Triangle, a salmon-colored-brick-and-glass-curtain-wall,
residential-entertainment complex, containing over thirty stories and completed in 1997. In
addition to condominiums, this building houses a multiplex movie theater, a bookstore and an
athletic club.
Directly west of Lincoln Center are two triangular parks, comprising the Lincoln Square
bowtie. Bordered by West 65th and 66th Streets, Columbus Avenue and Broadway, is Richard
Tucker Park to the north, containing a subway elevator and staircase for the Interborough Rapid
Transit’s 1 and 9 trains, and landscaped with trees, shrubbery and Belgian block paving. The
southern triangle is Dante Park, comprised of a lawn, bordered by trees, asphalt pavers and
benches, with a sculpture of Dante by Ettore Ximenes (1920) at its southern end. At its northern
tip is a three-sided, sculptural, bronze Movado clock, mounted on a granite pedestal, and
designed by Philip Johnson. South of Dante Park, directly across the street from Lincoln Center
is the 14-story, brick-and-glass Empire Hotel, built in 1923.
Lincoln Center is separated from the east side of Broadway by thirteen lanes of traffic
that includes a landscaped median dividing the north-south lanes of Broadway. Occupying the
east side of this boulevard are a series of low- and high- rise commercial and residential
buildings. At the northeast corner of West 65th Street and Columbus Avenue is the New York
City headquarters of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, an institutional building which
references Lincoln Center through its use of travertine cladding and paving, and outdoor arcade.
Between West 64th and 65th Streets on the southeast corner of Broadway, is a 5-story steel-and3
glass commercial building. The northeast corner of West 64th Street is in transition. Having
contained the 1907 Goelet Building, the building is currently being demolished for a mixed-use
tower. Between West 63rd and 64th Streets, also on the east side of Broadway, is the 7-story,
mixed-use 1 Lincoln Plaza, completed in 1971. This building, also incorporating an arcade and
travertine cladding on its ground floor, is a mixed-use commercial building.
Master Plan
Lincoln Center incorporates principles of the City Beautiful Movement, characterized by
symmetry and procession through an axial design. Oriented toward Central Park to the west, the
centerpiece of the complex is Josie Robertson Plaza with the Metropolitan Opera House as its
focal point. The opera house is flanked by two dissimilarly-designed but identically-massed
buildings, the New York State Theater on its left and Avery Fisher Hall on its right. All three of
these structures are formalist buildings, as characterized by their modern, curtain-wall structures
which are encased in neo-classical, temple-like forms. Consistent with a formalist aesthetic that
integrates historicized elements into a minimalist context, the opera house, symphony hall and
dance theater are clad in Roman travertine marble with expansive, glass curtain walls. The trio
of buildings also features colonnaded fronts with identically-scaled outdoor porticoes. Beneath
these porticoes, the Metropolitan Opera House has a glass-enclosed arcade, while the New York
State Theater and Avery Fisher Hall have outdoor arcades. Comprising a plan that is evocative
of the Piazza del Campidoglio in Rome, they surround Josie Robertson Plaza, comprised of a
series of concentric rings and radiating spokes of travertine paving interspersed with black
aggregate. In the center of this design is Revson Fountain, enclosed by a low, circular wall
composed of polished Canadian black granite.
Directly west of Josie Robertson Plaza, in front of the Metropolitan Opera House, is a
large, sloping forecourt, paved in pink marble granite, with a pair of pink marble granite blocks
4
on its north and south ends, which delineate the main plaza from the center’s other outdoor
spaces. Directly in front of the opera house, are a series of metal-and-glass poster stands. To the
east of Josie Robertson Plaza, at the front of the complex, is a concrete, pedestrian trajectory,
which extends from West 62nd to West 65th Street. Along the east façade of the New York State
Theater, this trajectory contains a subterranean stage artists’ entrance at the southern portion that
is parallel to the theater. This entrance is bordered by three low-rise walls which are clad in
travertine. Immediately north of the below-grade entrance at ground-level, is a travertine
staircase leading up to the theater. Intersecting the trajectory at Josie Robertson Plaza, are two
triangular-shaped, dark metal canopies which connect the New York State Theater and Avery
Fisher Hall arcades to a two-lane, service road, which fronts the trajectory. In front of the east
façade of Avery Fisher Hall at the trajectory’s northern end, is another travertine staircase
leading up to the hall, with a series of metal-and-glass poster stands to the north and south of it.
The southbound service road is accessible from West 65th Street, Broadway and Columbus
Avenue from the north, and connects to Columbus Avenue, West 62nd and 63rd Streets, at its
southern end. Abutting the two-lane service road to the east, is a long, concrete, pedestrian
traffic island, parallel to Columbus Avenue, and stretching from West 63rd to West 65th Street.
The eastern border of this area, which is at sidewalk level with Columbus Avenue, is paved in
concrete. Branching out from its center, the island contains a grand staircase flanked by two
pedestals with metal flagpoles, two smaller staircases and two long, narrow planters—all of
which are clad in travertine. In addition to trees and shrubbery, each planter also contains pairs
of light poles and four banner poles, equipped to fly three banners each. At its northern and
southern tips, the traffic island houses three low-rise walls which are clad in beige-colored brick.
These walls border stairs leading down to the center’s subterranean parking garage, its concourse
and the West 66th Street stop of the Interborough Rapid Transit subway line, located below-grade
at Broadway.
5
On West 62nd Street, two secondary entrance stairways to Lincoln Center Plaza South
and Damrosch Park are located to the west of two vehicular ramps leading to the parking areas
underneath the campus. Beyond these stairways, to the west, is a medium-height, travertine-clad
retaining wall, bordering Damrosch Park and housing trees and shrubbery. The Amsterdam
Avenue façade of Lincoln Center consists of the rear facades of the bandshell, the opera house,
the performing arts library and the Vivian Beaumont Theater. This facade also contains several
points of entry, such as loading docks for the opera house and library, a library entrance and a
staircase leading up to a path along the north façade of the Vivian Beaumont Theater. On the
street-level, south side of West 65th Street, heading west, a travertine-clad wall is punctuated by
glass entrances to the center’s administrative offices, a loading dock and a parking garage
entrance. Beyond the garage entrance is a an elevator, leading to Lincoln Center Plaza North and
Milstein Plaza; a staircase leading up to Lincoln Center Plaza North; and a canopied travertine
staircase, connected to the north façade of Avery Fisher Hall.
On the north side of West 65th Street, there is an entrance to the Juilliard School and a
tunnel created by the Milstein Plaza overpass, connecting the Juilliard School to Lincoln Center
Plaza North. Directly in front of the Juilliard School on Broadway is a triangular plaza known as
Alice Tully Plaza, containing low-rise, square planters, made of stone aggregate, and metal-andglass poster stands. Alice Tully Plaza is defined by the north-south façade of the school, West
65th Street and the southeasterly Broadway trajectory. At the northwest corner of West 65th
Street and Broadway, lying parallel to the school, there is a pink marble granite stairway with
travertine-clad cheekwalls. Also on this corner, oriented west, are metal-and-glass-enclosed
escalators, running to and from Milstein Plaza. Along the West 66th Street façade of the school,
there is an entrance and a loading dock.
Bordered by the New York State Theater to the east and the Metropolitan Opera House to
the north, are Lincoln Center Plaza South and Damrosch Park. Separated from the New York
6
State Theater by a paved trajectory along the building’s western façade, Lincoln Center Plaza
South is defined by a configuration of low, travertine-clad planters that run parallel to this
trajectory as well as parallel to the front half of the Metropolitan Opera House’s south façade.
Between Lincoln Center Plaza South and Damrosch Park are a rectangular configuration of trees,
planted at plaza level, and a series of low-rise, polished-black-granite benches configured at right
angles around them. Damrosch Park itself is comprised of an open, paved, audience area and a
modern, onion-shaped, bandshell, known as the Guggenheim Bandshell. The bandshell and
audience area are surrounded on their northern, southern and western perimeters by more trees.
Referencing Plaza South’s configuration of planters is Lincoln Center Plaza North,
bordered by the Metropolitan Opera House to the south; the performing arts library known as the
Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center and Vivian Beaumont Theater to the west; a travertineclad wall with a dedication plaque, West 65th Street, the Milstein Plaza overpass, and the
Juilliard School to the north; and Avery Fisher Hall to the west. In addition to the planters in
Plaza North, which run parallel to the Metropolitan’s north façade and Avery Fisher’s west
façade, are two sculptures. One is a stabile by Alexander Calder, located directly in front of the
library’s entrance, and the other is an enormous bronze cast by Henry Moore, placed prominently
over a reflecting pool. Like their counterparts surrounding the main plaza, the library, theater
and school are also clad in travertine. However, unlike the library and theater, which are
primarily distinguished by glass curtain walls in the context of an International Style, the
Expressionistic Juilliard School is predominantly characterized by travertine and concrete with
punched windows that evokes Brutalist forms. Its adjacent Milstein Plaza is a large area
enclosed by travertine-clad terrace walls and paved in pink marble granite. Milstein Plaza also
contains a kinetic steel sculpture by Jaacob Agam in the region of its southeastern corner, and a
series of pink marble granite benches along its southern wall, and medium-sized wooden planters
along its eastern and western walls.
7
Parking and Concourse Levels
Lincoln Center’s subterranean parking and concourse areas are configured around its
buildings’ basements, its underground offices and its mechanical systems. Consisting of 721
spaces, the parking areas are located in two main areas on two separate levels, directly below
Josie Robertson Plaza and Damrosch Park, respectively. Both parking levels are paved and
finished in concrete, with metal ceiling tiles and fluorescent lighting fixtures. Foundational piers
throughout the area separate its individual parking spaces. The concourse and lower concourse
level parking areas are accessible via entrances on West 62nd Street and West 65th Street. The
lower concourse level also has a road that connects the north part of the garage to the south.
Underneath the lower concourse level of the garage driveway off West 65th Street is the central
mechanical plant. The administrative offices for Lincoln Center, Inc. occupy the central portion
of the lower concourse level and the main concourse abutting West 65th Street.
The Lincoln Center
The site includes: (in order of construction) Avery Fisher Hall, New York State Theater, Vivian
Beaumont Theater and Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater, New York Public Library for the Performing
Arts, Metropolitan Opera House, Juilliard School, and Public Plazas
Owner: Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc., and the City of New York
8
The master plan for Lincoln Center was developed by Wallace K. Harrison and an Architects
Advisory Committee he brought together in 1956 and 1957. The committee included
international architects Alvar Aalto, Marcel Breuer, Sven Markelius and Walter Unruh;
prominent American architects Philip Johnson, Pietro Belluschi and Henry Shepley; and theater
specialists Hope Bagenal, Richard Bolt, Herbert Graf and Richard Newman. Development of the
master plan continued over the next three and a half years as architects were selected for the
design of individual buildings. Lincoln Center planners envisioned the project as a thoroughly
American undertaking and chose only American architects considered the leading practitioners
of the day. Harrison, along with Philip Johnson and Pietro Belluschi from the Architects
Advisory Committee won commissions, as did Max Abramovitz, Gordon Bunshaft and Eero
Saarinen. Under the oversight of Harrison and Rene d'Harnoncourt, Director of the Museum of
Modern Art, the group collaborated on a set of "unifying elements" to guide design of their
individual buildings.
The final master plan was based on Classical principles including a grand central plaza on an
east-west axis with the Metropolitan Opera House and framed by the symmetrical placement of
Avery Fisher Hall and the New York State Theater. The architects agreed that the height and
mass of these two theaters would be similar yet there would be variation in the facades. All
exterior balconies at the promenade level were planned to be uniform in height and clad in
Roman travertine. The three principle theaters formally sited on the main plaza were envisioned
as the focal point of the center with the remaining buildings arranged on the perimeter of the site
and linked to the central plaza by smaller landscaped plazas.
9
Avery Fisher Hall, formerly Philharmonic Hall
Venue for: The New York Philharmonic
Cost: $21 million
Seating capacity: 2,162 when opened, 2,738 after extensive interior renovations in 1976
Owner: Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.
Lessor and operator: New York Philharmonic
Total square feet: 46,800
First architectural schemes drawn: 1958
Groundbreaking: May 1959
Opening: September 23, 1962
Max Abramovitz (1908- ) was chosen by Wallace Harrison and the Philharmonic Society to
design the Avery Fisher Hall in 1956. At the time he was Wallace Harrison's partner at Harrison
and Abramovitz. After arriving from Chicago in 1931 he joined Harrison's firm and began
teaching at Columbia University's School of Architecture. In 1932 he won second place in the
Prix de Paris competition and spent the following two years studying at the Ecole de Beaux-Arts
on a Columbia fellowship. He returned to the United States and again joined Harrison to work
on the United Nations Headquarters Building and Rockefeller Center.
Abramovitz submitted his first plans for Philharmonic Hall in 1958. The design was heavily
inspired by Hans Scharoun's Philharmonic Concert Hall in Berlin (1956-63), a revolutionary
design with no proscenium and a portion of the audience seating behind the musicians. Above
10
all, Abramovitz wanted the Hall to be spacious and open with large windows evoking a pageant
for the whole community.
Avery Fisher Hall consists of a main auditorium, restaurant, and a cafe and bar at street level. It
is located on the northeast corner of the site, bordered by West 65th Street on the north and
Columbus Avenue on the east. The five-story south facade faces the Josie Robertson Plaza.
This primary facade is composed of nine 70-foot concrete piers and clad with Roman travertine.
The piers taper at the top and bottom supporting the Grand Promenade balcony at their widest
point. Together, the piers and balcony extend outward from a glass curtain wall to form a
monumental arcade similar to that of the Metropolitan Opera House.
The main entrance from Josie Robertson Plaza leads to the Grand Foyer by means of elevators
and escalators. The Grand Foyer is an impressive atrium space 50 feet high, 25 feet wide, and
180 feet long overlooking the plaza. It houses two sculptures, Orpheus and Apollo, created
specifically for the space by Richard Lippold. From the Grand Foyer, concertgoers enter the
seating tiers via elegant staircases leading to the three balconies that wrap around the auditorium.
The tiers are set back from the glass perimeter of the building to form a four-story atrium space
at the promenade level.
The original design for the auditorium was plagued with serious acoustic problems.
This resulted in a gut renovation, led by architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee, and
acoustician Cyril Harris, in 1976. The renovation transformed the original bottle-shape room to
a rectangular shape with a gold-leafed proscenium arch and a stage and orchestra shell of English
oak. Suspended from the ceiling are flexible screens composed of hexagonal, gold-colored
11
panels. The changes were a vast improvement acoustically and aesthetically. It was at this time
that the theater's name was changed from Philharmonic Hall to Avery Fisher Hall.
New York State Theater
Venue for: The New York Ballet and The New York City Opera
Cost: $26 million
Seating Capacity: 2,779
Owner: City of New York (The New York State Theater was built with New York State funds
appropriated for the 1964 World's Fair. Title was transferred to the City of New York after the
fair.)
Manager: City Center of Music and Drama
Total square feet: 284,000
First architectural schemes drawn: 1957
Groundbreaking: September 1961
Opening: April 23, 1964
The New York State Theater was designed by Philip Johnson. Johnson (1906- ) is an American
architect whose unconventional designs are a union of neoclassicism and modernism inspired by
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. He was educated at Harvard University, where he studied under
Walter Gropius. Johnson began designing buildings in 1942. His work is typically luxurious in
scale and materials with expansive interiors and classical symmetry. His many important works
include the Glass House (1949) in Connecticut and the Seagram Building (1958) in New York
City, designed in collaboration with Mies van der Rohe. In designing the New York State
12
Theater, Johnson strove to express a classical arrangement of elements while maintaining a
formal stylistic cohesiveness with the Metropolitan Opera House and Avery Fisher Hall.
The New York State Theater consists of an auditorium, lobby and Promenade containing bars,
gift shops and a seasonal cafe. The Promenade is a celebrated and popular venue for special
events in New York City.
The New York State Theater occupies a prominent location on the northwest corner of 62nd
Street and Columbus Avenue. Like the Metropolitan Opera House and Avery Fisher Hall, its
primary facade faces Josie Robertson Plaza. This temple-like north facade, comprised of a low,
covered arcade with a 45-foot high loggia above, conforms to the dimensions of Avery Fisher
Hall opposite but with an obvious Classical influence. The principal facade is divided into seven
bays by eight columns arranged in pairs. The octagonal concrete columns are clad in Roman
travertine and topped by a simple, classically inspired travertine entablature. The open-air
promenade behind the columns shelters four vertical clusters of faceted light fixtures.
The main lobby is accessed from the Plaza. Once inside, the patron experiences a carefully
orchestrated series of spaces. The lobby has low ceilings and is flanked by monumental stairs
rising a half flight to the orchestra level. Installed symmetrically on the stair landings are pieces
of art commissioned by Philip Johnson for use in the New York State Theater. An abstract wall
relief titled 1964 by Lee Bontecou is housed in the eastern stairwell while a low-relief sculpture
by Jasper Johns titled Numbers, is mounted in the western stairwell.
The Promenade, considered to be one of the greatest interior spaces in New York City is located
on the level above the lobby. It extends the full width of the building and is surrounded by three
13
levels of balcony. On one side, patrons are treated to a full-height view of the plaza through the
glass wall of the main facade; on the other side, the curving profile of the auditorium. The
Promenade boasts a gold-leaf ceiling, ornamental metal railings, and a stone floor of travertine
and red Rosso Merlino marble to create an elegant and sophisticated room. Through a fluttering
curtain of fine stainless steel chain hung vertically, patrons can spill out onto the loggia terrace,
which overlooks the Plaza.
The New York State Theater auditorium is considered an equally spectacular space. The
orchestra floor is surrounded by five levels of horseshoe-shaped balconies. The seating
arrangement is noted for its "continental" configuration of wide spacing between each row of
seats enabling the elimination of the traditional center aisle. With this plan, the best floor space
is used exclusively for seating while minimizing overcrowding. Working with John Balanchine,
director of the New York Ballet, Philip Johnson designed the proscenium stage to meet the
choreographer's technical specifications. The 51-foot high proscenium arch is finished in gold
leaf as well as are the scalloped parapets of the balconies and the large spherical chandelier
hanging from the ornamental metal ceiling.
The Lincoln Center Theater
Facilities include: The Vivian Beaumont Theater and The Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater
Cost: The Lincoln Center Theater-$10.3 million
Seating Capacity: Vivian Beaumont Theater-1,089, Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater-297,
Owner: Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.
Lessor and Operator: Vivian Beaumont Theater, Inc., d.b.a. Lincoln Center Theater
14
Total square feet: 38,800
First architectural schemes drawn: 1960
Groundbreaking: 1962
Opened: October 21, 1965
The Lincoln Center Theater, comprised of the Vivian Beaumont Theater and Mitzi E. Newhouse
Theater, was designed by Eero Saarinen & Associates with theater designer Jo Mielziner. It is
actually part of a larger building that includes the New York Public Library for the Performing
Arts, designed by Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. The interior spaces of the
New York Public Library are located adjacent to and over the theater spaces, effectively
wrapping around the Lincoln Center Theater to form a complete structure.
Eero Saarinen (1910-1961) was the son of the celebrated Finnish architect Eliel Saarinen. Born
in Helsinki, the younger Saarinen immigrated with his family to the United States in 1923. He
studied sculpture at the Academie de la Grande Chaumiere in Paris in 1930 followed by
architecture at Yale University. He is well known for his innovations in industrial construction
methods. An excellent example of this work is the TWA terminal at John F. Kennedy Airport,
New York. Regrettably, Saarinen died unexpectedly as his final drawings were being approved
and did not see the completion of his building.
The Lincoln Center Theater is located at the northwest corner of West 65th Street and
Amsterdam Avenue and contains the two theaters as well as rehearsal and office spaces. Its
facade looks onto the North Plaza reflecting pool, a shallow pool approximately 80 feet by 120
feet lined with black tile and edged in granite around the perimeter. In the center of the pool is
the Henry Moore sculpture Reclining Figure which Moore designed specifically for Lincoln
15
Center in 1964. The North Plaza, designed in by Dan Kiley in 1965, is nestled between the
theater, the Metropolitan Opera House, the Avery Fisher Hall, and Juilliard School. The plaza
contains rows of trees in travertine planters, approximately 8 feet square containing Bradford
Pear trees.
The main facade of the Lincoln Center Theater is composed of two square concrete columns
with exposed aggregate finish supporting a cantilevered roof on steel pins. The pins are sheathed
in pyramidal bronze covers creating the dramatic effect of great weight supported on a single
pyramid point. The columns form a peristyle surrounding the building's recessed glass walls.
The exposed two-way structural grid, composed of 20-foot deep Vierendeel steel trusses, is
actually an attic volume housing library facilities. Hanging from the concrete soffit are floating
metal lighting pans painted a light color similar to the concrete. Light is projected downward
and upward from recessed fixtures in the pans. This soffit system extends into the glass-enclosed
lobby of the building.
The spare, yet elegant lobby of the Vivian Beaumont Theater rises two levels and is separated
from the North Plaza by a wall of glass. From here, patrons can access all levels of the theater as
well as the parking garage. The auditorium of the Vivian Beaumont Theater is minimally
decorated with wood paneling and red upholstery and best known for its technological
innovations. All seats are arranged in a sweeping semicircle set at a steep rake and no seat is
more than 65 feet from the stage. The large open-stage theater contains a modified thrust mainstage of 10,000 square feet, more than three times the size of the largest stage on Broadway. The
adaptable stage can be transformed into a fully open apron thrust by lowering the first seven
rows of seats into the basement. The proscenium arch is also adjustable, containing seven
16
flexible panels that can be opened and closed. The Vivian Beaumont Theater was the first
theater in the world to have a computerized lighting system.
The Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater, originally called The Forum, is a small, minimally decorated
auditorium used for experimental productions and accessed from the parking garage.
The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
Facilities include: The Bruno Walter Auditorium and The Shelby Cullom Davis Museum
Cost: $8 million
Seating Capacity for The Bruno Walter Auditorium: 212
Owner: City of New York
First architectural schemes drawn: 1960
Groundbreaking: 1962
Opening: November 30, 1965
The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts was designed by Gordon Bunshaft of
Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill. Bunshaft (1909-1990) was a New York native who received his
Masters degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After traveling
in Europe and North Africa, he returned to New York to work for SOM and became a partner in
1949. His designs were typically contemporary classical style with a focus on discipline and
function. He particularly emphasized the use of artwork, interior detailing and furnishings as a
major feature of his buildings. The Lever House (1952), and Chase Manhattan Bank (1961) are
two important examples of his work.
17
The Library and Museum are housed on the roof of the Vivian Beaumont Theater behind the
windowless attic of the facade and extend behind the theater stagehouse, descending two stories
to Amsterdam Avenue. Tucked between The Metropolitan Opera House's north side and the
theater is the Library-Museum's two-story facade of glass and steel and main entrance. Near the
entrance is a large stabile titled Le Guichet designed by Alexander Calder for the plaza.
The interior exhibits a series of functional spaces, the most successful of which are the plazalevel entrance area, the children's library, and the mezzanine-level gallery space with the
exposed-concrete, coffered ceiling of the Beaumont Theater lobby as well as a window wall
opening views to Amsterdam Avenue and 65th Street. Another successful space is the Bruno
Walter Auditorium.
The Metropolitan Opera House
Venue for: The Metropolitan Opera, The Metropolitan Opera Guild, The Opera Club, Opera
Shop and Grand Tier Restaurant
Cost: $46 million
Seating capacity: 3,788 (in auditorium), List Hall-144
Owner: Lincoln Center, Inc.
Lessor and operator: Metropolitan Opera Association
Total square feet: 97,700
First architectural schemes drawn: 1956
Groundbreaking: October 1961
18
Opening: September 16, 1966
Wallace K. Harrison (1895- ), the architect most instrumental to the Lincoln Center project, was
responsible for designing the Metropolitan Opera House. As a young architect, Harrison studied
in New York in the atelier of Harvey Corbett and in Paris at the atelier of Gustave Umbdenstock.
Beginning in 1922 he studied at the Ecole Nationale Superieure des Beaux Arts in Paris for one
year. Upon his return to New York, he became a highly successful architect designing a wide
range of building types including apartments, houses, museums, college buildings and research
buildings. He is most noted for his tall urban office buildings, which exhibit straightforward and
functional design.
Harrison began the design for the Metropolitan Opera House in 1956 with aspirations of evoking
the grandeur of traditional opera houses in contemporary terms. His primary concern was to
provide the finest facilities for the production and enjoyment of grand opera. Both the Lincoln
Center Building Committee and Harrison felt the building should serve the arts by encouraging a
wider public enjoyment of the arts. Both wanted the building to have a timeless enduring quality
throughout its potentially long life as a vital and fitting home for the opera company and focal
point of the Center as a whole.
The Metropolitan Opera House consists of the main auditorium, a smaller hall, and extensive
lobbies, offices, workshops and backstage support areas as well as a restaurant and gift shop.
The Metropolitan Opera House is located on the east side of Amsterdam Avenue between West
62nd Street and West 65th Street. Its grand facade faces Columbus Avenue and serves as anchor
to Lincoln Center and dramatic backdrop to Josie Robertson Plaza. The facade is composed of
19
five barrel-vaulted arches reaching 96 feet in height. The arches rest on six rectilinear concrete
columns clad in Roman travertine. Each arch is formed of 35-foot wide pre-cast concrete shells.
The north, south and west elevations are faced with a series of pre-cast concrete fins set
vertically, which lend a more textured appearance than the front. A promenade balcony paved in
terrazzo sits one level above the plaza. Behind the balcony a second row of travertine-covered
columns divide a bronze mullioned glass curtain wall.
The main entrance faces Josie Robertson Plaza. Patrons proceed through three sets of bronze
double doors into a soaring lobby that runs the entire width of the building and contains the
curvilinear double staircase illuminated by eight crystal chandeliers. The staircase is constructed
of poured-in-place, pre-stressed concrete, which was highly innovative for the time. Master boat
builders were used to prepare the form work. The staircase is finished in terrazzo and the steps
are covered with a deep red woven carpet with an Italian marble border. A series of balconies
providing circulation for the auditorium overlook the grand staircase. On either end of the lobby
are two paintings by Marc Chagall titled Summer and Venus Without Arms. Each 30 x 60 foot
canvas was created as a custom piece specifically for the opera house lobby. Also in the lobby
are sculptures by Aristide Maillol and Wilhelm Lembruck.
The main auditorium consists of a broad parquet with rows of orchestra seats punctuated by two
sides and one central aisle and surrounded by five levels of horseshoe-shaped tiers. The walls
are covered in West African Kewazinga wood and gold-leaf accentuates a ceiling of curvilinear
scalloped panels from which hang 24 starburst-form chandeliers. These were a gift from the
Vienna State Opera as repayment for American help in its reconstruction after World War II.
The proscenium arch is framed by a textured, gilded plaster surround and topped by an untitled
sculpture by Mary Callery selected by Wallace Harrison for the auditorium. Other decorative
20
features include the bright red mohair plush upholstery and light satin swags draped across the
balcony fronts.
The Juilliard School
Facilities include: The Juilliard Theater, Paul Recital Hall, Drama Workshop, Morse Hall and
Alice Tully Hall
Cost: $29.7 million
Seating: The Juilliard Theater-933, Paul Recital Hall-278, Drama Workshop-206, Morse Hall150, Alice Tully Hall-1, 096.
Owner: Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.
Lessor and Operator: The Juilliard School
Total square feet: 365,000
First architectural schemes drawn: 1959
Groundbreaking: April 1965
Opening, October 26, 1969
The Juilliard School was designed by Pietro Belluschi (1899-1994) in association with Eduardo
Catalano, a professor at MIT, and Helge Westermann, a former student of Catalano's who had
established a practice in New York. Belluschi was an Italian architect trained as an engineer at
both the University of Rome and at Cornell University. He immigrated to the United States in
1923 where he began his own architectural firm in 1943. From 1951 to 1965 Belluschi was
Dean of Architecture and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His
commercial designs were typically built in the International Style such as his acclaimed
21
Equitable Building in Portland, Oregon (1948). He is also known for his spectacularly
engineered church structures and exquisitely detailed interiors of fine woods. For the Juilliard
School, Belluschi used a somewhat softened, or moderated Brutalist style to compliment the
classical lines of Avery Fisher Hall and the International style facade of the Vivian Beaumont
Theater.
The Juilliard School consists of teaching studios, classrooms, practice rooms, rehearsal rooms
and various scenery and costume shops for musical, opera, dance and drama presentations. In
addition, there is a library, Computer Center, Music Technology Laboratory, bookshop, offices
and facilities for student and community outreach programs.
The Juilliard School is located to the north of the main campus of Lincoln Center between West
65th on the south and West 66th on the north. It is connected to the North Plaza by Paul Milstein
Plaza, a pedestrian bridge over 65th Street. The building sits on an irregular lot but retains its
orthogonal shape, allowing for a small triangular space, Alice Tully Plaza, on Broadway. The
plaza is landscaped by 8-foot square planters filled with trees and is further marked by the
monumental travertine-covered staircase that leads to the Juilliard Promenade.
The five-story travertine facade incorporates a broad cantilevered terrace on the second level,
facing the Paul Milstein Plaza. The terrace is accessed by an escalator on Broadway and 65th
Street as well as the staircase from the Broadway plaza. On the south facade, the terrace merges
with the pedestrian bridge and is sheltered by the cantilevered upper portion of the building.
Installed on the plaza is Three Times Three Interplay, a sculpture created for The Juilliard School
in 1971 by Yaacov Agam. Piercing the upper stories are double-height square windows
surmounted by horizontal strips of smaller square windows that articulate the varying uses of the
22
internal spaces. The Juilliard School is noted as being the most complex structure on the Lincoln
Center campus.
The principal entrances to the Juilliard School are on 65th and 66th Streets as well as from Paul
Milstein Plaza. The expansive lobby incorporates exposed concrete columns, maple-paneled
walls and terrazzo flooring with red carpeting. From the lobby, students and visitors access the
three principal performance spaces: Juilliard Theater, Paul Recital Hall and Alice Tully Hall.
The Juilliard Theater is oval shaped with a movable ceiling that can be adjusted to create
different acoustical effects for the varying performances. The walls and ceiling are clad in
cherry and basswood. Paul Recital Hall is paneled in cherry as well and incorporates sloped
ceiling coffers. The hall contains a Holtkamp organ and is volumetrically sized for concerts,
lectures and small recitals.
Alice Tully Hall is home to The Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center, one of the world's
preeminent chamber music organizations, as well as the Juilliard Orchestra, Juilliard Symphony,
the Film Society of Lincoln Center and several music festivals each year. The wood paneled
auditorium, which is the largest in the Juilliard School, is designed to accommodate chamber
music but because of the adjustable stage, it is adaptable to larger orchestras.
Damrosch Park and Guggenheim Bandshell
Venue for: Lincoln Center Out-of-Doors, Lincoln Center Festival and Big Apple Circus
Seating Capacity: Guggenheim Bandshell-75, Damrosch Park-3,000
Owner: City of New York
23
Operator: Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.
Total square feet: 107,000
First architectural and landscape scheme drawn:
Opening: 1969
Damrosch Park, named after the renowned family of musicians, was designed by landscape
architect Dan Kiley in association with the architecture firms Eggers & Higgins and Webel &
Westermann. Kiley, an American architect trained at Harvard University, is a highly
distinguished professional who has worked on some of the world's most important commissions
including sites adjacent to the Washington Mall, the National Gallery of Art East Wing, and the
National Sculpture Garden. He has received awards for design excellence including the
Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award from the Harvard Graduate School of Design. His
work has been shown at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City and he served as an
advisor to President Kennedy concerning Pennsylvania Avenue as well as on many other
committees. He is noted for his classic civic designs where building and site come together as
one.
Damrosch Park and Guggenheim Bandshell site are used for various outdoor performances
including The New York Pops.
Damrosch Park is located in the southwest corner of the Lincoln Center site, bordered on the east
by the New York State Theater and on the north by the Metropolitan Opera House. It is unique
among the Lincoln Center facilities in that there is no permanent constituent user. The design of
the two and one-third acre site incorporates large, low planters, covered in travertine, each
24
containing four large shade trees and ground cover. The trees provide welcome shade and an
interesting contrast to the formal openness of Josie Robertson Plaza.
The Guggenheim Bandshell is located along Amsterdam Avenue with its 65-foot wide stage
facing east toward the open space of Damrosch Park. The tip of the bandshell is 55 feet from the
terrazzo-covered stage platform and cantilevers 45 feet over the stage, which can accommodate a
75-member orchestra. It has a distinctive shape that has been described as "a halved onion with
a point." The bandshell is constructed of concrete surfaced with exposed aggregate.
Lincoln Center Public Plazas
Josie Robertson Plaza, Revson Fountain, Lincoln Center Plaza North, North Reflecting Pool,
Lincoln Center Plaza South, Paul Milstein Plaza and Alice Tully Plaza
Owner: City of New York
Operator: Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.
Total square feet: 582,000 including concourse level
Opened: 1965-66
The Lincoln Center public plazas were designed by Philip Johnson with Harrison & Abramovitz
and Dan Kiley. In addition to providing outdoor settings for many cultural events the plazas are
widely used by residents and visitors as relief from the busy city.
Josie Robertson Plaza was designed after completion of the Metropolitan Opera House. It opens
onto Columbus Avenue and unites the three principle houses that define its boundaries:
25
Metropolitan Opera House to the west, New York State Theater to the south, and Avery Fisher
Hall to the north. The plaza's dark aggregate pavement is inlaid with travertine in a concentric
circular pattern of 12 spokes radiating from a central point where sits Revson Fountain at its
center. The austere 38-foot diameter fountain is constructed of polished Canadian black granite
and stages performances of its own via a complex system of programmable water jets that
display a variety of patterns. The fountain is a focal point for the three principal houses and is
itself an icon of Lincoln Center.
SIGNIFICANCE NARRATIVE
BACKGROUND
Lincoln Square Urban Renewal Area Project
Lincoln Center evolved out of the Lincoln Square Urban Renewal Area Project, a
program initiated and supervised by Robert Moses beginning in 1955. As chairman of New
York City’s Slum Clearance Committee, Moses had been instrumental in initiating many urban
renewal projects throughout the city.1 These included affordable housing complexes in Harlem
and the Lower East Side in Manhattan, Brownsville in Brooklyn and Morrisania in the Bronx.
Furthermore, under Title I of the Federal Housing Act of 1949, Moses facilitated the demolition
and clearance of many of the city’s older buildings in order to construct new housing,
community facilities and large-scale transportation routes—often at the expense of the city’s
low-income and long-term inhabitants. The provision of this act, mandating that a major portion
of new construction be devoted to low- and middle- income residential use, enabled local
officials to designate certain undesirable areas of the city for redevelopment under the guise of
urban renewal. Once the city had acquired the land, it was authorized to re-sell it at a reduced
26
cost in order to attract private development. The loss incurred by the lower resale cost was in
turn subsidized by the federal and local government.
The fifty-three-acre Lincoln Square Urban Renewal Area Project encompassed seventeen
blocks between 60th and 70th Streets on the west side of Manhattan between West End Avenue
and Broadway.2 Originally settled by the Dutch, the area was called “Bloemendael,” which then
became “Bloomingdale” after 1664 when the English arrived.3 Lincoln Square was allegedly
named after a local landowner, and the so-called “square” was a bow-tie configuration of two
triangles at the crossing of Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue at 65th Street. Occupying part of
the area, bordered by West 64th Street to the north, West 57th Street to the south, Amsterdam
Avenue to the east and the Hudson River to the west, was a neighborhood known as San Juan
Hill. Although debate continues as to whether the name honored or dishonored the AfricanAmerican residents who populated the area during the early part of the 20th century, San Juan
Hill was nonetheless a thriving community whose residents made significant contributions to
jazz and ragtime music.4 However, in spite of reports about “white flight” out of the city during
the 1950s, in 1957 only 4% of the area’s population was black, 13% was Puerto Rican and 73%
was white, largely due to the Irish population which had inhabited the area since the 1870s and
the black exodus up to Harlem which had occurred by 1917.5 By the time of Moses’ proposal in
April 1955, the largely working-class area contained an assortment of buildings, including stores,
institutional buildings, warehouses, 19th-century and model tenements, rooming houses,
rowhouses and middle-class apartment houses. Before World War II, a group of buildings
directly adjacent to the proposed Lincoln Square urban renewal area had been targeted for
demolition, resulting in the construction of the Amsterdam Houses in 1947, an affordable
housing project consisting of thirteen apartment buildings. Although the Amsterdam Houses
represented one of Robert Moses’ more typical schemes for urban renewal, his plans for Lincoln
Square were unprecedented in the realm of government-subsidized redevelopment.
27
From the outset of the project, Robert Moses had been intent on attracting established
institutions and businesses to his Lincoln Square plan to revitalize a “dismal and decayed West
Side.”6 In addition to the middle-income rental apartments conceived in his original plan, Moses
envisioned a hotel skyscraper, a ten-story office building for the fashion industry, a new
headquarters for the Engineering Society, a branch of the Fordham University campus and an
opera house for the Metropolitan Opera. In May 1956, one year after the City’s Board of
Estimate had officially designated the Lincoln Square site as an urban renewal area, Moses new
plan included the construction of 4,120 apartment units, shops, an office building, five
commercial theaters, a branch of Fordham University and a “music and arts center.”7 Although
the success of Moses’ project relied more heavily on the inclusion of Fordham University than it
did on the Metropolitan Opera, it was the opera association’s participation which provided the
foundation for creating America’s first comprehensive performing arts center.
Metropolitan Opera Association
Since 1918, the board of the Metropolitan Opera Company had expressed interest in
building a better facility to replace its existing one at 39th Street and Broadway.8 Citing a host of
problems that included poor sight lines, inadequate public and backstage areas, and severely
limited stage machinery and rehearsal halls, the company’s board initiated a campaign to either
rebuild on its current site or relocate to an entirely new one. Between 1922 and 1951, design
proposals placed the new opera house in a variety of locations that included its existing block;
between West 57th and 59th Streets, and 6th and 7th Avenues; within Rockefeller Center; at Park
Avenue between 52nd and 53rd Streets; on Washington Square South; within Central Park; and at
Columbus Circle. While all of these proposals and their locations had their advantages, the
Metropolitan’s board had rejected them, finding them either too limiting, cost prohibitive, or, as
in the case of the Depression-era Rockefeller Center, ill-timed.9
28
By 1949, the Metropolitan Association had devised two committees to determine how it
should proceed with obtaining a better facility. One committee favored rehabilitation of the
existing 1883 building while the other committee favored new construction. One of the
members of the New House Committee was Wallace K. Harrison, a distinguished planner and
architect who had not only contributed previous designs for an opera house through his work at
Rockefeller Center, but was also serving as director of planning for the United Nations
Headquarters. In his capacity as committee member, Harrison was asked to submit his own
ideas for a potential site and design.
In 1951, Robert Moses invited the organization to return to the Columbus Circle
proposal, which, like several of the opera house design proposals, had previously placed the
theater within the context of a municipal arts complex. However, by the time the Metropolitan’s
board had pledged its money to acquire the site in 1954, Moses withdrew his offer on the
grounds of the Metropolitan’s “failure to meet the urban renewal law at that time.”10 While this
rejection diminished the opera association’s enthusiasm for government-sponsored projects, it
did not deter Robert Moses from pursuing the company’s constituency for Lincoln Square one
year later.
Having known Wallace K. Harrison for years as well as the architect’s passion for a new
opera house, Moses proposed his new idea to him. Harrison subsequently gave an enthusiastic
endorsement of the idea to Charles M. Spofford, Chairman of the Metropolitan’s Executive
Committee, who then brought it to the Metropolitan board’s attention. After contemplating the
benefits of an entirely new state-of-the-art facility, the huge cost savings inherent in land
acquisition through government subsidy, and the knowledge that their inclusion had already been
pre-approved by the Board of Estimate, the opera association announced its intention to join the
project on October 17, 1955.11
29
Philharmonic-Symphony Society
Once negotiations were under way between the Metropolitan Opera Association and
Moses, another dialogue was initiated which dramatically altered the direction of the project. In
early 1955, the Philharmonic-Symphony Society learned that its lease on Carnegie Hall, home to
the New York Philharmonic since 1891, would not be renewed once it had expired in 1959.12
Furthermore, because the owners of the concert hall had experienced an inadequate return on
their property, they had plans to demolish it and erect an office building in its place. In response,
the Philharmonic board immediately sought counsel to acquire an alternative site to construct a
new symphony hall.
Just as the Metropolitan Opera Association had consulted with Wallace K. Harrison early
on in its search for a better facility, the Philharmonic-Symphony Society’s director, Arthur A.
Houghton, Jr., now turned to the architect for possible site and design proposals. Given
Harrison’s long-term participation in devising a municipal arts complex involving the
Metropolitan Opera, perhaps it was not surprising that he recommended to Houghton that he
“think of putting the two halls together in some fashion...”13 Concurrently with Houghton and
Harrison’s meeting, the Metropolitan’s committee had also contemplated the idea of including a
concert hall for the Philharmonic, and had proposed the concept to Moses early in its
discussions. Ironically however, Moses rejected the idea outright, claiming it would stall the
Metropolitan’s project if it were to include another constituent. But later, after Harrison had
convinced him of the plan’s potential merits, Moses changed his mind and offered to not only
make space available in Lincoln Square to the Philharmonic, but also to other arts-related
activities.
30
A Performing Arts Center
As discussions between the Metropolitan and Philharmonic began regarding the
formation of a music and arts center, the two organizations agreed that they should be united in
their capital campaign. In addition, since a venture of this magnitude would benefit considerably
from a civic leader who was both well-connected and experienced in fund-raising, they appealed
to John D. Rockefeller, III to help them in their pursuit. John D. Rockefeller, III had come from
two generations of philanthropists.14 His grandfather, John D. Rockefeller, founder of the
Standard Oil Company, had created such philanthropic institutions as the Rockefeller
Foundation, the General Education Board and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.
His father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. had been deeply committed to social reform, which was
manifested in his creation of affordable housing and public parks, and allocation of open space.
He also donated the parcel of land to the United Nations in 1946 which resulted in the
establishment of the United Nations Headquarters on the site.
Within a year after graduating from Princeton in 1929, John D. Rockefeller, III worked
for his father, serving on more than thirty foundation and non-profit organization boards—in
addition to assisting him in the development of the for-profit Rockefeller Center. By the early
1950s, his humanitarian work had become more globally oriented as he became a prime
consultant to the State Department on Japanese affairs, and established councils on population
growth and economic development, significantly advancing research in those fields. Although
he had had no connection with arts organizations in the past, he became an ardent proponent,
maintaining that the arts could “contribute to the health and happiness of people” and for that
reason, should be made “broadly available.”15 A prelude to this commitment occurred in the
planning of Rockefeller Center in 1930, when the family proposed the Metropolitan Opera
House as a component of its civic center master plan. Once Rockefeller had made a promise to
31
assist the Metropolitan Opera and Philharmonic Society in their joint endeavor, an exploratory
committee was formed to define both the center’s mission and potential constituency.
Comprised of Rockefeller, Harrison and leaders from the two cultural institutions, the
committee began meeting in the fall of 1955 to discuss what sort of other activities might foster a
greater appreciation of the arts both within the city and within the country at large.16
Surprisingly, in spite of American’s unabashed preoccupation with television, these and other
discussions about a performing arts center were wholly consistent with the emerging attitudes
toward arts patronage in America.17 In fact, although the Kennedys have been renowned for
bringing national attention to the arts in the early 1960s, it was actually the Eisenhower
administration that had championed their inclusion in the national agenda as early as 1954.18
In a U.S. News & World Report article dated January 28, 1955, it was reported that
President Eisenhower was proposing that Congress establish a Federal Advisory Commission on
the Fine Arts.19 As Cold War politics prevailed over cultural interests, the President pushed his
arts initiatives before Congress. Primarily concerned with the lack of visual and performing arts
being exported overseas in contrast to Russia’s profusion of subsidized artistic exports, the
president had already succeeded in getting Congress to appropriate 2.5 million dollars for this
purpose the previous summer.20 Furthermore, Eisenhower’s advisory commission was to be
responsible for recognizing significant American artists; recommending subsidies for orchestras,
opera companies, art schools and galleries; awarding scholarships to artists, writers and liberal
arts students; and, most notably, establishing a national cultural center in Washington, D.C. The
latter was to be comprised of “an opera house or theater, a presidential inaugural auditorium, an
art gallery and studios for the study and teaching of art.”21 This, of course, this was the impetus
for what became the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
By the mid-1950s, Cold War competition and postwar affluence began to significantly
influence the way in which Americans viewed the arts. As various articles of the time noted
32
America’s cultural inferiority in contrast to its European counterparts, these same articles also
touted the nation’s “clamor for culture” by reporting on Americans’ unprecedented obsession
with the classics in music, theater, art and literature.22 Much of this newfound enthusiasm could
be attributed to the swelling population, accessibility of higher education and unprecedented
leisure time. By 1958, the population had surged to 172.8 million from 122.8 million in 1930,
with college students numbering approximately 3 million. Furthermore, the average work week,
which had formerly been 50 hours a week in 1929, had been reduced to 39 hours a week, while
the average American’s income had tripled.23 Rockefeller’s exploratory committee, although not
isolated in its discussions about creating a performing arts center of national significance, was
nevertheless the first to put words into action.
Several months later at its December 13th meeting, the committee had expanded its name,
membership and goals. Calling itself “The Exploratory Committee for a Musical Arts Center,”
the group had invited other prominent members of the New York community into its circle such
as Devereux C. Josephs, a trustee of the New York Public Library and the Metropolitan Museum
of Art; Robert E. Blum, President of Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences; and Lincoln
Kirstein, General Director of New York City Ballet.24 Moreover, as decided by that meeting, the
agenda of the committee was “to determine the feasibility of a musical arts center in the City not
only for the opera and symphony but also for such activities as chamber music, ballet, light
opera, and spoken drama, and possible educational programs related thereto.”25 In addition to
the center’s proposed activities, the committee also suggested research on audience accessibility
into the cultural complex via mass transit and private automobile, and the adaptability of all the
performance spaces to radio and television.
As discussions progressed during the spring of 1956, one of the committee’s main
concerns was the relationship between the proposed center and its future inhabitants.26 Since
both the Metropolitan Opera and the Philharmonic-Symphony Society had distinguished
33
histories as independent institutions, the two organizations were adamantly opposed to
sacrificing their autonomy in favor of a controlling parent organization. Yet, they also realized
that there were potential economic and promotional benefits inherent in forming an alliance.
Consequently, they agreed to preserve their independence by limiting the parent organization’s
fiscal responsibility to building ownership, arts education and promotion, while assuming
individual responsibilities for their building’s maintenance and creative operations. On June 22,
1956 the Exploratory Committee established precedent by creating the first not-for-profit
organization that would not only serve as landlord to several of America’s oldest and most
internationally-renowned cultural institutions, but also “encourage, sponsor, or facilitate
performances and exhibitions, commission the creation of new works, and voluntarily assist the
education of artists and students of these arts.”27 This would be done through the creation of
buildings for research, ballet and theater in addition to those constructed for opera and classical
music. Since arts education was central to the center’s mission, the committee naturally sought
the inclusion of a reputable performing arts conservatory as a part of its constituency.
The Institute of Musical Art and The Juilliard School of Music
The Juilliard School at Lincoln Center was the product of an earlier merger between two
music conservatories: the Institute of Musical Art and the Juilliard School of Music.28 A
passionate advocate of music education, Frank Damrosch was the original impetus behind the
Institute of Musical Art. Having emigrated with his family from Germany to New York in 1871,
Damrosch then traveled to Denver where he supervised music education for the public school
system; a job he also undertook in New York after his return in 1885. 29 Among his many
activities in the City, he founded the People’s Choral Union, the Symphony Concerts for Young
People, and the People’s Singing Classes, as well as directed choirs for the Metropolitan Opera,
the Musical Art Society and the Oratorio Society. Citing a lack of formal musical education in
34
America, he approached Andrew Carnegie in 1901 about funding a school that would provide
undergraduate-level training for students of music to rival the great conservatories of Europe, as
well as offer adult classes for amateurs. Although Carnegie rejected the idea, Damrosch later
met James Loeb, a wealthy banking scion with similar interests, and convinced him to fund his
conservatory venture.30
In 1904, the Institute of Musical Art was chartered as a music school that would not
discriminate on the basis of gender or ethnicity.31 Having succeeded in attracting an impressive
faculty from Europe, Damrosch opened the institute the following year in a Gothic Revival
mansion at Fifth Avenue and 12th Street—leased to the academy rent-free by Thomas Fortune
Ryan.32 The popularity of the conservatory was immediate, and enrollment soared from 281
students in 1905 to 467 in 1906.33 However, in 1909 Ryan informed Damrosch that his mansion
would not be available to the institute by 1910, and the latter began a search for land to build a
new facility. Upon the recommendation of one of the institute’s trustees, its board and president
agreed on a lot that was located in Morningside Heights, on the northeast parcel of West 122nd
Street and Claremont Avenue. Damrosch then obtained permission from Loeb for site
acquisition, and subsequently submitted design proposals from three architects to the backer.34
Loeb’s choice for the project was Donn Barber, an architect who had trained at Columbia
University and at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Having designed a host of significant institutional,
residential and civic buildings, Barber was also editor of The New York Architect and belonged
to several design organizations.35 Completed by the fall of 1910, Barber’s design for the
Institute for Musical Art was a four-story Beaux-Arts building that was clad in limestone,
crowned by a mansard roof and primarily ornamented with lyre motifs. Inside, the facility
featured practice rooms and classrooms, as well as a 400-seat auditorium. Over the next nine
years, as enrollment continued to increase, Damrosch asked the board of trustees for help in
acquiring land adjacent to the building to construct an addition. With funding from the Loeb
35
family firmly in place by 1924, Damrosch commissioned Barber to build an annex to the original
building that included a rehearsal room, studios, classrooms and administrative offices.36
As the Institute for Musical Art flourished uptown, another school with a similar mission
was being created in Manhattan’s Mid-town. In 1919, a wealthy textile merchant and financier
named August D. Juilliard left a bequest of twenty million dollars to be used for the
advancement of music education through instruction and performance in the United States.37
The result of this bequest was the formation of the Juilliard Music Foundation in 1920, which
subsequently led to the establishment of a tuition-free graduate school of music four years later,
located in the old Vanderbilt family guest house at 49 East 52nd Street. In 1926, after Damrosch
had rejected a previous offer to merge his institute with the Juilliard Graduate School, his board
of trustees accepted. However, even though the merger meant one president and one board of
trustees for the two institutions, each institution remained separate, retaining its own dean.
Furthermore, although the Juilliard Graduate School was supposed to join the institute at its
Morningside Heights facility, a lack of space delayed this move.38
Consequently, between 1927 and 1929 the Juilliard Music Foundation began acquiring
apartments along Broadway and Claremont Avenues for demolition in order to expand the
institute’s facility. Although the foundation had commissioned architect, Arthur Harmon, during
the summer of 1929 to create the additions, the project faced numerous delays as a result of
tenants who would not vacate the adjacent buildings.39 Once complete, Harmon’s design
eliminated the original building’s mansard roof, demolished the 1924 annex and, in its place,
created a four-story pavilion on Broadway that was similar to the original one. This building
was bridged by a three-story wing on West 122nd Street, and substantially augmented by a seven
story building on Claremont Avenue. In 1931, although still two separate entities, the Juilliard
Graduate School moved into the institute’s twin pavilion.
36
William Schuman’s appointment as the institutions’ president in 1945 led to several
significant changes in the schools’ organizational structure and curriculum. 40 Shortly after his
appointment, Schuman merged the Institute for Musical Art and the Juilliard Graduate School
into one entity which became the Juilliard School of Music. In addition, Schuman implemented
his innovative Literature and Materials of Music curriculum which revolutionized the way in
which music was taught in the United States.41 During his fifteen-year-tenure he also established
the Juilliard String Quartet and the Dance Division, which was the first program ever “to
combine equal dance instruction in both modern and ballet techniques.”42 Among the faculty
connected with the Institute in the early years were violinist Franz Kneisel and flutist Georges
Barrère, while later additions to the Juilliard School of Music included now legendary
choreographers Martha Graham and Agnes DeMille.
Although William Schuman himself endorsed Juilliard’s association with Lincoln Center
as its educational unit—and had even campaigned on behalf of the center during its initial
presentation to the Planning Commission—he and Rockefeller’s Exploratory Committee had to
convince the school’s board of directors of the center’s potential benefits.43 Some of the
Exploratory Committee’s more radical proposals for the school included expansion and
refinement of the conservatory’s educational mission and student body. Instead of concentrating
solely on music and dance, the committee wanted the institution to add drama to its curriculum.
In addition, the committee urged the elimination of one student body altogether: its preparatory
division.44 Since 1916, the school had offered training to primary- and secondary- level students,
which over the years had grown significantly.45 While the Juilliard board was willing to accept
the idea of expanding its curriculum, it was not in favor of eliminating a sizable component of its
student body.
Hence, on February 1, 1957, the Juilliard School of Music accepted the committee’s
proposal to expand its curriculum while retaining its preparatory division, and therein became
37
Lincoln Center’s third constituent.46 Shortly thereafter, on March 11, 1957, Rockefeller’s
committee invited the New York Public Library to become a constituent of the center, noting that
“to be a true cultural center for the performing arts,” it was necessary to “embrace the trilogy of
education, creative scholarship, and performance.”47 As Rockefeller and his committee spent the
next several years enlisting other constituents to fulfill the center’s comprehensive mission, other
discussions centered on the design of the actual campus.
The Advisory Committee
Wallace K. Harrison’s thirty-year history with the Metropolitan Opera, as well as his
involvement with Rockefeller Center and the planning and design of the United Nations
Headquarters, made him a natural choice as coordinating architect for Lincoln Center. Born in
Worchester, Massachusetts in 1895, Harrison moved to New York City at the age of 20 and
worked as a draftsman for the prestigious architectural firm of McKim, Mead & White.48 In
addition, he studied under Harvey Wiley Corbett and subsequently went to Paris to train in the
atelier of Colonel Gustave Umbdenstock. During his time in Paris he also studied at the Ecole
des Beaux-Arts and was awarded the Rotch Traveling Scholarship, enabling him to travel
throughout Europe and the Middle East and to spend a year at the American Academy in Rome.
Returning to New York in 1922, he was hired by the notable firm of Bertram Goodhue
and became one of its top designers. His distinguished work with Goodhue and previous
association with Corbett led to his tenure as junior partner with the latter between 1927 and
1934. Builders Todd, Robertson & Todd selected Corbett, Harrison & MacMurray to be one of
the three firms to design Rockefeller Center in 1929, along with Reinhard & Hofmeister, and
Raymond Hood, Godley & Fouilhoux. Thus, Harrison became one of the seven principal
architects on the landmark complex. In the mid 1930s, Harrison went into partnership with
André Fouilhoux and hired Max Abramovitz on staff. Together, they worked on such diverse
38
projects as the Rockefeller Apartments (1936), Hunter College (1938-41), and the African Plains
of the Bronx Zoo (1941). In 1941, Abramovitz became a partner with Harrison and Fouilhoux,
and the trio subsequently designed the Clinton Hill Apartments (1943). During this period,
Harrison also served as deputy under Nelson Rockefeller in the Office of the Coordinator of
Inter-American Affairs. After Fouilhoux’s death in 1945, Harrison and Abramovitz’s work
focused mainly on corporate buildings such as the Carnegie Endowment International Center at
the United Nations Plaza (1953), an addition to the U.S. Rubber Company at Rockefeller Center
(1954-55), the Socony Mobil Building on the southeast corner of Lexington and East 42nd Street
(1955), the C.I.T. Financial Building on the west side of Madison Avenue between East 59th and
East 60th Streets (1957/reclad 1987) and the Corning Glass Center and Administrative Building
on the southeast corner of East 56th Street and Fifth Avenue (1959). Outside New York,
Harrison and his team designed several other major office high-rises including Pittsburgh’s
Mellon National Bank and landmark Alcoa Building, as well as Dallas’ Republic National
Bank—at the time the tallest skyscraper ever built in the Southwestern United States.
Although Harrison was not the lead architect of Rockefeller Center, he did earn a
reputation as “a level-headed conciliator and skillful persuader” which inevitably lead to his
appointment as director of planning for the United Nations by Secretary General Trygve Lie. 49
Supervising an internationally-renowned team of planners and designers such as the French Le
Corbusier, the Swedish Sven Markelius, the Brazilian Oscar Niemeyer and representatives from
ten other countries, Harrison’s “conciliatory” skills were severely tested during this collaborative
period between 1947 and 1953. Consequently, when Rockefeller asked him to assume a similar
role in the planning and design of Lincoln Center, Harrison was reluctant and agreed only on the
basis that the final design team would be selected from an advisory committee which he would
assemble.50
39
Harrison’s advisory committee once again consisted of a leading group of international
architects and planners with whom he had either collaborated or had been influenced. This
distinguished group included Sven Markelius, Alvar Aalto, Pietro Belluschi, Marcel Breuer,
Philip Johnson and Henry R. Shepley. Sven Markelius, as already noted, had worked with
Harrison on the United Nations campus in his capacity as an expert planner, and was a renowned
architect in Sweden. Hailed as “the first Swedish architect to design in the international style of
the 1930s,” Markelius’ notable achievements included the Concert Hall at Helsingborg (1932);
the Swedish Pavilion for the New York World’s Fair (1939); planning of the modern city within
Stockholm (1944-54); the Syndicate Headquarters Building in Stockholm (1952); and many
modern housing and institutional projects, and entertainment facilities throughout his native
country and Canada.51 Alvar Aalto, largely regarded as Finland’s greatest architect, began his
career working in a classical idiom, while later incorporating ideas from Le Corbusier and the
Bauhaus movement to introduce a modern style that was highly functional and thoroughly
distinctive. Aalto had already won acclaim for his Finnish Pavilions at both the Paris (1937) and
New York (1939) World’s Fairs, and for his non-traditional dormitory building at MIT (1949).52
Pietro Belluschi, Dean of MIT’s Architecture School, had been lauded for his Equitable
Building in Portland, Oregon, (1945-48) which had been one of the inspirations for the glass wall
of the United Nation’s Secretariat.53 Marcel Breuer, a Hungarian-born architect, had made major
contributions in bringing the International-Style movement to America with his distinctive works
which combined Bauhaus ideology with sculptural detailing. His collaborative partnership with
Walter Gropius, founder of the Bauhaus movement, had significantly altered the movement’s
direction from an arts and crafts to an arts and technology style. Moreover, his collaboration
with Pier Luigi Nervi on the Paris headquarters of UNESCO (1952) had brought his work
worldwide attention as an ideal of European modernism.54
40
Philip Cortelyou Johnson, at that time, perhaps America’s greatest champion of the
modern movement in architecture, distinguished himself as an historian and theoretician before
becoming a designer. Born in Cleveland in 1906, Johnson later attended Harvard, where he
majored in Greek and philosophy.55 In 1932, he joined the Museum of Modern Art where he
founded the Department of Architecture. As the department’s director, he collaborated with
architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock on an exceptionally influential book and
exhibition entitled International Style: Architecture Since 1922 (1932), which gave name,
credence and understanding of European Modernism to American audiences.
In 1940, Johnson returned to Harvard to earn his architecture degree. At the university he
studied under Walter Gropius, and upon graduating in 1943, enlisted as a private in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. At the war’s conclusion, he returned to the Museum of Modern Art,
where he worked between 1945 and 1954, and wrote the definitive biography of Mies van der
Rohe (1947). By 1949, Johnson was considered one of America’s rising architects as evidenced
by his pure and elegant Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut. Like this famed work, his
subsequent projects also incorporated modernist principles of symmetry, openness and spare yet
expansive interiors, wrought with modern materials. Said Johnson of his work, “I call myself a
traditionalist, although I have fought against tradition all my life. The thing is to improve it,
twist it and mold it; to make something new of it; not to deny it.”56 In 1953, Johnson opened his
own firm and during the 1950s produced such innovative works as the Museum of Modern Art
Guest House (1950); an addition to the Museum of Modern Art (1951); and, in collaboration
with Mies van der Rohe, the Seagram Building (1958). In addition to designing the interiors of
Mies’ landmark tower, Johnson also created its Four Season’s Restaurant (1959). In 1956, Time
magazine named the architect, along with Harrison and Breuer, in its list of “20th Century Form
Givers,” thereby acknowledging their ongoing contributions to the modern architecture
movement.57
41
Contrasted with Johnson and the other modern architects of the group, Henry R. Shepley
had been Harrison’s former mentor at the Boston Architectural Club and was considered the
most stylistically conventional of the coordinator’s advisory team. In addition, other members of
Harrison’s committee included architects and engineers who had extensive backgrounds in
theater design. These specialists included theater architect, Walther Unruh, who had just
designed several new German opera houses; the English architect and acoustician, Hugh
Bagenal, famed for his acoustical design of London Festival Hall; acoustical engineers, Richard
Bolt and Richard Newman; George C. Izenouer, a lighting and stage mechanics specialist; and
Herbert Graf, a New York stage director.58
Beginning in October 1956 the advisory committee met to discuss the overall plan of the
center with regard to its intended location between West 62nd and 65th Streets, bordered by
Columbus Avenue and Broadway to the east, and Amsterdam Avenue to the west.59 Early on in
the planning stage, Robert Moses had mandated the inclusion of a park within the center which
would not only provide open space to the public, but also an outdoor setting for free concerts.
Although members of the advisory committee had conflicting ideas about the center’s axis,
building orientation and configuration, Moses’ chosen location for the park in the campus’
southwest corner became a non-negotiable issue.60 Furthermore, since the plaza areas and
underground parking facilities were to be subsidized by the federal and local government, it was
Moses who was to be the authority entrusted with their administration. For, in addition to Mayor
Robert F. Wagner’s appointment of Robert Moses as Chairman of the city’s Slum Clearance
Committee, Moses had also been appointed Parks Commissioner, Construction Coordinator, and
served on the city’s Planning Commission. Throughout late 1956 and 1957, he assigned
Harrison and Abramovitz to do the planning and design of both the above-ground plazas and
underground parking network.61
42
In retrospect, of all the plans for Lincoln Center, Sven Markelius’ initial plan was the
most prescient. Although the planner advocated a north-south axis with an entrance on the
northern block that was eventually rejected, his u-shaped configuration of three-buildings with a
central plaza entrance arising from Columbus Avenue became the basis for the southern half of
the center. In fact, this same axial configuration had previously been used in the Swedish
cultural center, Götaplatsen, in Göteborg (1925-39). In 1939, Markelius had contributed the
design of Götaplatsen’s concert hall. Supporting Markelius’ idea, some members of Harrison’s
committee—including Harrison himself—had favored a plan modeled on Venice’s Piazza San
Marco, but were split as to whether or not it should be open to the surrounding area. In the
spring of 1958, after Moses’ Slum Clearance Committee granted the Lincoln Center board an
additional block between West 65th and 66th Streets, the advisory committee was able to alleviate
the problem of crowding in the northern portion by reassigning the Juilliard School building to
the northern perimeter. After Harrison & Abramovitz had made numerous modifications to their
previous proposals to preserve Moses’ park site, including the incorporation of Markelius’
elevated plaza; placing the museum-library and repertory theater on the northwestern quadrant of
the 65th Street area and utilizing the northernmost land for the Juilliard School; the Board of
Lincoln Center gave their approval. With the fourteen-acre allotment of land and general
footprints for the buildings and plazas confirmed, the selection of architects for the individual
buildings was imminent.
The Architects
Although the constituents for Lincoln Center thus far only included the Metropolitan
Opera Association, the Philharmonic-Symphony Society and the Juilliard School, this did not
deter the board from moving forward with its plans for a ballet theater, library-museum and
theater for spoken drama within the complex, in accordance with the Center’s previously-stated
43
mission. Early on, Harrison’s participation as coordinating architect and his long history with
the Metropolitan Opera had guaranteed his selection as that organization’s architect. 62 In
addition, the board valued his recommendations for the other buildings, and had approved his
business partner, Max Abramovitz, as the architect of the proposed concert space to be named
Philharmonic Hall. Given the board’s overall desire to promote America’s role in the
international cultural arena, it inevitably favored American-based architects for its commissions
which immediately ruled out Markelius and Aalto. Committee discussions had also revealed
Breuer’s rigidity as a team player and Shepley’s conservatism, thus eliminating them as well
from the potential list.63
Even though it would be seven more years before the City Center of Music and Drama
would commit to the proposed ballet-opera house, the board affirmed both Lincoln Kirstein and
George Balanchine’s choice of Philip Johnson as that theater’s architect.64 In addition to
Abramovitz, Harrison also recommended Pietro Belluschi for the design of the Juilliard School,
Eero Saarinen for the drama theater and Gordon Bunshaft for the library-museum. Both
Saarinen and Bunshaft had already earned critical acclaim for their work in Modern corporate
design. Pioneering the creation of the modern suburban office park, Saarinen had been the
mastermind behind the colossal General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Michigan (1950)
while Bunshaft, a partner in the corporate architectural giant of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill,
had just completed the headquarters of Connecticut General Life Insurance in Hartford,
Connecticut (1957). Moreover, Bunshaft’s Lever House (1952) had been a signal event in
introducing the European International Style concept of the modern glass-and-steel office
building to corporate America. Taken together, this entire ensemble of architects represented the
most distinctive group of American-based, postwar, modern architects to have ever collaborated
on a single project.
44
Once the actual architects had been approved, the advisory committee was disbanded and
the creative team of Harrison, Abramovitz, Johnson, Belluschi, Saarinen and Bunshaft took its
place. Since there was no constituent for the repertory theater as of yet, a Committee on Drama
had been established early on in the center’s planning to explore its options. Robert Whitehead,
a spokesman for the American National Theater & Academy and a successful Broadway
producer, was instrumental in ensuring a dramatic component to the performing arts complex as
he assumed a consultant role in what later became an Advisory Council on Drama for the center.
He also urged Eero Saarinen to collaborate with noted stage designer, Jo Mielziner, when
Saarinen was looking for someone proficient in theater design to aid him in his work. Mielziner,
who was perhaps best known as Broadway’s most prolific and successful set and lighting
designer, had also distinguished himself with the design of backdrops and lighting for the first
official United Nations meeting in San Francisco (1945), designing setting and lighting for the
Vatican Pavilion at the New York World’s Fair (1964), and devising a portable stage for the East
Room of the White House (1965). Regarding his work in theater design, Mielziner designed the
interior of the ANTA-Washington Square Theater in New York City (1964), was a consultant on
the Loretto-Hilton Theater in Webster Groves, Missouri (1965) and also on Abramovitz’s
Krannert Center for the Performing Arts (1969), and Welton Becket & Associates’ Mark Taper
Forum at the Music Center Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County (1967).
The board also sought an additional voice to guide them in their creative decisions.
Concerned about the board’s lack of proficiency in judging design proposals, Rockefeller had
proposed a sub-committee to guide them in this process. However, several members resisted this
idea and instead proposed a single individual, who was neither affiliated with them nor the
architects, to be the board’s advisor and liaison with the architectural team. For this job, they
chose René d’Harnoncourt, director of the Museum of Modern Art, who already commanded
both the respect of the board members and the architects.65
45
As disagreements regarding the exact placement of the museum-library and the repertory
theater persisted among the architects, Rockefeller presented a broader issue which required a
design consensus before the start of construction. Realizing the public attraction inherent in
creating a cohesive urban complex like Rockefeller Center, the philanthropist had similar designs
for Lincoln Center. Furthermore, he reasoned, as constituents of an umbrella organization
galvanized to promote the role of the arts in New York, the nation and the world, the new
complex should have certain identifiable architectural qualities which would reflect this unity.
As the committee was wrestling with these additional issues, it finally agreed on a site plan
which the Lincoln Center board approved in May 1959. This plan, though still not definitive, did
enable the board to more forward with its ground-breaking plans.
Several months later, in August 1959, the architects made specific choices concerning the
uniformity of the entire campus and more specifically, the scale, massing and promenade levels
of the three buildings on the southern plaza. As the focal point of this area, the opera house
would have more flexibility in its overall design than the two theaters flanking it, which would
be uniform in terms of their scale and massing. All three buildings would have promenade levels
of identical heights to give cohesion to the entire plaza ensemble. In addition, the entire
conglomeration of buildings would be elevated from street level, with a pedestrian bridge over
West 65th Street linking the Juilliard School with the northern plaza.
With regard to exterior building materials, the designers contemplated a variety of stones
including marble, granite and quartz. However, they eventually concurred with Belluschi’s
recommendation of Roman travertine, with its gleaming white-beige layerings, its rich history as
a building material in ancient Rome and, in the words of Johnson, its ability to “grow old more
beautifully.”66 The travertine that was to be used at Lincoln Center was to be quarried from
Bagni di Tivoli, where ancient builders obtained marble for the Colosseum in Rome. However,
this decision was later fraught with complications as the cost of the material was significantly
46
higher than planned, and America’s Limestone Institute objected to the use of imported materials
on federally-funded projects. The dispute was later resolved by having American stonecutters
prepare the stone after it had been imported at a cost overrun of twenty-five percent.67 The other
principle material for the center’s buildings would be glass, which Harrison, Abramovitz and
Johnson endorsed for its visual accessibility both for the buildings’ patrons and onlookers. This
choice, which embodied a modern aesthetic, was also embraced by the entire design team and
particularly by Arthur A. Houghton, Jr., Chairman of the Philharmonic-Symphony Society and
Chief of Corning Glass Works.68
Combined, these distinctive qualities reflected the experimental nature of the center’s
aesthetic which, over time, inspired many different critical reactions. Harold C. Schonberg’s
preliminary assessment in The New York Times noted that, “They are coming up with buildings
that will be monumental without being old-fashioned, buildings that will have clean lines,
graceful proportions and a minimum of nonfunctional decoration.”69 Described as “monumental
modern,” “applied modern”—and even “monumental temporary”—by various journalists and
critics, the complex’s architecture embodied the architects’ pursuit of a modern style that would
reflect Lincoln Center’s aspirations of cultural prominence and timelessness.70 In fact, when
Philip Johnson was asked about creative differences among the design team regarding style, he
responded frankly:
The six of us may have different ideas but we’re united. After all,
we’re on the same side of the fence. We have come up through the
modern movement together, and we’re looking away from the
Puritanism of the International Style toward enriched forms. I
would say that we have extraordinary agreement on the direction
our plans will take.71
While Johnson correctly asserted that all the architects were veering away from an orthodox
International Style, in spite of the uniformity of materials that they chose, there was no leitmotif
to the overall complex. However, this lack of stylistic uniformity could not negate the fact that
47
the architects of Lincoln Center were creating a completely new and revolutionary concept in
America: the centralized comprehensive yet customized performing arts center.
The Evolution of Performing Arts Centers in America
Lincoln Center was a forerunner in the creation of a comprehensive yet customized
performing arts center. Although the Brooklyn Academy of Music had offered diverse
programming encompassing opera, symphony and dance since its inception in 1861—thereby
validating its claim as “America’s oldest performing arts center”—like similar American cultural
centers which followed, the academy did not provide separate, customized facilities for each one
of these distinct types of performances.72 Furthermore, institutions that did have separate halls to
house more than one type of performance did not offer the full range of buildings that Lincoln
Center did; none had the aggregate history nor caliber of talent of the Lincoln Center
constituency; and none had promoted the idea of accelerated training through an onsite
conservatory and library-museum which would interact with these professional constituents.
In 1945, several women’s groups in the Milwaukee area, led by a former music and
drama critic, proposed a World War II memorial to “honor the dead by serving the living” in the
form of a cultural center that would “symbolize some of the finer aspects of the things for which
our men were fighting.”73 Enlisting an umbrella civic organization to aid them in their quest,
together they formed a non-profit alliance in July 1945 called the Metropolitan War Memorial,
Inc. Intent on creating a series of auditoriums that would house “art, music, drama, public
discussion and social assembly,” the organization commissioned David S. Geer of the notable
firm of Saarinen and Swanson to create a master plan.74 Geer’s preliminary design entailed a
1200-seat Veterans Memorial Hall, a 3500-seat concert hall, and 1500- and 500- seat theaters.
However, the Milwaukee complex was plagued with delays, owing primarily to disagreements
regarding its location. Finally, in January 1953, a site at the Lincoln Memorial Bridge was
48
chosen, and architect Eero Saarinen was assigned to the job that both Geer and Eero’s father,
Eliel, had previously worked on. In July 1957, two years after construction had begun, the
assembly hall, known as the Milwaukee County War Memorial, and its adjacent plaza opened.
Several months later, in September 1957, the center’s art museum opened with a
dedication ceremony presided over by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1963, architect
Harry Weese unveiled his design for a self-contained performing arts center in accordance with
Geer’s original war memorial plan, containing one large multi-use auditorium, two mid-sized
theaters and an outdoor pavilion. In September 1969, the campus, consisting of a black granite
plaza and flame, the Milwaukee County War Memorial and the self-contained Milwaukee
Performing Arts Center, was complete. Planned just as World War II was ending, this complex
was the first postwar performing arts center.75
With regard to establishing a national cultural center, in spite of President Eisenhower’s
intent to do so in 1955, it was not until 1958 that a National Cultural Center Act was passed, a
site was picked and an architect was chosen.76 Yet, in spite of this progress, the federallyinitiated, public-privately project still lacked the necessary capital to get built. After President
Kennedy’s death in 1963, the center was subsequently renamed in his honor and congress
appropriated $15.5 million in matching funds for a $15.4 million treasury loan.77 After
numerous political battles, construction finally began in 1967 and the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts was completed in September 1971, two years after Lincoln Center.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, Dorothy Chandler, wife of the Times-Mirror magnate, began
an ardent campaign of her own in 1955 to enable Los Angeles “to fulfill its destiny as one of the
great cultural capitals for the world” by building its own performing arts center.78 Originally
conceived as a single, multi-purpose civic auditorium, the Music Center Performing Arts Center
of Los Angeles County grew to become three theaters within a plaza setting atop the city’s
Bunker Hill. Designed by architect, Welton Becket & Associates, in association with landscape
49
architects, Cornell Bridgers and Troller, the center entailed the construction of a 3,250-seat
theater-concert hall, known as the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, and its adjacent plaza (1964); the
750-seat Mark Taper Forum (1967) and the 2,100-seat Ahmanson Theater (1967).79 Costing a
total of $33.5 million upon completion, the performing arts center was and continues to be
owned by the County of Los Angeles.80
While the Milwaukee Performing Arts Center, Los Angeles Music Center and Lincoln
Center had similar missions, New York’s comprehensive version was built on a scale much
greater than its Wisconsin and California counterparts, and exerted much more influence in the
design and planning of subsequent performing arts centers across the country. In fact, by the
beginning of 1965, it was estimated that nearly 70 cultural centers were being planned or built
across the country on a lesser scale, using the concept of Lincoln Center as their model.81
However, like the term “performing arts center,” “cultural center” was also a term that was used
broadly. Although some consisted of combinations of exhibition and performance spaces, many
of these complexes had no performing arts component to them at all, such as Le Corbusier’s
Visual Arts Center at Harvard University (1962); or additions to existing art museums, such as
Mies van der Rohe’s Cullinan Hall (1958) and later, Brown Pavilion (1974), at the Houston
Museum of Fine Arts; and William L. Pereira & Associates’ three pavilions for the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art (1965).
Others, devoted primarily to the performing arts, consisted of outdoor pavilions; single,
multi-use theaters; self-contained buildings housing more than one theater; or ensembles of
buildings following the model of Lincoln Center—all featuring state-of-the-art equipment and
technology. Saratoga Performing Arts Center in New York State (Robert L. Rotner, Vollmer
Ostrower Associates, 1966), Santa Fe Opera Pavilion in New Mexico (McHugh & Kidder, 1968)
and New Jersey’s Garden State Arts Center in Holmdel (Edward Durrell Stone, 1968) were all
examples of modern pavilions designed for multi-use during the postwar era. Some of the
50
single, multi-use theaters designed at the time included Ft. Lauderdale’s Parker Playhouse (John
Volk, 1967), Clowes Memorial Hall at Butler University in Indianapolis (1962) and Flint
College Cultural Center (Smith, Hinchman & Gryllis, 1969).
Other buildings and complexes, clearly based on Lincoln Center’s formalist model,
included the Los Angeles Music Center and Kennedy Center, as well as other complexes in the
south and northeast. The former Memorial Arts Center in Atlanta, renamed the Robert W.
Woodruff Arts Center (Toombs, Amisano and Wells in association with Stevens & Wilkinson,
1968), was an unusual combination of old and new that wrapped a colonnaded self-contained
concert hall, two theaters and an art library around an existing thirteen-year-old museum. The
municipally-owned Jesse H. Jones Hall for the Performing Arts in Houston (Caudill, Rowlett and
Scott, 1964) was clad in travertine, similar to the complexes in Milwaukee and New York, and
featured an asymmetrical plan set within a monumental 250-foot square columnar arcade. Called
“the most sophisticated building of its kind anywhere in the world,” this multi-functional
building was augmented four years later by its plaza neighbor, the Alley Theater, which housed
two theaters within an imposing concrete fortress (Ulrich Franzen, 1968).82 Nearly twenty years
later, the Wortham Center, with its 2,465-seat opera house and 1,100-seat theater completed the
municipal arts complex (Eugene Aubry, Morris Aubry Architects, 1987).
Among the postwar cultural centers being designed within college campuses, direct links
to Lincoln Center were more obvious. In the case of the Hopkins Center at Dartmouth College
in Hanover, New Hampshire (Wallace K. Harrison, Harrison & Abramovitz, 1962), Lincoln
Center’s coordinating architect not only designed it, but also introduced the Florentine arch motif
that would later reappear in his design for the Metropolitan Opera House. Avery Fisher Hall’s
architect, Max Abramovitz, was commissioned to design the Krannert Center at his alumnus, the
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (Max Abramovitz, 1969). To aid him in his design,
Abramovitz consulted with acoustician, Cyril M. Harris, who had previously worked on the
51
Metropolitan Opera House and did the 1975-1976 acoustical renovation of Philharmonic Hall.
Abramovitz’s design for the Krannert Center, though monumental in stature, was more
emblematic of International Style idioms in its approach.
Lincoln Center Ground-Breaking Ceremony
When ground-breaking for Lincoln Center occurred on May 14, 1959, it was, according
to The New York Times, “an historic moment.”83 Nationally broadcast via radio and television,
the ceremony drew an estimated 12,000 people to the future site of Lincoln Center, as Board
Chairman Rockefeller, Mayor Robert F. Wagner, Commissioner Moses, Lt. Governor Malcolm
Wilson, New York Philharmonic conductor Leonard Bernstein—and President Eisenhower gave
endorsements.84 Touting his regard for New York as “our greatest metropolitan center,” the
president praised the unprecedented scale of public-private partnership which had made the
center possible.85 He also voiced his support of Lincoln Center as a means of “expand[ing]
opportunities for acquiring a real community of interest through common contacts with the
performing arts.”86 However, his more penetrating message concerned postwar ideals of
promoting peace and democracy through cultural exchange as he announced:
The beneficial influence of this great cultural adventure will not be
limited to our borders. Here will occur a true interchange of the
fruits of national cultures. From this will develop a growth that will
spread to the corners of the earth, bringing with it the kind of
human message that only individuals, not governments, can
transmit. Here will develop a mighty influence for peace and
understanding throughout the world. And the attainment through
universal understanding of peace with justice is today, as always,
the noblest and most shining ideal toward which man can strive
and climb.87
Robert Moses, on the other hand, praised another aspect of the center’s significance, calling it
“the boldest and most complex urban slum-clearance project in America,” while stressing its
potential to make New York “the world center of the performing arts.”88 After President
Eisenhower spoke, he dug the first shovel full of earth to the music of Handel’s “Hallelujah
52
Chorus,” conducted by Leonard Bernstein, sung by the Juilliard chorus and played by the New
York Philharmonic, as construction crews started excavation work on Philharmonic Hall.
In the spring of 1959, the Lincoln Center board had appointed Colonel William F. Powers
to oversee the construction of Lincoln Center.89 A retired officer from the Army Corps of
Engineers, Powers had been a deputy under Major General Otto L. Nelson, Jr., who himself had
been hired to work on land acquisition and resident relocation for the center. Nelson had also
formed a joint venture between four general contractors, who had been hired to do the
construction. However, as Powers assumed his role as construction coordinator a year after
Nelson, he was surprised to see revised estimates for the project which were significantly more
than what had been originally submitted. Rockefeller then decided that someone should replace
him to act as a liaison between the architects and each organization’s building committee in
order to control cost escalations.
In January 1961, General Maxwell D. Taylor replaced Rockefeller as the president of
Lincoln Center, whereupon Rockefeller became the center’s board chairman. Four months later,
General Taylor was called to Washington by President Kennedy on special assignment following
the Bay of Pigs. In Taylor’s absence, construction problems increased, prompting the Lincoln
Center board asked Carl Morse, chairman of Morse-Diesel, one of the country’s foremost
construction companies, to take charge of the operation. Morse’s first order of business was to
dissolve the joint venture that Colonel Nelson had initiated. In addition, he bypassed the
building committees and architects, and reported all estimate revisions directly to the constituent
board. Although cost overruns were an inevitable part of the construction process, Morse had
been considered an effective coordinator for the job.
53
PHILHARMONIC HALL:
The New York Philharmonic
Although the Philharmonic-Symphony Society’s decision to re-locate to Lincoln Center
was instigated by the demolition of Carnegie Hall slated for 1959, the move uptown also held
substantial benefits for the organization. Founded in 1842, the Philharmonic, formerly known as
the “New York Philharmonic Society,” had never had a home of its own.90 Having played its
first concert in the Apollo Rooms at 410 Broadway, over the next forty years it played in a
succession of halls throughout the city, including the Chinese Building, Niblo’s Gardens,
Metropolitan Hall and the Broadway Tabernacle. After the Metropolitan Opera House opened in
1883, the orchestra began regular engagements there until Andrew Carnegie’s Music Hall
opened nearly a decade later. On November 18, 1892, the Philharmonic gave its first
performance at Carnegie Hall, even though it was never meant to be the hall’s resident orchestra.
Originally built to house the New York Symphony Society, founded in 1878 by Leopold
Damrosch, the Philharmonic and Symphony Society eventually merged in 1928. Adopting the
name of the Philharmonic-Symphony Society, the ensemble continued to play at Carnegie Hall
until it re-located to Lincoln Center’s Philharmonic Hall on September 23, 1962. Despite the
Philharmonic’s long and loyal association with Carnegie Hall, it never had any control over its
landlord’s decisions. In contrast, joining Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts not only
promised a state-of-the-art facility that was customized to meet its tenant’s needs, but also
control of its space through its constituency with the parent organization.
As the oldest symphony orchestra in the United States and one of the oldest in the world,
the New York Philharmonic has always championed the classical music of its day. In 1846,
when it performed at Castle Garden in Battery Park, it debuted Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony to
the American public. During its remarkable history, it has given world premieres of major works
54
by Tchaikovsky, Dvorák, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky and Gershwin, and U.S. premieres by
Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky and Mahler.91 Furthermore, as an ensemble
dedicated to the highest standards of performance, it had been led by some of the world’s
preeminent conductors such as Gustav Mahler, Arturo Toscanini, Bruno Walter, Leopold
Stokowski and Dimitri Mitropoulos.92
Philharmonic Hall
In 1956, months before Rockefeller’s exploratory committee was formed, three decisions
regarding the center’s architects had been made: Wallace K. Harrison would design the
Metropolitan Opera House, Max Abramovitz would design Philharmonic Hall and both men
would design the plaza areas and underground parking garage. As a partner in Harrison’s firm,
Abramovitz had been asked by the Philharmonic-Symphony Society to produce some
preliminary drawings for the new concert hall while Harrison was doing the same for the
Metropolitan Opera Association. Pleased with Abramovitz’s early ideas, the Society
commissioned him to do the job.
Max Abramovitz was born in Chicago in 1908 and, like Harrison, received a formal
education in architecture both within the United States and abroad.93 Having earned his
undergraduate architectural degree from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana in 1929,
he then studied and taught at Columbia University (1931-32), and attended the Ecole des BeauxArts on a Columbia fellowship between 1932 and 1934. Abramovitz joined Harrison’s firm in
1934, before becoming a partner in 1941, and the two were chosen to design the Trylon and
Perisphere theme buildings for the 1939/1940 Worlds Fair in New York City.
During World War II, Abramovitz built air fields in China for America’s Flying Tigers,
whereupon he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and was awarded the Legion of Merit. Upon
returning to New York after World War II, the architect assisted Harrison in his initial work on
55
the United Nations campus but was then recalled for duty to the Korean War in 1950. In
addition to his numerous corporate projects with Harrison in New York City, the two also
created the Alcoa Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1950-53). Between 1953 and 1967,
Abramovitz, replacing Eero Saarinen, formulated a new master plan and design for Brandeis
University, and was honored by the American Institute of Architects in 1953, 1956 and 1959.
A proponent of modern architecture, Max Abramovitz was never identified with a
signature style, though his work was often characterized by International Style dictums that
stressed function over ornament, and modern materials over traditional. Instead, the architect
moved “experimentally from one kind of solution to another,” responding to the demands of his
client’s needs.94 When asked about his vision for Philharmonic Hall, he said:
In most halls, people sit in an inside place, the auditorium, and
then, during intermissions, step out into another inside place. No
freedom. Too cramped, too enclosed. I want a large percentage of
open space in which the spirit can flourish.95
Furthermore, to complement this freedom of movement, he wanted his building to be a “pageant
for the whole community” in which people could look in and look out.96 After a succession of
designs that ranged from an enormous glass box sandwiched between a concrete foundation and
roof, to an arcade of travertine-covered, ladder like columns fronting a glass curtain wall,
Abramovitz finally chose a more refined, classically-inspired, temple-like form. Foregoing the
surrounding arcade of his previous design for a singular arcade on the southern plaza, he
proposed a modernistic peristyle of solid yet tapered columns, seventy feet in height, culminating
in slightly concave arcs over the promenade level. Adhering to the architects’ consensus on
exterior materials, these columns and their accompanying horizontal elements were faced in
travertine against a curtain wall of metal and glass. Similarly, Abramovitz and Johnson found a
viable building mass on which they could agree and, together with Harrison and the other
architects, established a uniform height for the buildings’ three promenades.
56
Inside, Abramovitz’s design features a low-ceilinged, open area on the ground-level to
house a restaurant that can be reconfigured in a variety of ways by movable partitions. A
stairway, two escalators and a bank of elevators enables patrons to ascend into the Grand Foyer,
a soaring space that measures 50 feet high, 25 feet wide and 180 feet long. Three balconies look
out over the Grand Foyer, surround the concert hall and terminate with mirrored walls on each of
the north sides, behind which the backstage areas are located. Regarding the concert hall’s
interior, Abramovitz modeled it after Hans Scharoun’s Philharmonic Concert Hall in Berlin
(1956-63), a daring design that eliminated the proscenium arch and placed portions of the
audience onstage with the musicians.97 Providing for a seating capacity of 2,646, the architect
chose deep blue walls and gold upholstery. Previously, when describing his work, he said, “I am
trying to find in architecture a rightness that transcends today, an architecture containing a
planned order, a rhythm, with an interrelationship of spaces that is vital.”98 In order to ensure a
vitality of sound, Abramovitz relied on the expertise of acousticians Richard Bolt, Dr. Leo
Beranek and Richard Newman, who, after extensive research, decided on 106 polygonal,
acoustical “clouds” suspended over the audience area to ensure symphonic clarity.
Art Within Philharmonic Hall
Another collaborative aspect of Abramovitz’s project concerned the use of art to
complement his architecture. Although Lincoln Center’s exploratory committee had considered
the inclusion of free-standing galleries for the sole purpose of exhibiting art, it quickly rejected
this idea on the basis that this type of activity was already “well accommodated in New York”
and would extend beyond the center’s prime focus on the performing arts.99 However, both the
Lincoln Center board and its architects agreed that art should be integrated into the overall
complex and its constituent spaces, while not making specific allocations in the capital budget. 100
In addition, the two committees decided that they would welcome specially-targeted funds for art
57
acquisitions or commissions from outside donors, and create a separate committee to monitor
these prospective gifts. In the spring of 1961, a Committee on Arts and Acquisitions was formed
under Frank Stanton, a Lincoln Center board member and president of CBS, in conjunction with
René d’Harnoncourt, and Andrew Ritchie from the Yale University Art Gallery.
Meanwhile, Max Abramovitz had been soliciting ideas from the Austrian lighting firm of
J. & L. Lobmeyer to create a chandelier that was “light and airy and graceful,” akin to “the great
chandeliers that were always used in buildings of this kind in Europe.”101 Technological
progress from candlelight to electric light had produced aesthetic advantages in terms of lighting
intensity and control, but Abramovitz believed that Lobmeyer’s design, hampered by “cords built
into the chandelier…didn’t quite have the delicacy [he] wanted.”102 Consequently, the architect
decided on an original installation by modern sculptor Richard Lippold to take the chandelier’s
place as the centerpiece of his Grand Foyer for Philharmonic Hall.
Richard Lippold was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1915, and trained in Chicago at its
University and Art Institute (1933-1937).103 Having earned his B.F.A. in Industrial Design, he
worked briefly as a designer before becoming a teacher at the University of Michigan in the early
1940s. In 1944, he moved to New York City and divided his time between teaching at
Vermont’s Goddard College and cultivating his art on the weekends. His first one-man show
was at the Willard Gallery on East 57th Street in 1947. While this show received mixed reviews,
Lippold’s subsequent show at the same gallery in 1950 sparked major interest.
Having previously experimented with a series of small wire pieces that were spherical in
form, the sculptor saw these works as analogous to the music of John Cage. When asked more
specifically about his particular inspiration, the artist stated, “Our ideas were very close
then…He was talking about ‘space’ in music, meaning silence, and I was talking about ‘silence’
in sculpture, meaning space.”104 In fact, as Lippold later noted, space, along with energy and
communications, were not only central to his artistic inspiration, but also to society’s
58
technological progress. Beginning in 1948, Lippold expanded his idea into a larger piece using
more substantial materials. The resulting work was entitled Variation Within a Sphere No. 7:
Full Moon, which consisted of an intricately shimmering ensemble of brass and silver squareswithin-squares that stood approximately four feet. During its exhibition at the Willard Gallery in
1950, Full Moon marked the modern art world’s recognition of Lippold’s work, as the Museum
of Modern Art subsequently acquired it for their “Fifteen Americans” show. After this
introductory exhibition, the museum’s curators sent it abroad as a part of their “Salute to France”
in 1955, and then installed it as a part of their permanent collection on the museum’s second
floor.
Shortly after the acquisition of Full Moon, Lippold began to get prestigious commissions.
In 1950, Walter Gropius, renowned architect, Bauhaus founder and senior faculty member at
Harvard’s Architecture School, asked the artist to make a sculpture for the courtyard of the
newly completed Harvard Graduate Law School. Lippold assented and the result was World
Tree, a tubular construction of stainless steel piping. During this time, Lippold approached the
Metropolitan Museum of Art about creating an art work for its Near Eastern Wing which
eventually resulted in Variations Within a Sphere No. 10: The Sun. The completed work
featured an enormous, illuminated “diaphanous web” of twenty-two-carat-gold wire surrounding
a bronze core, and attached to the floor, walls and ceiling by thin steel wires.105 Taking two
years to complete, The Sun was unveiled on July 18, 1956 and received generally favorable
reviews.
While Lippold’s work for the Metropolitan concerned the creation of a piece for an
established space, the artist had definite thoughts on the dynamic between artist and architect
with regard to creating new works for new spaces. In 1957, he defined his criteria in an article
for Balance, noting how the artist must:
59
[A]ttach his work so tightly to the building, in similarity of
proportion, material, and technique, that try as he might, the user
cannot pry it loose (visually) and thus is forced to move through
the sculpture or the painting to the building, and, of course, back
down through it again to himself…The architect’s responsibility in
this is simply to allow the artist to achieve this double rapport.106
Two years after his Metropolitan Museum debut, Lippold received an important commission
from the Inland Steel Company to create an installation for the lobby of its new office building in
Chicago. Working closely with the company’s architect, the firm of Skidmore, Owings, and
Merrill, Lippold produced an elaborate and massive work entitled Radiant I, comprised of
stainless steel, enameled copper and gold suspended over a rectangular reflecting pool. The
results were subsequently praised by owner, architect and artist.
By the time of his commission for Philharmonic Hall, Richard Lippold had gained
international recognition as a major American artist. After Max Abramovitz persuaded Henry
Ittleson, Jr., chairman of the board of C.I.T. Financial Corporation and a former client of his, to
sponsor the artist’s work, the architect met with Lippold to discuss his ideas for the project.107
Once again alluding to the great chandeliers of Europe, Abramovitz asked Lippold “to create a
sculpture that would float in space and relate in a contemporary manner to the interior of the
foyer just as the magnificent crystal chandeliers of a former day took command of their
space.”108 Consequently, Lippold produced two enormous, identical installations out of Muntz
metal, a copper-zinc alloy, which he called Orpheus and Apollo. Weighing five tons and
measuring 190 feet across by 39 feet high and 19 feet deep, the 190 sheets of varying sizes were
suspended at different levels from the foyer’s ceiling by a complicated network of steel wires.
Lippold said of the work:
Although I did not intend these forms to be figurative, they seem to
be acting like people. By their gestures, these two figures seem to
me like friendly gods (atomically conceived, like all of us),
reflecting in their splendor the splendor of man, and identifying it
with the spirit of the architecture which is in the spirit of music,
thus including man as a part of the total spirit of life.”109
60
Although Lippold described his piece as figurative, its visual qualities of power and free-floating
suspension suggested the embodiment of energy that had characterized his earlier work.
Furthermore, this abstracted metaphor for “the spirit of music” fulfilled Abramovitz’s quest for
art that would relate stylistically and conceptually to a building that was to be dedicated to the
experience of sound.
In addition to Lippold’s installation, Philharmonic Hall acquired several other significant
art pieces which revolved around themes of musical composition as well.110 Several weeks
before the opening of the hall, Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Dreitzer donated a bronze cast of Antoine
Bourdelle’s Tragic Mask of Beethoven for permanent display at the south end of the hall’s
promenade. This was followed by Arthur Houghton’s gift of four etched, Steuben glass panels
depicting allegorical figures representing the symphony, opera, ballet and drama. Created by
Don Weir, these crystal panels were displayed in Philharmonic Hall’s Green Room. Other
donations included bronze busts of Gustav Mahler by Auguste Rodin and Antonin Dvorak by Ian
Mestovic. The former piece was donated by Mr. and Mrs. Erich Cohn and housed on the west
side of the promenade area while the latter was donated by the Czechoslovak National Council
of America, and placed in the penthouse garden terrace of the hall’s northern end.
In 1962, John D. Rockefeller, III’s younger brother, David Rockefeller, commissioned
artists Seymour Lipton and Dimitri H. Hadzi to create two free-standing works for Philharmonic
Hall. During the spring and fall of 1964, Lipton’s Archangel and Hadzi’s K. 458 The Hunt were
unveiled, respectively. Born in New York in 1903, Lipton was one of the few native New
Yorkers who comprised the New York School of artists.111 Having studied at City College of
New York (1921-22) and Columbia University (1923-27), Lipton’s work had been shown at the
Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum and other major museums and universities
both here and abroad. First carving in wood and then casting in lead and bronze, the artist made
a transition from making figurative images to surrealistic works. Having acquired a reputation
61
for combining human, animal and mythological forms, his work has long been renowned for its
disturbing, mythic connotations. For Philharmonic Hall, the sculptor hammered sheets of Monel
metal and covered them with bronze to create an imposing nine-foot statue that defied its space.
Standing on its bronzed tripod legs, the abstract figure appears to be bursting through the two
cymbal-like disks which flank its sides. When asked about his artistic motives, Lipton replied, “I
wanted to make an affirmation of life, its positive forces, an argument against death…to say that
man can survive” while striving for an effect of “crashing through” akin to the conclusion of
Handel’s “Messiah.”112
Dimitri Hadzi’s K. 458 The Hunt also incorporated a musical metaphor by using Mozart’s
String Quartet in B flat major—“Köchel Listing 458”—as its inspiration. Characterizing
Mozart’s composition as “gay and lively,” the artist strove for a similar feeling in his
sculpture.113 Also composed of bronze, but standing taller at ten-and-a-half feet, weighing 1600
pounds and more spindly in its overall composition, Hadzi’s work was chemically treated with
sulphides in order to achieve its black sheen. Hadzi was born in New York City in 1921 and
trained at Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Cooper Union, the Brooklyn Museum School and at
other studios in Athens and Rome.114 An artist of international renown, Hadzi’s work has not
only been featured in galleries throughout Europe, but has also been showcased at the XXXI
Venice Biennial (1962), the Seattle World’s Fair (1962), London’s International Sculpture
Exhibition (1963) and the New York World’s Fair (1964-65). Hadzi’s other commissions in
addition to Lincoln Center include sculptures for Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Boston’s John F. Kennedy Office Building, as well as acquisitions included in the permanent
collections of the Museum of Modern Art, and the Guggenheim, Whitney and Yale University
museums.
62
Philharmonic Hall Opening and Critical Response
Like the center’s auspicious ground-breaking three years before, the opening of the $21
million Philharmonic Hall on September 23, 1962 was a national event.115 Heralding “a new
epoch” for the city’s cultural life, New York Times reporter Ross Parmenter justified his claim by
pointing out that the city had not had a new symphonic hall since the Brooklyn Academy of
Music’s opening in 1908.116 Adding to Parmenter’s claims, Harold C. Schonberg, also writing
for the Times, called the event “an important entry in the cultural ledger of the United States.”117
In a program which included a world premiere by Aaron Copeland, and notable works by
Beethoven, Mahler and Williams, Leonard Bernstein conducted the New York Philharmonic, the
Juilliard Chorus and a host of renowned soloists in a nationally-televised concert that was
broadcast to an estimated 26 million viewers. Highlighting the significance of the occasion
before the concert began, John D. Rockefeller, III, remarked on the appropriateness of opening
Lincoln Center with not only “our country’s oldest orchestra” but more importantly, “one of the
world’s great orchestras.” 118 Complementing this signal event were American dignitaries in
attendance such as Mrs. John F. Kennedy, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Governor Nelson
Rockefeller, Mayor Wagner, Adlai Stevenson, and Arthur J. Goldberg, a recent Supreme Court
justice appointee.
Initial critical response to Philharmonic Hall was generally favorable. Calling the
exterior of the concert hall “striking,” Parmenter described it as a “modern Parthenon” whose
“visible outer shell” was “spacious and airy.”119 Schonberg, although reserved in his review of
the hall’s exterior and acoustics, was effusive in his praise of the hall’s public areas, calling them
“gracious,” noting that “one’s spirits literally expand in ratio to the generous surroundings.”120
The Times’ famed architecture critic, Ada Louis Huxtable, also applauded Abramovitz’s design
of these public spaces, writing:
63
Movement flows through the huge open foyer, on every level,
filling the structure with a warm, steady stream of animation and
color. This is the building’s life blood. It is an effect at once
simple, subtle and complex; its practical and esthetic manipulation
is a notable architectural achievement…At Philharmonic Hall, the
architecture serves, rather than usurps, the function of the
building.121
Commenting on the concert hall’s interior, Huxtable praised “the traditional theatrical air of rich
and elegant architecture that somehow gives the vast hall a surprising intimacy,” adding, “This
air is difficult to create within the severe simplicities of modern design, and here Mr. Abramovitz
just manages to achieve it.”122
Richard Lippold’s Orpheus and Apollo was also praised for its thorough and successful
integration into the concert hall’s design. An art critic for Time magazine, noting the artist’s
success with defying gravity, called Lippold’s work “esthetically true as a bunch of grapes” in its
ability to float in its environment without detracting from it.123 Stuart Preston, writing for The
New York Times, commented upon the installation’s dual appeal as “a decorative object sparkling
and reflecting rays of light” that “catches and holds the eye” on the one hand, and “its
geometrical irregularity” which “animates the whole vast interior space by cradling it” on the
other.124 Other plaudits were given to Seymour Lipton’s Archangel, which was described by the
Times art critic, John Candaday, as “a rich, oblique statement played harmoniously against the
spare angularities of the architecture”125 and Hadzi’s K. 458 The Hunt, which was deemed
“striking” by another Times critic.126
Alterations to Philharmonic Hall
In contrast to Philharmonic Hall’s favorable architectural notices, it suffered much
criticism over the succeeding years for its poor acoustics.127 Despite five year’s worth of
research before the hall’s opening that included rigid tests, in-depth studies of fifty-four concert
halls and interviews with twenty-five leading conductors about ideal sound properties, it was
64
inarguably flawed. Consequently, in 1963, the Lincoln Center board enlisted the expertise of
German acoustician Heinrich Keilholz and Americans Manfred Schroeder, Paul Veneklasen and
Vern Knudsen to remedy the situation. Altering the acoustical clouds above the stage area, the
walls surrounding the stage and the vertical setbacks of the walls close to the stage, the team’s
corrections met with further failure. Subsequently, in 1964 and 1965, Keilholz made further
changes by replacing the upholstered gold-colored seats with wooden-backed ones which made
only slight improvements to the sound. Finally, in 1972, stereo magnate Avery Fisher donated
ten million dollars toward a complete overhaul of the interior. Between 1975 and 1976,
acoustician Cyril M. Harris, along with architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee, made
dramatic alterations to the auditorium by replacing the bottleneck stage design with a rectangular
plan, creating a proscenium arch, and installing a flexible screen comprised of multi-sided panels
from its ceiling. This gutting and rebuilding of the hall’s interior, since renamed Avery Fisher
Hall, managed to correct some of its acoustical deficiencies, enabling it to be praised by select
critics as “both an architectural and an acoustical success.”128 In spite of this progress, a minor
alteration was made in 1992 that entailed the installation of new ceiling panels and projecting
elements along the sides of the stage. According to Times music critic, Bernard Holland, this
particular adjustment did “much to bring Fisher’s sound to an acceptable medium ground.”129
Although Philharmonic Hall has since been renamed for the man who funded its renovation,
critical debate still persists as to its success as a concert space.
NEW YORK STATE THEATER / LINCOLN CENTER PLAZA:
The City Center of Music and Drama/New York City Ballet/New York City Opera
By 1959, the Metropolitan Opera Association, Philharmonic-Symphony Society and
Juilliard School had been confirmed as constituents of Lincoln Center, while the dance, drama
and library constituencies were still undecided. Despite the fact that Lincoln Kirstein had been
65
involved in Rockefeller’s exploratory committee—and had even endorsed Philip Johnson as the
dance theater’s architect—he had not yet committed his own organization, New York City
Ballet, to the enterprise. However, Rockefeller not only believed that Kirstein’s New York City
Ballet would be an asset, but moreover, that its parent organization, the City Center of Music and
Drama, would fulfill Lincoln Center’s comprehensive mission of democratizing the arts to a
mass audience. Furthermore, Rockefeller believed that including the City Center would
strengthen relations with city government as well as generate broader interest in Lincoln
Center.130
Since its founding in 1943, the City Center of Music and Drama had been a model
organization for bringing the performing arts to the public-at-large.131 Its resident theater, built
for Shriners in 1924, had been the former Mecca Temple on West 55th Street and was confronted
with imminent demolition after its owners faced foreclosure in 1941 due to tax liens on their
property.132 In 1943, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and producer Jean Dalrymple saved the building
by purchasing it and transforming it into a multi-use theater. Incorporated as a non-profit
organization under the State Board of Education, the New York City Center of Music and Drama
presented a diversity of programs at a maximum ticket price of two dollars a seat. In addition,
City Center promoted the works of American performers, choreographers and composers
through its drama, music and dance offerings.
One of its most notable constituents, New York City Ballet was originally conceived by
Kirstein, a balletomane who was also heir to the Filene department store fortune and an editor of
Hound & Horn, an arts magazine.133 Dissatisfied with the rigidly conventional European ballet
techniques that had influenced performance and training in the United States, Kirstein envisioned
a thoroughly American version in which native dancers would be taught by leading
choreographers to perform an innovative, modern repertory.134 In 1933, Kirstein met Russian
choreographer George Balanchine and invited him to collaborate in this quest. Balanchine had
66
been both a ballet student of the Imperial School of Ballet in St. Petersburg and a pianocomposition student of the Petrograd Conservatory of Music. In 1924, he defected from the
newly-formed Soviet Union in order to join Serge Diaghilev’s famous Monte Carlo-based Ballet
Russe. Accepting Kirstein’s invitation, Balanchine moved to the United States in 1933 to initiate
their dance school, called the “School of American Ballet,” and company, called the “American
Ballet.” Between 1935 and 1941, the American Ballet performed in and around New York state
and abroad, including a three-year residency at the old Metropolitan Opera House between 1935
and 1937. The company dissolved during World War II when Kirstein enlisted in the Army and
Balanchine returned to the Ballet Russe to choreograph.
After the war, the two founders reunited and formed the Ballet Society and the Ballet
Caravan. The former performed primarily at several Manhattan schools between 1946 and
1947, while the latter toured selected cities within the United States. By 1948, the two
companies had earned such a favorable reputation that Morton Baum, the City Center’s
Chairman of the Executive Committee, invited the Ballet Society to be the resident company of
his theater. Moreover, Baum asked Kirstein if he was interested in transforming his cultural
entity into New York City’s resident ballet company. Kirstein responded, “If you do that for us I
will give you in three years the finest ballet company in America.”135 On October 11, 1948, New
York City Ballet gave its first performance as the resident company of both the City Center of
Music and Drama, and of New York City.136 Over the next decade, the company further
distinguished itself by performing choreographed works by Balanchine, Jerome Robbins (who
also became co-artistic director in 1949), Todd Bolender, Anthony Tudor and Frederick Ashton,
and introduced such legendary dancers as Maria Tallchief, Francisco Moncion, Tanaquil
LeClercq, Nora Kaye and André Eglevsky. The company was especially known for its forceful
and athletic style—promulgated by Balanchine—which was in opposition to the more sweeping
gestures of the European school. By 1954, Time magazine had proclaimed that New York City
67
Ballet was “the most discussed ballet company in the world” and its accompanying school, “the
best and the busiest.”137
In contrast to New York City Ballet’s prestigious history before becoming the resident
ballet company of City Center, New York City Opera was an outgrowth of City Center’s
formation. A primary constituent of the center when it opened in 1944, the organization was
touted by Mayor LaGuardia as “the people’s opera company” because of its mission to bring
opera to individuals of all economic incomes through its low ticket prices.138 Also, like its dance
counterpart, City Center Opera was committed to showcasing the talents of American composers
and singers. During its first two decades at the City Center, the company introduced forty-eight
contemporary operas, including several which were to become its signature pieces such as
Carlisle Floyd’s Susannah and Douglas Moore’s The Ballad of Baby Doe. Among the illustrious
talents who made their American debuts there during this time were Beverly Sills, Sherrill
Milnes, Samuel Ramey, Norman Treigle, Placido Domingo and José Carreras.
The Dance Theater
Without a formal constituent in place, the funding of the dance theater presented a major
challenge for the Lincoln Center board. Furthermore, it was apparent that its overall capital
campaign would require additional government assistance beyond the original subsidies supplied
by urban renewal. Since the City Center of Music and Drama was already largely subsidized by
the city, Rockefeller surmised that this resource could potentially complement fund-raising
activities for both Lincoln Center and its individual constituents. Yet, the City Center had
neither the budget nor the donors to raise funds to build its own theater. Consequently, in spite
of the fact that Morton Baum and his co-chairman, soon-to-be parks commissioner Newbold
Morris, became interested in a City Center constituency for Lincoln Center, they were stymied
by these fund-raising issues.
68
Just as he had done with the Metropolitan Opera Association, Robert Moses presented a
solution to the problem. On March 1, 1960, Moses was appointed President of the World’s Fair
Corporation, an organization devoted expressly to the planning and execution of the New York
World’s Fair.139 Scheduled for the summers of 1964 and 1965, the fair was to be located at
Flushing Meadow Park in Queens. However, Moses proposed relocating the performing arts
activities to Lincoln Center, and more specifically, to the proposed dance theater. In addition to
drawing an estimated fifty million visitors to the site, this proposal would also facilitate funding
from state and local governments to build the dance theater. Although this idea was endorsed by
state and local authorities, and embraced by both the Lincoln Center board and the City Center
officers, it also presented an unusual complication.
The City Center of Music and Drama relished its relationship with the city which funded
its operations yet gave its artistic directors total creative freedom. However, the Lincoln Center
board insisted that all constituents be autonomous yet bound by its parent organization’s
authority. The terms negotiated in accordance with the World’s Fair subsidy enabled the state to
control the dance theater during the first two years of its existence, with the city assuming
ownership from then on. Unlike the other theaters which were to be owned by Lincoln Center
for the Performing Arts, the dance theater would be property of the state for its first two years,
after which, it would be owned by the city. While this ownership in and of itself was not a
problem to either the Lincoln Center board or the City Center, altering the latter’s relationship
with the city was. Despite Baum and Morris’ attempts to preserve its direct relationship with the
city as its parent entity, they finally relented to having Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts as
the primary lessee of the state- and city- owned theater, with the City Center acting as the sublessee to Lincoln Center. 140 Even though this lease structure may have seemed trivial, it was
essential to the Lincoln Center board, which believed that it could only fulfill its missions of arts
education and innovation with a unified constituency. Finally, on January 11, 1965, nearly nine
69
months after the New York State Theater opened, the City Center of Music and Drama became
Lincoln Center’s fourth constituent.141
New York State Theater
Philip Johnson had not only been Lincoln Kirstein’s original choice for an architect, but
had also been submitting preliminary sketches for the New York State Theater as early as
October of 1957. Early design proposals changed considerably between this time and June 26,
1961, when his final drawing was released to the public. Johnson’s 1958 proposal featured a
semi-circular glass-curtain-wall design with thin, girder like pre-cast-concrete double columns
fronting it. However, the Lincoln Center design team rejected this idea on the grounds that it
would compromise the symmetry of the southern plaza, lack the rectilinear lines essential to the
plaza’s conception and ultimately upstage any of Wallace K. Harrison’s proposals for the
centrally-located Metropolitan Opera House.142
By 1960, Johnson had incorporated the rectilinear motif into his proposal with thin precast-concrete columns forming an arcade on the façade and on the pilasters of the theater’s east
and west sides. Later, opting for a more classical model, Johnson’s design for the New York
State Theater, in association with Richard Foster at Philip Johnson Associates, mirrored the
materials, scale and promenade height of Abramovitz’s Philharmonic Hall. However, in contrast
to Abramovitz’s tapered arcade, Johnson chose a purer and more monumental design,
incorporating four pairs of straight yet channeled travertine-clad columns, equally spaced on the
building’s nine-story façade, to frame his ground- and promenade- level porticoes. The four
bays created by the repetition of these columned pairs gave the façade added weight and
dimension. Of his inspiration, Johnson later said:
I admit, as some critics have suggested, that the paired columns on
my theater come from Perrault’s façade at the back of the Louvre.
I wanted to reduce the nine bays on the front of the Philharmonic
Hall opposite, to three enormous bays divided by four double70
clustered columns, all for the sake of clarity. I do not really object
to the nine bays but I wanted my entrance to be so obvious—one
door going only one way. The contrast with Philharmonic Hall is
obvious.143
Counteracting the somberness of his neo-classically-inspired design, the architect hung
enormous hyacinth-like stalks of faceted headlights within each quartet of columns. On the sides
of the theater, the architect placed travertine-clad pilasters against blank walls of the same
material, accompanied by smaller, cubed lighting fixtures that were similar to the clusters
hanging within the façade.
Johnson’s interior spaces for the State Theater were markedly more fluid in their
conception than his other designs. In fact, renouncing the dictums of his beloved modern
movement as “icy and flat,” and citing the Bauhaus movement as the one in which “our
generation had to revolt,” the architect concentrated on what he deemed the “processionalism” of
the theater; namely, “the relationships and effects of spaces as you move about in them.” 144
Johnson was later quoted as saying, “Architecture is surely not the design of space, certainly not
the massing or organizing of volumes. These are auxiliary to the main point which is the
organization of procession.”145
What evolved was a building which was effectively neo-classical on its exterior and neoBaroque within. Entering from the plaza, the architect’s low-ceilinged foyer was comprised of
ticket counters set in panels of Rosso Merlino marble directly opposite the theater’s glass
entrance doors. To the right and to the left of the foyer, Johnson placed pairs of wide, shallow,
light marble staircases that led up to large lobby areas on the east and west sides of the orchestra
level. Continuing up from this level, the architect placed a single, wide staircase of the same
material, which then split after the first landing and wrapped up and around into the Grand
Promenade, an elaborate space measuring 60 feet wide by 195 feet long, and 45 feet high.
At the urging of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, Johnson had been encouraged to devise a
room that would serve as New York’s “parlor.”146 Johnson’s response to the Governor’s request
71
was an impressively expansive room that he infused with opulent materials befitting royalty—
but within a modern minimalist context. Embellishing an American jail design that he “had seen
and liked,” Johnson used travertine and marble for the hall’s flooring, beige fabric for its walls
and purportedly “the biggest gold-leaf job in the world” for its ceiling.147 Along the room’s
northern perimeter, the architect faced his glass curtain wall with beads of gold-anodized
aluminum—evocative of Marie Nichols’ design for the Four Seasons—that sparkled within
while diffusing the natural light from outside. Following the undulating form of the auditorium’s
back wall on the Grand Promenade’s southern perimeter, Johnson produced three tiers of goldscreened balconies “borrowed from Jackson Pollack’s splashes” with individual diamond like
lights along each floor’s ribboned base.148 Also along the northern wall on the floor-level was a
long rosewood refreshment bar, complemented by extensive kitchen facilities underneath,
capable of preparing meals for as many as six hundred guests.
Within the theater auditorium, Johnson chose a Baroque configuration of five shallow
horseshoe-shaped balconies to give both intimacy to the performances and promote a shared
experience among the spectators. However, unlike its European court theater counterparts that
were largely characterized by private boxes, the architect’s proposal adhered to City Center’s
democratic mission with more open seating arrangements on the balcony levels. Just as Max
Abramovitz had striven to create a “pageant for the whole community” in his design for
Philharmonic Hall, Johnson also stressed the integration of audience members, stating:
It is good because it brings many people together in a festive room
where everyone can see everyone, where the room will look
relatively intimate because the walls are papered with people. It
will look intimate, moreover, because more than half the audience
will be behind the faces of the balconies which themselves create
the psychological walls of the room.149
Furthermore, his employment of a continental seating plan within the orchestra eliminated center
aisles in favor of continuous rows spaced 40 inches apart in order to maximize the theater’s
72
potential seating capacity of 2,801, while also allowing for expedient audience entrances and
exits. With regard to the theater’s décor, Johnson chose red garnet upholstery for the seats and
walls, and more jewel-like headlights along the scalloped, gold-colored balcony fronts. Above, a
clustered globe of sixteen lights designed by Richard Kelly provided the cynosure of a goldcolored, webbed ceiling.
Collaborating with the architect on the auditorium design was Danish acoustical
consultant, Vilhelm L. Jordan, who shortly thereafter began working with Wallace K. Harrison
and Cyril M. Harris in the same capacity on the Metropolitan Opera House. Jordan, who had
also been chosen to consult on the acoustics for the Sydney Opera House, was a professor of
architecture and electrical engineering at Columbia University.150 In 1950, he wrote Acoustical
Designing in Architecture in collaboration with Vern Knudsen, which established them as
authorities on sound design.
Working closely with George Balanchine—with the oversight of noted stage designers
Walther Unruh and Donald Oenslager—the architect and choreographer developed a stage
design that was customized to the rigors of dance, while allowing for maximum audience
visibility and perspective. Set within a 39-foot-high proscenium arch, the New York State
Theater’s mammoth 56 by 60 foot wooden stage was specially constructed to give the dancers
extra buoyancy, featuring a front platform extension which could either facilitate additional areas
for dancing or be removed to house the orchestra. Johnson was later quoted as saying, “I
designed it for George,” thereby confirming the fact that it was, according to The New York
Times, the first theater in recorded history to have been designed expressly for a
choreographer.151
73
Art Within New York State Theater
Despite any reservations Philip Johnson may have had about the integration of art into his
building designs, he more than compensated for this reluctance by authorizing a diverse
collection of modern works to be installed within the New York State Theater. Even after the
theater had opened, Johnson had cautioned:
Commissioning decorative works of art for monumental buildings
is dangerous in any age. In ours it is well nigh impossible. Artists
are interested in their own expression, not in helping out mine. I in
turn am more interested in space modulation than in wall
decoration. Sometimes we can get together in spite of the
difficulties. The New York State Theater was such a time.152
In fact, contrary to his doubts, Johnson made bold commitments to artistic integration and
interpretation.153 Perhaps his most provocative commissions were the sculptures Circus Women
and Two Female Nudes by Elie Nadelman, which Johnson not only bought and donated, but had
also prominently displayed at opposite ends of his Grand Promenade. Commissioning nineteenfoot-high Carrara marble enlargements of Nelson A. Rockefeller’s 1931 four-foot-high bronze
originals, the massive, white sculptures were sensuously-curved works that stood in contrast to
the minimalist yet richly-adorned hall. Furthermore, Johnson had his artisans obtain the marble
from the same quarry as Michelangelo had used to create his renowned works.154 Utilizing highpowered spotlights, the statues became luminescent objects that reflected light around the room.
Born in Warsaw in 1882, Elie Nadelman had immigrated to the United States at the
outset of World War I, after living in Paris and establishing himself as one of that city’s avantgarde artists.155 Creating both busts and full-length nudes in plaster and bronze, as well as Cubist
drawings, Nadelman’s work was exhibited at the Galerie Druet, the Salon des Indépendants and
the Salon d’Automne between 1905 and 1909. In the U.S., Nadelman further refined his style,
based on classical antecedents, while experimenting with animal forms and other subject matter.
Regarding his work, the artist said, “I employ no other line than the curve, which possesses
74
freshness and force. I compose the curves so as to bring them in accord in opposition to each
other.”156 Nadelman’s wide acceptance by the modern art community was affirmed by his
inclusion in New York’s milestone Armory Show which had taken place in 1913. The following
year he moved to New York, and in 1929, he retired with his wife, Viola M. Spiess, to Riverdale
in the Bronx. Having been an avid collector of American folk art, the couple built a museum for
their collection in 1924. Two years after Nadelman’s death in 1946, Lincoln Kirstein
reintroduced his work to the American public through a retrospective at the Modern Museum of
Art.
Other works which Johnson proposed for the New York State theater included
commissions and/or acquisitions such as Numbers, 1964 (1964) by Jasper Johns, Untitled relief
(1964) by Lee Bontecou, Voyage to Crete (1963) by Reuben Nakian, Sculpture (1963) by
Edward Higgins, Birth of the Muses (1944-50) by Jacques Lipchitz and Large Bleeding Martyr
(1960) by Francesco Somaini.157 The Committee on Arts and Acquisitions endorsed all of these
artists, and funding for their works came from the Albert A. List Foundation and Mrs. John D.
Rockefeller, III.
Hanging in the east wing of the Grand Promenade level, Jasper Johns’ Numbers, 1964
remains the artist’s only publicly-commissioned work, and is the largest work in his “Numbers”
series.158 The rectangular painting, which measures seven-by-nine feet, was executed in
Sculptmetal, and depicts the artist’s signature flags, alphabets and numbers. In contrast to Johns’
other works, the characters in the painting were affixed as individual units which were bolted to
the panel. Furthermore, complementing his marriage of modern art with modern architecture,
the artist added modern performance to the mix by using dance choreographer, Merce
Cunningham’s foot size as the standard measurement separating his panel’s grid lines.
Reflecting Johns’ intent of presenting the viewer with “things the mind already knows,”
Numbers, 1964 focuses attention on the “ambiguities and contradictions” inherent in recognized
75
symbols through unconventional representation. 159 Like much of the pop artist’s work,
Numbers, 1964 was consistent with Johns’ goals of creating beauty out of familiar subject matter
by using a repetitive grid pattern to emphasize his symbols’ monotony, while contrasting this
repetition with a lustrous appearance.
Born in Augusta, Georgia in 1930, Johns was largely self-taught and heavily influenced
by the writings of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, and the work of Cézanne, Leonardo,
Picasso and Duchamp. 160 In 1957, the artist’s Green Target (1955) was exhibited at the Jewish
Museum and inspired the successful art dealer, Leo Castelli, to give Johns his own one-man
show in 1958. As a result of this exhibition, three of Johns works were acquired by Alfred Barr
for the Museum of Modern Art. Having known and been mutually influenced by fellow artist,
Robert Rauschenberg, during this same period, the two men were credited with re-introducing
figurative subject matter into painting as well as facilitating the transition from Abstract
Expressionism to Pop art. In addition to painting, Johns has also worked in sculpting and
printmaking.
On December 14, 1998, the Lincoln Center Board of Directors voted to consider selling
Numbers, 1964 as a means of raising capital improvement funds. Calling it “the subtlest
monument of our time,” Philip Johnson adamantly defended the work, exclaiming, “The sale of
this painting is a disservice to artists, to art, to architecture, to the architectural profession and to
the public…It was commissioned for the building and is by the greatest American artist of our
time.”161 Jasper Johns himself concluded, “I made the work based on the site. Since it’s my only
public commission, it is of great importance to me. I would like it to stay where it is.”162 Times
art critic, Roberta Smith, argued that it “is the only public commission of an artist famous for
turning public signs—targets, flags, the alphabet, numbers 0 through 9—into a private
language.”163 After much outcry, the Lincoln Center Board relented and Numbers, 1964 was
retained in the east lobby of the New York State Theater.
76
Located west of the entrance foyer, Lee Bontecou’s untitled relief is an amalgam of
utilitarian supplies and artist materials. Composed of welded metal rods, an old fire hose and the
Plexiglas turret of a World War II bomber, the horizontally-oriented hanging installation is
covered with stretched canvas, charcoal, white paint and soot. Surrounding a black hole,
Bontecou’s shapes are a symmetrical ensemble of curved shapes emanating from a central void.
Born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1931, Lee Bontecou studied at the Art Students
League between 1952 and 1955, and thereafter in Rome in 1956 and 1958 on two Fulbright
scholarships. 164 Pre-dating her untitled relief for Lincoln Center, Bontecou’s gained distinction
in the modern art world in 1960 with another untitled work consisting of strips of canvas
attached to a welded steel frame surrounding a central void. This was later included in the
Museum of Modern Art’s Art of Assemblage exhibition in 1961. Refining her use of threedimensional, ovoid forms, Bontecou later won first prize for her work submitted to the National
Institute of Arts and Letters in 1966. Like Jasper Johns, she is also a notable printmaker.
Reuben Nakian’s Voyage to Crete is displayed just to the east of the orchestra lobby and
is based on classical mythology. Crafted of ornate bronze that has been twisted beyond figural
recognition, Nakian’s work is an abstraction of “the sensual lives and loves of the Greek
gods.”165 When queried as to why he chose ancient Greek mythology on which to model his
work, the artist replied, “The Greeks gave sculpture youth and love…and that’s why I like
them…”166
Reuben Nakian was born in College Point, New York in 1897 and apprenticed in the
New York studio of Paul Manship in 1916. 167 Having created a diversity of works from stylized
animal forms to busts of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s cabinet members and Babe Ruth, the artist’s
work eventually rejected realism for Abstract Expressionism. Citing influences such as Gorky
and Stuart Davis, Nakian’s most significant work was produced after 1945. Following Willem
de Kooning’s example of improvisation and spontaneity, Nakian executed his abstract
77
improvisations in wet plaster and clay, and maintained that each piece was “complete at the
moment of inspiration.”168 The artist died in 1986.
Edward Higgins’ Sculpture, located to the west of the Orchestra Lobby, is a combination
of polished steel and white epoxy. In commissioning the piece, Johnson instructed Higgins to
create a sculpture that would not exceed seven feet in height. Although stark and suggestive of a
machine, Higgins’ piece is representative of two human figures lying on their backs with their
feet in the air.
Edward G. Higgins was born in Gaffney, South Carolina in 1930, and received his
Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of North Carolina. 169 Higgins’ work has been shown
at the Museum of Modern Art, the Guggenheim Museum, the Whitney Museum of American Art
and at the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts, among others. In addition, his sculptures have been
featured in special exhibits at the New York World’s Fair (1964-65), the Whitney Museum for
American Art (1966) and in Kassel, Germany (1968). He has also had an extensive teaching
career, having taught sculpture at Parsons School of Design, Philadelphia Music School, Cornell
University, University of Wisconsin and the University of Kentucky.
Placed on indefinite loan to the New York State Theater and commissioned by Mrs. John
D. Rockefeller, III, Birth of the Muses by Jacques Lipchitz is located south of Edward Higgins’
sculpture on the west side of the orchestra lobby. Characterized by more restrained forms than
what were typical of the artist’s other works, Lipchitz’s bronze relief incorporates the myth of
Pegasus giving birth to the Muses after its hoof struck a rock on Mount Olympus.
Jacques Lipchitz was perhaps one of the most renowned sculptors to have his work
displayed in the New York State Theater. 170 Born in Lithuania in 1891, the sculptor spent much
of his life in France and America. Trained briefly at the the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in 1909 before
transferring to Academie Julian in Paris, Lipchitz had many influences which included Greek,
medieval, Egyptian and African art, and Cubist-Expressionist works by fellow artists Picasso,
78
Brancusi and Modigliani. Producing art in a range of styles from Art Noveau to Cubism, the
artist eventually developed a radical style that referenced figurative subjects in an abstract mode.
Of his approach, Lipchitz said he was attempting to “play with space, with a kind of open, lyrical
construction that was a revelation to me.”171 The results were dynamic, three-dimensional forms
that explored a variety of subject matter from Greek mythology to the ravages of war. Jacques
Lipchitz died in 1973.
Across the Promenade on southeastern side of the orchestra lobby is Francesco Somaini’s
Large Bleeding Martyr. A dramatic work of modern art, Somaini explores martyrdom through
the use of contrasting materials and shapes. Designed in the shape of a cruciform with
lacerations throughout, Large Bleeding Martyr is evocative of suffering with its “burnished,
light-filled” areas interspersed with its “rough, scarred regions.”172
Francesco Somaini was born in Lomazzo, Italy in 1926, and trained at Milan’s
Accademia di Brera. 173 Intrigued by the interaction of humans with the forces of nature,
Somaini’s work was a manifestation of biomorphism which predominated intellectual thought
during the early 20th century. His work has been largely characterized by the use of natural
materials combined and reconfigured in unorthodox ways. These techniques, along with the
artist’s body of work, gave him enthusiastic acceptance into the Art Informel movement of the
1950s. Later on, Somaini was involved in the design of more monumental objects that explored
these thoughts and practices on an urban scale.
New York State Theater Opening and Critical Response
The New York State Theater officially opened on April 23, 1964, meeting its deadline as
the performing arts headquarters of the New York World’s Fair. Owing to the fact that the fair’s
programming for the theater would be divided between the ballet, half of the duration, and
dramatic and musical productions, for the other half, the opening night performances featured
79
representations of both. Earlier in the month, on April 6th, the south plaza had been inaugurated,
thereby allowing for an opening night fanfare to be conducted from the State Theater’s portico.
Inside the $19.4 million theater, the evening’s program was comprised of a scene from Rodgers
and Hammerstein’s “Carousel” and two ballets, “Allegro Brillante” and “Stars and Stripes,”
performed by New York City Ballet. In attendance were Governor Nelson Rockefeller; Robert
Moses; John D. Rockefeller, III; Lincoln Center President William Schuman; members of the
center’s board; officials affiliated with the State Commission on the World’s Fair;
representatives of New York state and local governments; and various creative artists. At the
conclusion of the performance, Governor Rockefeller praised Philip Johnson’s efforts and those
of the assembled guests, and adding, “It takes courage to vote for culture when you are in public
life.”174 He then invited everyone to tour the building. The evening concluded with an elaborate
dinner hosted by the governor in the Grand Promenade.
Although the New York State Theater received mixed reviews overall, Ada Louise
Huxtable gave it an undiluted rave. Calling the Grand Promenade “one of the most impressive
public spaces New York has ever seen,” she then went on to state, “This is a design concept that
doesn’t give a hoot about structure, except to make things more sumptuous, elegant,
sophisticated and sensuously beautiful.”175 Noting how Johnson had defied conventional
architectural objectives that stressed external aesthetics, she lauded him for using “his structure
only to create splendid social areas and theatrical interior magic.”176 Concluding her review,
Huxtable wrote:
Every detail is classic theater in its function, freshly devised in its
design. There is no false note, no wrong texture, no misstep in the
complex relationships of surfaces and shapes…The State Theater
is just what it set out to be: social architecture. It may commit the
sin of suppressing structure, but it looks like a smashing, soigné
success.177
80
Critic, Allen Hughes, also writing for The New York Times, was equally effusive, exclaiming,
“There is space everywhere for everything and everybody…space so skillfully shaped and
proportioned that it seems sculpted.”178 Then, perhaps paying Johnson the supreme compliment,
the critic wrote that “to stand in the magnificent Promenade” is “to be reminded anew of the
dignity of man and of his best works.”179 A critic for Time magazine made glowing contrasts
between Philharmonic Hall’s “icy grandeur” and the new State Theater’s “warm and elegant
restatement of traditional splendor,” which the journalist hailed as “reminiscent…of the old
Maryinsky.”180
Edwin Denby, a critic for Dance Magazine, while enthusiastic about the overall effort,
was contradictory in his assessment of the auditorium. Initially insisting to his readers that “you
can see everything and you can hear everything” and “[A]coustics are perfect everywhere,” the
critic also wrote, “No seats way at the side are good. Very bad are the second row seats in all
side rings.” 181 Nevertheless, the critic deemed Johnson’s overall work “a beauty,” writing,
“Space is normally a tunnel in New York. At the Philharmonic you are still in some sort of
tunnel—it doesn’t have enough shape for its size. At the New York State Theatre the height of
the house and of the lobby relate to the room.”182
Architectural publications, such as the Architectural Record, Interiors and Progressive
Architecture, on the other hand, were mixed in their reviews. A critic for the Architectural
Record called it “glamorous, romantic…nostalgic …and deliberately so,” and “one of the most
elegant spaces in New York City,” owing to Johnson’s creative use of materials and color. 183
Interiors’ editor, Olga Gueft, had a more measured tone, calling the auditorium “magnificent,
baroque [and] a bit vulgar” while hailing the progression of spaces and the theater’s acoustics
and sight lines.184
Three critics for Progressive Architecture were divided in their critiques: James T. Burns
thought that “The concept of a large-scale ‘court theater’ for the democratic crowds…is a
81
dubious one, at best,” while Ilse M. Reese cautioned that the ballet theater, concert hall and
Harrison’s proposal for the Metropolitan Opera came “dangerously close to the pretentious
Italian monumentality of the Mussolini era.”185 Completing the critical trio, John M. Dixon
found the exterior colonnade “monumental but not overbearing…symbolically appropriate to the
materials used…” yet was less enthusiastic about the theater’s Grand Promenade. 186 Both Reese
and Dixon lauded the architect for his “progression of spaces,” facilitated by “two magnificently
modeled travertine staircases,” yet diverged in their response to the architect’s piano nobile.187
While Reese proclaimed the Grand Promenade as being “dramatic,” Dixon deemed it “the first
big let-down,” alleging that “Johnson ran out of both steam and travertine,” since nothing above
the Promenade’s floor “sustains the character established in the exterior and lobby.”188
Summing up the Grand Promenade, Dixon asserted, “All is subdued tinsel and blunted
glitter” while Burns was more specific in his assessment:
This dichotomy of strong against weak, travertine against candy
box frou-frou, is where Johnson’s attempt to épater le bourgeois
backfires. Had he carried it to the ultimate in one direction, the
theater could have been a successful jab at a never-never land bit
of fluff; emphasized strongly in an opposite vein, it might have
achieved a significant monumentality. As it is, it falls between
stools and becomes neither one nor the other.189
Yet, in spite of their pointed commentary, all three of the reviewers had positive things to say
about specifics of Johnson’s design, and were especially laudatory about the architect’s
“ingenious and highly effective” spatial organization.190
With regard to the selection, installation and content of art, critics were also mixed in
their appraisals. Having previously leveled criticism at Johnson for his theater’s exterior design,
Ilse M. Reese praised his “impeccable” choice of art pieces whose “scale and placement [were]
in perfect union with the architecture.” 191 Hilton Kramer, writing for The New York Times,
called the Nadelman sculptures “superb”192 while another critic for The Nation called the marble
pair “witty.”193 Similarly, Edwin Denby called the sculptures “sweetly comic in their enormity,”
82
and lauded their ability to “add to the fantasy of a sociable city square.”194 Winthrop Sargeant of
the New Yorker, though reserved about their value as works of art, nonetheless deemed that they
were “good substitutes for it, having substantial mass and weight, and reminding one that one is
in a place where human beings are still important, namely a theater.”195
Like Ilse M. Reese, New York Times critic John Canaday applauded Johnson’s overall
choice of art, calling the entire selection, “bang-up.”196 Of the pieces by Jasper Johns and
Francesco Somaini, which had not been installed at the time of his review, Canaday praised the
artists themselves, describing Johns as “the most sumptuous designer at his best,” and Somaini as
“a wonderfully dramatic sculptor even at his worst.”197 On the other hand, although a fan of
Lipchitz’s work, Canaday thought Birth of the Muses was ill-suited to its location while praising
the locations of Nakian’s Voyage to Crete and Higgins’ Untitled Sculpture but not the works
themselves.
Canaday, however, was particularly enthralled with the Nadelman sculptures for their
“high style, sly levity and swelling monumentality that unifies them with the scale and elegance
of the architecture and, at the same time, involves them in a kind of amorous badinage with its
angularities.”198 He further noted that, “As pure sculpture, these superb confections are not
much more than deft and devilishly clever, but as architectural adjuncts they are brought to
fulfillment,” equating their appropriateness with Carpeaux’s sculptures on the façade of the Paris
Opera.199 With regard to Lee Bountecou’s untitled relief, Canaday stated that Bountecou “has
risen above every connotative hazard to produce a vigorous and superbly balanced design
perfectly adapted to the allotted space.”200 Thus, like Max Abramovitz, Johnson had
successfully integrated art into his architecture as a means of not only complementing it, but also
enhancing it.
By the beginning of the 1960s, Philip Johnson had become so successful that he was
highly sought after to design a range of residential and institutional buildings across the country.
83
Moreover, he and his associate, Richard Foster, had won prestigious commissions to build the
New York State Pavilion and Theaterama for the New York World’s Fair (1964). These, along
with his New York State Theater commission, caused New York Times critic Ada Louise
Huxtable to proclaim 1964 as “the year of Philip Johnson.”201 Although critics were somewhat
divided in their assessments of the New York State Theater, Johnson’s work was ultimately
praised for its interconnection of spaces that made the theater-going experience an event. As the
authors of New York 1960 noted, “The critics’ concern for the overall ‘look’ and meaning of an
architect’s entire oeuvre contrasted strongly with the general public’s lack of interest in such
issues, a difference that was clearly reflected in the varied public and professional responses.”202
Hence, although there was much division, derision and delight among critics toward Johnson’s
design, the New York State Theater nevertheless succeeded brilliantly in meeting the needs of
dance performance, thereby enhancing the theater-going experience.
Lincoln Center Plaza
Lincoln Center’s plazas and park, comprised of Lincoln Center Plaza, Lincoln Center
Plaza North and Lincoln Center Plaza South and Damrosch Park, were as much a part of the
center’s overall planning and aesthetic as its buildings. Hence, their placement within the
Lincoln Center campus had to be determined by a consensus of Wallace K. Harrison’s advisory
team. As previously noted, although Robert Moses had delegated Harrison and Abramovitz to
the task of planning the plazas, parks and below-grade parking infrastructure, it was actually
Sven Markelius who had conceived of an elevated plane and the framing of Lincoln Center Plaza
(later rededicated, Josie Robertson Plaza) within the trio of buildings: New York State Theater,
Metropolitan Opera House and Philharmonic Hall, as early as 1956. Augmenting the work of
Markelius, Philip Johnson was subsequently asked to devise a design for the south plaza area in
conjunction with his proposals for the State Theater. Injecting a modern interpretation into a
84
plan that was evocative of Michelangelo’s Piazza del Campidoglio in Rome, Johnson created an
urban space for Lincoln Center that was monumental in scale and theatrical in content.
Contrasted with diverse preliminary drawings by Harrison and his advisory team that
featured a double circular colonnade reminiscent of Bernini’s St. Peter’s Square; a reflecting
pool in conjunction with several different landscape designs; or an austere uninterrupted plane,
Johnson’s final drawing incorporated a state-of-the-art fountain as the main plaza’s centerpiece.
Supported by a low, thirty-eight-foot-diameter circular wall composed of polished Canadian
black granite, Johnson’s fountain was surrounded by paving, consisting of rays and concentric
circles of travertine alternating with red-brown granite aggregate.
The fountain was built in honor of Charles Revson, Chairman of Revlon, Inc., and
engineered by J.S. Hamel of Hamel and Lancer. Johnson explained, “We conceived it as a
lighted, glowing, moving feature for the plaza and gave it the focal point a fireplace gives a
home.”203 A technological marvel of its time, the Revson Fountain can spurt 9,000 gallons of
water a minute through 577 jets that are lit by 26,000 watts of illumination.204 Controlled by a
computer console which can configure the water into a multiplicity of patterns, the fountain
features a six-foot ring of 40 two-inch controller jets surrounded by a bank of 16 vertical lights.
Praising the plaza’s role as an integral aspect of the cultural experience, a critic for Time
magazine wrote, “With audiences arriving at each [Philharmonic Hall and New York State
Theater] and the fountain splashing between, both buildings acquire an air of excitement that is
beyond the reach of either alone.”205
85
VIVIAN BEAUMONT THEATER /
LIBRARY AND MUSEUM OF THE PERFORMING ARTS:
American Repertory Theater
One of the problems confronting the board of Lincoln Center, Inc. in the selection of a
drama constituent was the lack of an existing organization that had an organizational
infrastructure equivalent to a Metropolitan Opera Association or a Philharmonic-Symphony
Society. Thus, in spite of expressed interest from such critically-acclaimed institutions such as
the American National Theater Association (ANTA) and the Actors’ Studio, the board bypassed
these organizations in favor of seeking a more financially stable constituent. Although an
Advisory Council on Drama was formed in April 1958, a constituent was not named until nearly
two years later. There was, however, progress in terms of finding a potential donor when the
head of the American National Theater Association’s New York Chapter suggested Vivian
Beaumont Allen. After John D. Rockefeller, III, assured Allen that her theater would share equal
prominence with the State Theater in terms of its location and importance, she consented to its
funding at the same time the center’s Advisory Council on Drama was formed. In addition, her
approval was requested and obtained when Harrison and the council’s consultant, Robert
Whitehead, proposed Eero Saarinen for the theater’s architect.
Given the absence of an existing dramatic organization to satisfy the constituent
requirements of Lincoln Center’s board of directors, the Advisory Council on Drama initiated
their own entity in the early part of 1960. Incorporated as “The Repertory Theater Association,
Inc.,” the organization joined the Lincoln Center constituency on February 15th.206 Consisting of
three departments that included board members, theater professionals and fund-raisers, the
Repertory Theater Association endeavored to create an acting company of thirty-five performers
who would present both classical and contemporary works during the regular fall, winter and
spring seasons, while hosting world theater companies during the summer seasons. To house
86
this full year of programming, the association urged Eero Saarinen to devise a multi-functional
mid-size theater as well as a smaller, experimental theater. Spearheading this ambitious agenda,
George D. Woods, a corporate chairman and trustee of several non-profit foundations, was
elected president of the Repertory Association, while renowned theater and film director, Elia
Kazan was named co-producing director.
The Library and Museum of the Performing Arts
At the same time it was proposing a theater dedicated to drama, the Lincoln Center board
had also been championing a library building to serve as a joint reference and research facility
for the performing arts. On March 11, 1957, the board mandated the erection of a librarymuseum “to serve as a tool for education and as a creative stimulus for new performance.”207
The obvious choice for a constituent was the performing arts division of the New York Public
Library which was then housed in the central research branch at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street. In
addition to providing a dedicated space for the Public Library’s vast performing arts collection,
the selection of the renowned institution as its constituent would fulfill a major component of its
educational mission. Furthermore, because of the library’s public-private organizational
structure, the board of Lincoln Center would have added assurance of its constituent’s ability to
be self-sustaining.
A product of joint philanthropy, the New York Public Library had been formed in 1895
through the consolidation of libraries established by John Jacob Astor and James Lenox, and
through a trust established by Samuel H. Tilden.208 Committed to the idea of providing a central
library whereby the general public could read books free of charge on a range of subjects, the
founders combined their efforts to construct a model institution on Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street,
which opened to the public in 1911. This arrangement between a private non-profit institution
87
and the city proved to be mutually beneficial as both philanthropist and government could serve
the public more efficiently through partnership rather than through isolation.
On June 10, 1959, the New York Public Library’s board of trustees voted to become a
part of Lincoln Center on the provision that the library organization could secure the necessary
capital funds from the city to build and operate its facility.209 After representatives from the
library had conducted numerous feasibility studies on the relocation and consolidation of the
performing arts division, the library trustees accepted Lincoln Center’s invitation to become its
library constituent on February 13, 1961.210 Although financial issues had still not been resolved
by the time of this agreement, both the board members of Lincoln Center and representatives
from the New York Public Library were confident that the city would fulfill its commitment—
which it eventually did, thereby enabling the eventual transfer of the performing arts division to
the Lincoln Center campus.
Eero Saarinen-Gordon Bunshaft Collaboration
The creation of the Vivian Beaumont Theater and the Library and Museum of the
Performing Arts was the result of an unusual collaboration between Eero Saarinen and Gordon
Bunshaft. Fully cognizant of the northwestern site’s limitations to house both a theater and a
library-museum, the center’s architects had unanimously campaigned to assign either the theater
or the library-museum to the campus’ southwestern quadrant. However, confronted with Robert
Moses’s refusal to compromise his park plan, Saarinen and Bunshaft were forced to work within
the confines of the previously allocated area.
In spite of their colleagues’ reservations about their collaboration, Saarinen and Bunshaft
agreed that they could more effectively achieve their programmatic goals by working together on
their buildings’ envelopes rather than separately. Said Saarinen at the outset of their joint effort,
“This is the least likely marriage I have envisioned. But it might be very interesting. We can at
88
least call it an affair.”211 Bunshaft and Saarinen’s collaboration on the two buildings was never
more apparent than in their configuration of the Library and Museum of the Performing Arts.
Consisting of two entrances, one at the north court and one at Amsterdam Avenue, the architects
were able to satisfy the enormous spatial requirements of the Vivian Beaumont Theater and
make a cohesive library facility out of the vacant areas. Tomas Rossant, an architect assigned to
the 1998-2001 renovation of the library-museum put it succinctly: “The Beaumont had its very
important relationship with the plaza outside, and the library got leftover space.”212 True as that
assertion may be, it does not credit the ingenuity that went into Bunshaft’s design of this
“leftover space.”
In addition to establishing a coherent entrance positioned between the Beaumont and the
proposed Metropolitan Opera House, the two architects essentially wrapped the library around
the Beaumont theater’s fly space and made it one of the most prominent, though invisible,
stylistic elements of the theater’s facade. The resulting design of placing archival research
facilities in the area in front and behind this fly space not only solved the particular demands of
the library, but also informed the modern aesthetic so dominant in the theater’s façade; namely
the massive travertine-covered truss which defines Saarinen’s magnificent building.
While maximizing the square footage of the site had been the prevailing goal of Saarinen
and Bunshaft in their collaboration, satisfying their individual building’s functional requirements
was their task apart from one another. Thus, once they had made the space accommodations
necessary to make both buildings work, they could concentrate on individual floor plans. Years
after the work had been completed, Bunshaft reflected that this arrangement turned out to be “a
very happy relationship all the way through”213 in spite of minor compromises each architect had
to make to satisfy the other.
89
Vivian Beaumont Theater
Unlike many architects who specialize in one building type, Eero Saarinen’s career was
defined by a multitude of buildings in a variety of areas. Having had an equal amount of
experience as a planner as he had as an architect, Saarinen was an ideal candidate to deal with
the complex spatial and programmatic requirements of the Vivian Beaumont Theater. Although
he was not a theater designer, he did have the capacity to solve universal problems of function.
On this particular project, he was aided by Jo Mielziner, who had been highly acclaimed for his
work, both as a set designer and a theater technician on Broadway and in regional theaters across
the country. In addition, Saarinen’s ability to create an envelope that expressed his building’s
use within its particular context gave further credence to his suitability to this particular project.
Son of famed architect, Eliel Saarinen, Eero Saarinen was born in Kirkkonummi, Finland
in 1910 and immigrated with his family to the United States in 1923.214 Settling in Michigan
beginning in 1924, Saarinen later moved to France in 1929 to study sculpture at the Académie de
la Grand Chaumière Paris. Returning to America, he attended Yale’s architecture school
whereupon he earned his B.F.A. in 1934. Between 1936 and 1941, Saarinen worked in his
father’s office where he collaborated on several concert halls, including the Berkshire Music
Center in Tanglewood, Massachusetts and the Kleinhaus Music Hall in Buffalo, New York.
After becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1940, Eero Saarinen became a
partner in his father’s firm: first, at Saarinen-Swanson-Saarinen (with J. Robert Swanson) (194147) and later, at Saarinen, Saarinen & Associates (1947-50). During this earlier period, the
architect worked in the Washington, D.C. branch of his father’s office while also being
appointed Chief of the Special Exhibits Section in the Office of Strategic Studies (1942-45). It
was also during this time that the architect and his OSS colleague, Oliver Lundquist, won first
prize in the “Designs for Postwar Living” competition sponsored by California Arts and
Architecture. Their entry, entitled the “PAC system,” or Pre-assembled Component, entailed a
90
system of industrially-produced modular facades that could be reconfigured in a variety of ways
to build housing.
Notwithstanding this notable achievement and his association with his father’s
architectural firm, Eero Saarinen’s other major recognition came from his collaboration with
Charles Eames on their Molded Plywood Chair, garnering the two designers first place in the
Museum of Modern Art’s “Organic Design in Home Furnishings” competition. Years later, he
reached equal prominence with his “womb chair” design which became a best-seller of its time.
Throughout the 1940s, Saarinen worked intermittently with his father and his business partner as
an architect and planner on a range of projects that encompassed town and campus plans:
Oberlin College, Ohio (1941); Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan (1942); New Castle,
Indiana (1944); Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa (1946-47); and residential and institutional
building designs: Willow Run Housing Units, Michigan (1942); Parliament Building, Quito,
Ecuador (1943-44); Edmundson Memorial Museum, Des Moines Art Center, Iowa (1944-48);
and Christ Church, Cincinnati, Ohio (1946-48).
In 1948, after having been awarded the commission to design the General Motors
Technical Center—a commission that was delayed over a three-year period—Saarinen won the
renowned competition for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial arch in St. Louis,
Missouri. By the time the General Motors project had been revived, it had been relocated to a
sprawling nine-hundred-acre lot in Warren, Michigan and the architect’s conception of the
campus had significantly changed. Heavily influenced by Mies van der Rohe and the
International Style, Saarinen insisted on using a standard module design comprised of new thinskin technology based on car-manufacturing techniques. His innovations included the use of
neoprene gaskets for window panel installations, and a thin, sandwich panel faced with porcelain
on both the buildings’ exteriors and interiors.
91
After his father’s death in 1950, Eero Saarinen formed his own firm—Saarinen &
Associates—which became known for its ability to find the appropriate “Style for the Job.”215 In
contrast to strict adherents of the International Style, Saarinen instead advocated an exploration
of diverse styles that incorporated the latest construction technology without sacrificing the
essence of the building, as defined by its use and location. Consequently, his firm’s work ranged
from the very reductionist and abstract IBM Building in Rochester, Minnesota (1956-59), to the
soaring and sculptural Trans World Airlines Terminal at Idelwild Airport (now, John F. Kennedy
Airport) in Queens, New York (1956-62). Similarly, Saarinen’s Women’s Dormitories at the
University of Pennsylvania (1957-61) presented a contextual allusion to its red-brick
Philadelphia neighbors, while his Columbia Broadcasting System Headquarters in New York
City (1960-64) used masonry cladding instead of the requisite International-Style glass-curtainwall to reference its traditional surroundings. Other significant works before the architect’s
untimely death in 1961 include his cylindrical brick chapel for MIT (1953-55), Bell Telephone
Corporation Research Laboratories, New Jersey (1957-62), Yale University’s David S. Ingalls
Hockey Rink (1958) and the Dulles International Airport Terminal Building, Chantilly, Virginia
(1958-63).
Saarinen’s exterior design for the Vivian Beaumont Theater dramatically diverged from
the designs of Philharmonic Hall and the State Theater with its purely modern aesthetic which
was further emphasized by its panoramic scale. Instead of employing a vertically-oriented,
colonnade inspired by classical models, the architect chose a horizontal orientation that featured
an expansive bronze and glass curtain wall topped by an unadorned, coffered, concrete attic story
faced with travertine. Supporting this massive 150-foot truss at the façade’s corners were two
square columns of exposed-aggregate finish that connected to the truss with inverted bronze,
pyramid-shaped pins. Inside, the architect created a sunken lobby which was consistent with his
minimalist exterior design; this was characterized by a notable absence of art in favor of large
92
red hangings, more travertine, white silk-paneled walls, bronze balcony and stair railings, and
red carpeting. Inside the Beaumont auditorium, the designer continued the red color motif with
red-upholstered seats and aisle carpeting.
After lengthy discussions with set designer, Jo Mielziner, theatrical producer, Robert
Whitehead, and acclaimed theater and film director, Elia Kazan, regarding the theater’s needs, it
was apparent that Saarinen’s design would attempt to break with traditional Broadway theater
models to create a performance space that was simultaneously versatile, intimate and
technologically advanced. Because both theaters were to be designed for a repertory company of
actors, it was essential for the architect to make theatrical operations as economical as possible—
whether that entailed transforming the house configuration from a proscenium arch into an openapron stage, or implementing stage machinery to accommodate the demands of a particular
show’s scenery and actors.
The Vivian Beaumont was capable of seating a maximum of 1,140 patrons in its
orchestra and loge sections combined, while maintaining an intimate ambience by placing no
spectator more than sixty-five feet from its stage. Jo Mielziner, detailing his research with
Saarinen, said, “We found out the all important things on stage happen in a flat triangle facing
the audience about 10 feet deep in the center and we put this into the thrust, thus doubling the
area where important scenes can be played.”216 A marvel of theater size and machinery, the
10,000 square-foot stage of the Beaumont consisted of two enormous concentric turntables
which could operate in both directions at varying speeds, together or individually. Several stage
wagons were capable of gliding onto the turntables to facilitate quick scene changes; an intricate
lighting panel enabled automated lighting cues; and electronic floating steel and aluminum
panels could determine the size of the stage arch according to a particular production’s
specifications. Regarding the front of the stage, the apron could either be supplemented with a
thrust stage or mechanically submerged to allow for additional seating and/or an orchestra.
93
When asked how they arrived at their design, Mielziner replied, “We went back to the classical
ideas of the Greeks and added marvels of the electronic age.”217 In fact, Saarinen and Mielziner
were so committed to perfecting their design that they built a full-scale mock-up of their plan
within an abandoned movie house in Pontiac Michigan to test its viability. There, in their
experimental laboratory, the two designers plotted 300 stage designs to gauge their theater’s
flexibility.
For the 299-seat Forum Theater, the designers literally created a black box—sans stage
machinery—to serve as a rehearsal space for the resident acting company, and as an
experimental theater for visiting companies. Located below the Beaumont, the Forum was
directly accessible via the underground parking garage. On November 5, 1973, it was renamed
the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater, after the wife of its donor, Samuel I. Newhouse.218
Vivian Beaumont Theater Opening and Critical Response
The Vivian Beaumont Theater officially opened on October 14, 1965 with a production
of George Buechner’s Danton’s Death, starring James Earl Jones and with the newly-formed
Repertory Association. Initial notices about the $10.3 million theater were enthusiastic. C. Ray
Smith, writing for Progressive Architecture, beamed, “It is the most serene and most
uncompromisingly modern gem at Lincoln Center.”219 Film director Otto Preminger called it
“the most beautiful theater” and playwright-lyricist Alan J. Lerner said it was “marvelous and
effective.”220
Smith also had praise for the theater’s design and technology. Calling the Beaumont and
the library-museum, “the finest designs at Lincoln Center,” the critic noted that the former was
“one of the most innovational theater facilities in this country”221 Elaborating on his appraisal,
Smith wrote:
What is innovational about this stage is both the ingenious liftturn-table solution, and, above all, the possible use of the open
94
stage in combination with a full proscenium stage behind it. This is
the first time, in professional theater in this country, that this new
combination has been achieved.222
Moreover, Smith maintained that “the available options for both pageantry and intimacy in a
single production should prove this combination to be a major contribution to the development of
theater forms.”223 Similarly, a critic for Fortune wrote superlatives about the Forum theater,
writing that it was “a prize trinket,” “a beautiful little experimental theatre…that is one of those
rare rooms with a sense of expectancy,” and “a model of what could be done to provide a
relatively inexpensive jewel for almost any community.”224
Beyond the Beaumont’s technological innovations, Smith also praised the fact that
despite the theater’s flexible capabilities, it had a look of permanence that was not disruptive to
the theater-going experience. Thus, in contrast to Johnson’s aim to make the act of theater-going
part of the entertainment, Saarinen succeeded in creating an “effect of anonymity…focusing all
attention on the stage and on the performers.”225 This, he claimed, was further achieved by the
theater interior’s non-reflective cordovan-brown wood battens which, with their directional ribs,
oriented patrons’ eyes toward the stage. Similarly, aisle lights, which were recessed in the sides
of the end seats, caused no distraction. Smith also called the backstage facilities “exemplary”
with their 75% occupancy of the theater area.226 On the other hand, theater critic, Clive Barnes,
thought the Vivian Beaumont “fell short of excellence,” complaining about inadequate sight
lines and “a strange compromise between the thrust stage and the arena stage, while still clinging
to a nostalgia for the proscenium arch.”227
With regard to the exterior, Ada Louise Huxtable, advocating a new aesthetic inherent in
20th-century building technology, wrote, “The only place one senses the possibilities is standing
in front of the Vivian Beaumont Theater, a design of strong, structural good looks.”228 In his
glowing review a couple years later, Harper’s Magazine critic, Robert Kotlowitz, called the
Beaumont, “an architectural winner,” describing it as “serene, cool, symmetrical, clean, elegant,
95
and easily one of the most beautiful structures in New York City.”229 One month after its
opening, the Concrete Industry Board of New York named the Vivian Beaumont Theater “the
best concrete structure erected in New York” for 1965.230
Alterations to the Vivian Beaumont and Mitzi E. Newhouse Theaters
In 1990, Lincoln Center Theater’s executive producer, Bernard Gersten, detailed the
various alterations that were taking place within the building.231 Among them were the
replacement of the red-upholstered auditorium seats with a burgundy fabric, and the removal of
aisle carpeting to expose the concrete underneath. In addition, countering past claims that the
Beaumont theater was not a true thrust stage, Gersten responded, “We have built it out 25 feet.
There is no question of its being a proscenium stage. We are totally committed to natural
thrust.”232 Other changes included the removal of the lobby’s red hangings and the installation
of hand rails on the steeper aisles of the auditorium. Later, in 1996, the Vivian Beaumont
Theater and the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater were subjected to $8 million worth of renovations
which made them wheelchair accessible, improved their acoustics, and upgraded their heating
and cooling systems, and infrastructure.233 Over the years, other visible changes that have taken
place include the installation of neon signage in the windows, and free-standing, metal-and-glass
poster cases in the area directly in front of the theater.
The Library and Museum of the Performing Arts
As a forerunner in modern, corporate architectural design, Gordon Bunshaft was a fitting
choice to work within the boundaries prescribed for the library-museum by the planners of
Lincoln Center. Born in Buffalo, New York, in 1909, Bunshaft obtained both his Bachelors and
Masters degrees in architecture from M.I.T. (1933/1935).234 Like Wallace K. Harrison, Bunshaft
was also the recipient of the Rotch Traveling Fellowship, and upon his return from Europe and
96
Africa in 1937, joined the one-year-old firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Between 1942 and
1946, the architect took a leave of absence to serve in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Before
and after his military duty, Bunshaft had a long association with S.O.M., helping it to achieve
international prominence in the field of corporate design, first as chief designer (19371942/1946-1949), and later as partner (1949-1983). Among its many accomplishments, S.O.M.
has been recognized for having pioneered the concept of integrating architecture and engineering
into one company.
Perhaps more than any other architect of the Lincoln Center complex, Bunshaft embraced
the tenets of the International Style as proposed by Mies van der Rohe. In contrast to Johnson
and Saarinen, who adapted a more liberal approach to design that eventually broke away from
Mies’ glass box, Bunshaft adhered to International-Style dictums which not only stressed
functionality through the use of modern materials, but also rejected any applied ornamentation or
sentiment conveyed through design. Thoroughly pragmatic in his design approach, Bunshaft
earned distinction in his profession by pioneering the use of modern building technology to
produce expansive and efficient floor plates, thereupon redefining the American office building
and industrial complex. This prototype, though imitated and manifested through the use of massproduced materials, nonetheless became a signature style unto itself of corporate America.
Bunshaft’s most notable achievement was his design of New York City’s Lever House
Corporation Headquarters in 1952. Allowing for pedestrian pathways to cross through the
ground level, Bunshaft’s building engaged the general public, while at the same time, maximized
office space for his corporate client above ground through huge concrete floor plates facilitated
by a glass-and-steel curtain wall. One scholar, commenting on Bunshaft’s innovation, wrote that
the Lever House “affirmed the role of open space and efficient geometric enclosure as a theme
for housing large office organizations.”235 Thus, in his economical use of modern building
materials to maximize space, Bunshaft’s design became the model for corporate buildings
97
nationwide. This was later reinterpreted in the highly-stylized Seagram’s Building, which
retained Bunshaft’s sleek upper level design—albeit in more refined and luxurious materials—
while diminishing pedestrian interaction at street level.
In 1954, Bunshaft produced the Manufacturers Hanover Trust Bank, Branch
Headquarters, also in New York City, which applied the glass curtain wall concept to a
commercial bank, thereby flying in the face of traditional bank designs that were predicated on
secrecy and impermeability. One of the most controversial aspects of Bunshaft’s design was his
placement of the bank safe in the ground-floor window, symbolic of a corporate wealth that was
tangible yet elusive to the general public.
Throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Bunshaft worked on a range of urban and suburban
corporate office buildings that included H.J. Heinz Company Vinegar Plant in Pittsburgh (1952);
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Office Building in Bloomfield (1957); Reynolds
Metals Company Building in Richmond (1958); Pepsi-Cola Building in New York City (1960);
First National City Bank in Houston (1961); Chase Manhattan Bank in New York City (1961);
Union Carbide Corporation Building in New York City (1961); H.J. Heinz and Company,
Headquarters and Research Buildings in Hayes Park, Middlesex (with Matthews, Ryan and
Simpson) (1965); Marine Midland Building in New York City (1967); American Can Company
Suburban Corporate Headquarters in Greenwich (1970); W.R. Grace Building in New York City
(1973); Philip Morris Cigarette Manufacturing Plant in Richmond (1974).
Supplementing his work in the field of corporate architecture, Bunshaft has also produced
a range of institutional and cultural buildings such as the United States Consulate in Düsseldorf
(1954); Albright-Knox Art Gallery addition in Buffalo (1962); Yale University’s Beinecke Rare
Book and Manuscript Library in New Haven (1963); University of Texas’ Lyndon Baines
Johnson Library and Sid W. Richardson Hall in Austin (1971); Hirshhom Museum and Sculpture
Garden in Washington, D.C. (1974).
98
Over the years, Bunshaft received many awards and honors, including the Brunner
Award from the National Institute of Arts and Letters (1955); Medal of Honor, New York
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (1961); Gold Meal, American Academy and
Institute of Arts and Letters (1984); Pritzker Architecture Prize (with Oscar Niemeyer) (1988);
Academician, National Academy of Design; Fellow, American Institute of Architects and
American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
The primary goal of the representatives of the Library and Museum of the Performing
Arts was to have the architect provide for a range of uses pertaining to the library’s music, dance
and drama collections. Since the current division was housed in the library’s main branch, it did
not have the allocation of dedicated space nor technology to accommodate its diverse needs.
Consequently, when the library’s director, Edward Freehafer, conferred with Gordon Bunshaft
on the design, he specifically detailed every use, which not only included the obligatory rows of
bookshelves, and reading, reference and circulation desks, but also auditoriums, galleries and
audio stations. Although these were exceptional demands imposed on a city-subsidized facility,
Bunshaft approached the task as he would with any office commission, characteristically saying,
“I don’t think there’s any great mystery to doing a library, or anything else…It is a series of
rooms for function—nice, neat, business-like spaces for flexibility.”236 Despite the architect’s
modesty, his design for the Library and Museum of the Performing Arts was a complex model of
efficiency and maximized space that was unprecedented in the area of modern library design.
Deemed “the most comprehensive facility in existence” by the Saturday Review, the
Library and Museum of the Performing Arts remained exemplary for its highly-specialized
facility and holdings.237 Bunshaft’s glass-curtain-wall design was unassuming at Plaza North
level yet cohesively integrated with the Vivian Beaumont Theater, containing an intricate series
of spaces within. On its ground floor, which could be entered from Amsterdam Avenue, the
architect allotted space for the Vincent Astor Gallery and a 200-seat lecture hall (renamed the
99
“Bruno Walter Auditorium” after the famed conductor in 1978). In the center of the space,
abutting the Vivian Beaumont Theater stage wall, Bunshaft placed the elevator banks and
restrooms. The plaza level contained more exhibition spaces, a circulating library with
bookshelves and reading desks, as well as a long circulation desk and listening stations. The
second floor, or mezzanine, was comprised of the Heckscher Oval, a small children’s theater
within the children’s library on the south side, and a series of additional listening stations within
an exhibition area on the west end. Above, on the third floor, was the bulk of archival holdings
pertaining to the music, dance and drama collections which contained both self-service and
restricted access areas for books. The third floor also contained two piano rooms and more
listening stations.
For interior finishes, the architect generally used travertine for the walls and the
circulation desks, white-enameled metal for the bookcases and white oak for the desks.
Regarding the third floor, C. Ray Smith, writing for Progressive Architecture, noted that it
demonstrated “the relatively reveal-less, spacer-less joints of the latest SOM style: clean,
unarticulated white plaster envelopes dominate, with glass and aluminum partitions and lighting
troffers punctuating them.”238 Furniture for the reading areas was comprised of light-orange
vinyl chairs placed on raspberry-red wool carpeting. Exhibition areas featured both oak-andglass and black metal-and-glass display cases with low, armrest-free, black-vinyl-upholstered
chairs surrounding English oak-cased turntables resting on beige carpeting. Flooring for most of
the areas were finished in pale terrazzo.
The Library and Museum of the Performing Arts Critical Response
The $8 million Library and Museum of the Performing Arts opened on November 30,
1965 to generally favorable reviews. C. Ray Smith wrote that the library-museum, “a forcefully
simple exterior concept with a contrastingly complex interior arrangement—is a classic example
100
of the values of early decisions.”239 Then, praising its holdings, Smith stated that “they are the
most important of their kind in the country, second only to those at the Library of Congress.”240
Allen Hughes of The New York Times similarly enthused, “There is no place else like it in the
world,” adding, “Remarkable as it is in regard to all the performing arts (including the circus), it
is probably most extraordinary in the materials, services and facilities it makes available to
musicians, music scholars or just plain music-lovers…”241 Harper’s Magazine critic, Robert
Kotlowitz, acknowledging that the library-museum had “no architectural identity of its own,”
nevertheless praised it as “the hidden jewel of Lincoln Center.”242
Regarding the interior, a critic for The New Yorker observed, “The walls and floors of the
library are off-white, its furnishings have a hint of the Bauhaus about them, and its lighting is
ample while giving the impression of being subdued.”243 Smith countered other critics’
objections to Bunshaft’s color scheme, reasoning, “for scholars used to the previously cramped
and gloomy quarters of the music and theater collections, the new surroundings seem a
dreamlike coral tower.”244 He then added:
Measured in terms of the interiors SOM has produced in the past
this project is not a milestone; measured in terms of exterior
architecture—and the architecture of Lincoln Center—the LibraryMuseum is a winner…More importantly, the calm and generous,
clean and unsqualid atmosphere of this civic building, and its
concept of making the background of the performing arts more
readily available, can be received only with gratitude and acclaim
by all the citizens of New York.245
As both Smith and Hughes noted, one of the most significant aspects about the library-museum
was its accessibility to the general public. Whereas all of the other constituents of Lincoln
Center required money for their performances, the Library and Museum of the Performing Arts
provided free access for its many attractions.
Thus, any person could come in and see an exhibit, read a book, listen to a musical
performance or a spoken recording, research a topic or attend a lecture. If an individual wanted
101
to check out written or recorded materials, then all that was required was a valid library card.
Moreover, given the library-museum’s vast holdings consisting of over 100,000 musical scores
and books; 26,000 volumes of data devoted to dance; thousands of manuscripts and memorabilia
pertaining to the theater; and over 100,000 sound recordings, there was no other local research or
lending library which could rival its magnitude in performing arts materials.
Alterations to the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
Before 1998, the library-museum, which had since changed its name to the “New York
Public Library for the Performing Arts,” had undergone relatively minor changes. In 1998,
through major funding from the New York Public Library and partial funding from private
donors, a major overhaul of its interior spaces was undertaken. Overseen by Polshek Partnership
Architects—a firm notable for its sensitivity in creating additions to historic buildings—the
Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center, as it is now called, has been redesigned to employ 21stcentury technology and finishes. Costing approximately $38 million dollars, the renovation took
three years, with a sizable portion of the funds applied to the latest computer, audio and video
equipment. In addition to 163 new computer terminals, 56 new audiovisual playback stations
and 14 new audio listening stations, the library offers 120 plug-in connections among its 450
public seats to access the World Wide Web.
With regard to its holdings, the library-museum has more than doubled its original
inventory. The Rodgers & Hammerstein Archive of Recorded Sound, previously numbering
100,000 recordings now numbers 500,000. A recent acquisition of 60,000 scores and recordings
from the American Music Center has increased the music collection to 160,000, and circulating
collections currently number 350,000, while research collections now number nine million items.
New York Public Library President Paul LeClerc recently declared it to be “the largest
performing arts collection on the planet free and accessible to the public.”246
102
Changes include consolidating gallery spaces from three rooms to two while
simultaneously increasing floor-to-ceiling heights, and introducing video monitors and
interactive play stations into the exhibits. Although Polshek Partnership made significant
alterations to the finishes, especially with the introduction of a modern color scheme of black,
cherry red and chalk blue, they left many of the ceiling fixtures as they were. Architect, Thomas
Rossant, said, “That ceiling is the original Bunshaft, part of the brazen austerity of the building
and something we did not want to compete with…It’s like ‘2001: A Space Odyssey.’”247
LeClerc, summing up the improvements, proclaimed the new library-museum, “the cerebellum
of the performing arts industry in New York… the cerebellum with power behind it.”248
LINCOLN CENTER PLAZA NORTH
Landscape Design
The north plaza, part of the original plan for Lincoln Center, was designed by the
preeminent American modern landscape architect, Daniel Urban Kiley. As previously noted,
Robert Moses had assigned Harrison & Abramovitz to lay out the plaza and park areas beginning
in late 1956. This plan was then revised successively by the center’s planners and architects until
the final master plan was approved by the board on July 13, 1959.249 Eero Saarinen, having
already been chosen to design the Vivian Beaumont Theater, had also been entrusted with the
design of the plaza area in front of it. Saarinen in turn relied on Dan Kiley—as he had done for
many of his earlier buildings—to produce a plaza landscape that would integrate and reflect the
modern aesthetic posed by the adjacent buildings.
Like many of the architects of Lincoln Center, Dan Kiley was a pioneer in his field. Born
in Boston, Massachusetts in 1912, Kiley apprenticed for several years under Warren Manning,
founder of the American Society of Landscape Architects, before becoming Manning’s
103
associate.250 Between 1936 and 1938, Kiley studied architecture at Harvard’s Graduate School
of Design, during which time, Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius became the school’s dean. In
spite of Gropius’ presence, Kiley dropped out and embarked on a career in planning and
landscape design. In 1942, he collaborated with Louis I. Kahn on the Willow Run Housing
Development in Michigan before joining the Army’s Office of Strategic Services, where he was
appointed Chief of the Design Presentation Branch. In 1945, Kiley designed and constructed the
room to house the Nuremberg Courtroom Internal Trials, thereby earning him the distinction of
election to the United States Chief of the Council Legion of Merit.
Beginning in the early 1940s and continuing into the latter half of the twentieth century,
Kiley collaborated with some of the world’s most distinguished modern architects to produce
innovative landscapes that incorporated contemporary motifs of abstraction, uniformity and
minimalism. In addition to working with Kahn, Kiley partnered with Eero Saarinen on designs
ranging from the award-winning Jefferson Memorial, or “Gateway Arch,” in St. Louis, Missouri
(1947-48), to the Miller House (1955) and Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company (1964) in
Columbus, Ohio—the latter two designs having been listed on the National Register of Historic
Places on May 16, 2000.
In particular, Kiley’s landmark garden for J. Irwin and Xenia Miller has been regarded as
a signal event in the architect’s career as it featured all of the distinctive elements for which he
became renowned. As scholar, Joseph Disponzio, noted:
Henceforth, his designs would be known for their genteel and
sophisticated formality, structured by orthogonal geometry and
expressed in a vocabulary of forms culled from garden history and
the cultured landscape, designs distinguished by an innate sense of
proportion and an unerring sense of balance that fit programs to
sites in landscapes of extraordinary refinement and clarity.251
104
Other notable landscapes designed in partnership with Saarinen included the IBM Building in
Rochester, Minnesota (1956), Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Virginia (1958), and
Stiles and Morse Colleges at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut (1963).
With Gordon Bunshaft, Kiley produced corporate office landscaping for the Union
Carbide and Carbine Company in Eastview, New York (1956) and the Reynolds Metal Building
in Richmond, Virginia (1956). For Bunshaft’s firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the landscaper
worked on the grounds of the Law Library at the University of Chicago (1958) and redesigned
Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. (1962). Other notable outdoor collaborations
included works such as the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado,
with Walter Netsch (1956), and Oakland Museum in California with Kevin Roche (1962).
Kiley has been widely praised for his progressive landscapes which infuse modern design
principles into natural settings. Landscape architect and scholar, Ken Smith, has lauded Kiley’s
ability to create “a pervasive sense of enclosure through the use of a limited palette of materials
and minimalist geometries” while, at the same time, using “reductive and abstract principles…to
create a new type of ambient landscape space.” 252 Kiley himself has stated that “[his] objective
is the integration of man and nature into one” so that “the consistent parts of the design must be
related one to another and to their surroundings inside and outside.”253 Having observed how
nature continually changes and moves, Kiley has said, “What I’ve been trying to do in my work
is create a man-made scene having those attributes or characteristics.” 254
Furthermore, the landscapist has defended his style, reasoning that just “because it’s
geometric in plan doesn’t mean that the space is static; hopefully the space continues to flow.”255
“Flow” has been a dominant quality in Kiley’s work as he has ordered his landscapes while
incorporating full and colorful plantings to complement these shapes. I.M. Pei, who collaborated
with Kiley on Fredonia College in New York (1965), as well as on the East Wing National
Gallery of Art and Sculpture Garden in Washington, D.C. (1971), said of him: “He taught me
105
that space is not something you stand at one point and take a picture of, it is something that you
move through… you feel it.”256 In 1997, Kiley was awarded the National Medal of Arts for over
fifty years of achievement in the field of landscape design.
Before Kiley had begun his work on Plaza North, he had recently completed the
courtyard within Harrison & Abramovitz’s Rockefeller University Expansion Buildings (195758), located at York Avenue between East 64th and 65th Streets. Thus, both Rockefeller and
Harrison had already endorsed Kiley’s work by the time Saarinen had recommended him for the
job. Although Kiley’s input into the design of Plaza North was substantial, he cannot be credited
with having created the reflecting pool. Many of Wallace K. Harrison’s drawings completed
between 1955 and 1959 reveal that the lead architect had envisioned a water element of this type
on some portion of the Lincoln Center campus.257 For Plaza North, Kiley and the design team
had initially proposed a smaller reflecting pool, employing a series of “paved panels…set in a
geometric pattern across the water.”258 However, this plan was altered when the Committee on
Arts and Acquisitions decided to purchase a Henry Moore sculpture for the pool. As a result, the
pool’s size was increased to enhance Moore’s work, and the so-called “paved panels” were
eliminated in favor of a larger yet more refined water element.
Striving for a “unifying force between the contrasting proportions and details” of the
adjacent buildings, Kiley’s design for Plaza North was spatially organized around the reflecting
pool, which, in turn, embraced the Henry Moore sculpture as its focal point with Saarinen’s
theater as its backdrop. 259 Appropriately distanced from the reflecting pool on three of its four
sides, Kiley’s travertine planters were positioned far enough away so as not to interfere with the
sculpture-pool-theater composition. On the other hand, the planters were still close enough to
give a verticality to the plaza that would balance its pervasive horizontal orientation.
Furthermore, by placing pairs of planters along the north facade of the Metropolitan Opera
106
House, the architect skillfully created a mall that respected the Beaumont theater while orienting
visitors toward the library-museum entrance. Other planters, running single-file, north to south
along Philharmonic Hall, and east to west along the proposed Juilliard School, appropriately
framed the entire Plaza North area while demarcating other pedestrian trajectories.
With regard to materials, planter design and landscaping, Kiley employed travertine to
give the courtyard a cohesion with the adjoining buildings, while introducing color and volume
into the space though his choice of greenery. Housed within a series of low-riding, thirty-inchhigh by twenty-foot-square planters, each box contained a quartet of London plane trees—
uniformly spaced ten to twelve feet apart, center to center—embellished by a mix of red and
white Japanese azaleas. Kiley’s use of four plane trees within each planter was “essential to
achieve the necessary mass and density for the plaza” and “to relate successfully to the
surrounding architecture.”260 Furthermore, he advised the center’s gardeners to clip the tops for
architectural clarity and the roots to avoid damage of the underground roof membrane. The
planters themselves were faced in travertine and featured coved corners at their bases that
visually linked them to the travertine buildings.
Lincoln Center Plaza North embodied Kiley’s use of minimalism and abstraction as a
counterpoint to its modern architecture setting. Employing quartets of London plane trees within
a series of geometrically-configured, square travertine planters, these plantings gave order,
uniformity and volume to an otherwise flat, landscape palette, while his red and white azaleas
provided bursts of color to an area largely characterized by beige-white planters and subdued
pink marble granite pavers. Regarding the “flow” that figures so prominently into the designers
work, Lincoln Center Plaza North’s planters order the space in a way that directs visitors to its
adjacent facilities, while, at the same time, offering an open plane from which they can view its
reflecting pool, buildings and its art.
107
Art Within Lincoln Center Plaza North
In 1961, the Albert A. List Foundation gave a grant totaling one million dollars to
Lincoln Center, Inc.—half to be used for the construction of the Metropolitan Opera House and
the commissioning of art posters, and half to be used for the acquisition of sculptures and
paintings for the complex. In November, the Committee on Arts and Acquisitions met with the
Lincoln Center architects to discuss the possibility of a large sculpture for the reflecting pool
within Plaza North. The Committee’s unanimous choice of artist for the proposed work was the
world-famous British sculptor, Henry Moore. Since committee chairman, Frank Stanton, knew
Moore personally, he visited the artist at his studio in England and then invited him to come to
Lincoln Center and assess the site in March 1962. Although Moore had been impressed with
both the space and the reflecting pool as a setting for his work, he did not commit to the project
until he had returned to England. Following his visit, Moore wrote Stanton and Rockefeller to
let them know that he was interested in accepting the commission.261
Generally considered the “most important British sculptor of the 20th century,” and hailed
by Time magazine as a “modern master,” Henry Spencer Moore was heavily influenced by nonWestern sculpture.262 Born in Castleford, West Yorkshire, England in 1898, he worked as a
student teacher between 1915 and 1916, and began attending the Leeds School of Art in 1919.263
Influenced by Roger Fry’s Vision and Design, Moore became interested in three-dimensional,
non-Western sculpture and the technique of direct carving. In 1921, Moore received a
scholarship to study sculpture at the Royal College of Art in London. Concurrent with his
studies, he began focusing on African and Pre-Columbian art which he was able to more fully
explore through his repeated trips to the British Museum.
1929 marked a turning point in Moore’s work as he completed the first of his many
“reclining figures.” Inspired by Chacmool, figures of warrior priests carved out of basalt by the
Toltec-Mayans, Moore revered the ancient work for its “stillness and alertness” and “sense of
108
readiness.”264 Using qualities of Chacmool as his prototype, Moore developed a style in his
drawing and carving that used human and landscape forms interchangeably. New York Times
critics Vera and John Russell wrote:
Represented in his figures is an idea of woman in which the bloom
of physical magnificence at its fullest and ripest calls to mind the
great heroines of history and legend. These are the mothers and
consorts of heroes. But they also have the characteristics of
landscape. Mountains, cliffs, river beds, headlands, rock tunnels
and secret caves come to mind as we work our way around and
through Moore’s majestic inventions. And common to both woman
and landscape are the notions of strength and shelter, growth and
renewal.265
Moore himself was less verbose when asked about his predominant subject matter, “There is no
doubt I’ve had what Freud would call a mother complex.”266 In 1934, the artist’s Four-Piece
Composition: Reclining Figure, which featured a series of dismembered elements of the human
body, not only anticipated what would become his signature style, but more specifically, his
commission for Lincoln Center.
During World War II, Moore was appointed an Official War Artist, and received national
recognition for his drawings which depicted local citizens taking shelter in London’s
underground. Citing a connection between his real life models and his favorite subject matter,
Moore remarked, “I saw hundreds of Henry Moore Reclining Figures stretched along the
platforms…even the train tunnels seemed to be like the holes in my sculpture.”267 Six years after
New York’s Museum of Modern Art gave him a major retrospective exhibition, Moore received
a commission from the Arts Council for the Festival of Britain. Producing a Reclining Figure in
bronze for the Arts Council, Moore’s 1951 version was a milestone in the artist’s development as
his work assumed a more three-dimensional form than before, incorporating voids into his
design. Commenting on the power of voids within sculpture, he said, “A hole can have as much
shape-meaning as a solid mass.”268
109
Between 1959 and 1964, Moore produced several reclining figures consisting of two and
three pieces, the largest and last of which was created for Lincoln Center. However, in contrast
to previous models in which “the human figure echoed the forms of mountains, hills and
valleys,” for these commissions he reversed the metaphor as “rugged cliffs, caves, rocks and
dramatic sea-worn headlands [became] the human body.”269 In fact, Moore had used Claude
Monet’s depiction of the cliff at Etretát as the inspiration for one of his most recent reclining
figure sculptures—Two-Piece Figure No. 2. Similarly, when referring to his piece for Lincoln
Center, the artist stated, “I’d like the sculpture to rise out of the water like those cliffs.”270 The
artist was also specific about his assignment:
What I’ve been asked to do is to provide a focal piece for a space
that the architects have created. That space has buildings all around
it, but I’m not required to alter my ideas to fit in with them…The
Plaza is too big, too broad and too long for me to be concerned
with anything but the space enclosed by the buildings.271
He then added, “My sculpture must be big enough to make its point at a considerable distance…I
want it to tower above the visitor so that his natural line of vision will be somewhere about the
middle of it…Since you can walk around it, it’s a sculpture that has to be right from every angle
of vision.”272
Between 1963 and 1965, Frank Stanton and Gordon Bunshaft met with Moore to review
his designs for the sculpture. By the summer of 1964, Moore had completed the plaster model
and several of the center’s architects, along with members of the art committee, flew to England
to review his design. After the Lincoln Center representatives had approved the model, the
sculptor sent it to a West Berlin foundry where bronze casting of the two pieces was begun. In
the interim, the architects corresponded with Moore and the foundry’s owner, Hermann Noack,
in order to get specifications regarding anchorage, lighting, weights and water level. In August
1965, the two enormous pieces comprising Moore’s Reclining Figure arrived in New York and
were hoisted into the reflecting pool. Once their position and orientation had been established,
110
the site was prepared for final installation. Moore’s finished bronze sculpture weighed
approximately 16,000 pounds and measured sixteen-feet-high by thirty-feet-across in relation to
its eighty-foot-wide by one hundred, twenty-foot long reflecting pool. When specifically asked
what body parts he had represented, the artist responded that the work comprised a “leg part” and
“a head and arms part.”273 Several weeks later, the artist elaborated: “In this Reclining Figure
and in the others of mine you find not only a human outline, but also references to landscape or
rocks…The human figure is, for me, the basis of sculpture, of all our sense of form…Even if one
thinks one is being abstract, that is really based on our sense of proportion, based on our own
bodies.”274 Reclining Figure was officially presented as a permanent loan to the city on
September 21, 1965, after having been approved by the city’s Art Commission.275 Upon
acceptance of the sculpture, Mayor Robert F. Wagner gave Moore the city’s Handel Medallion
for Cultural Achievement.
Unlike the commissioning of the Henry Moore sculpture, the acquisition of the
Alexander Calder work, Le Guichet, for Plaza North was controversial. Initiated by arts patrons,
Howard and Jean Lipman, who regarded Lincoln Center as “the proper setting for the works of
the outstanding American artists of our time” and Alexander Calder as one of “America’s
outstanding artists,” the work primarily met with opposition from the City’s Commissioner of
Parks, Newbold Morris.276 As the recipient of a gift or a loan, the City of New York, through its
appointed officials, had the power to accept or reject it. Previously, Morris had been active in
securing the City Center of Music and Drama as the constituent organization for the New York
State Theater. However, his appointment as Parks Commissioner in 1960—succeeding Robert
Moses—placed him in a position whereby he had to reconcile personal taste with public purpose.
Morris’ objections to the contrary, Alexander Calder had received wide critical and
public acceptance when his work was being considered for installation in Plaza North. Having
111
just set a record attendance for his one-man show at the Guggenheim Museum in New York
between November 1964 and February 1965, the artist not only sold over 100 works, but was
also besieged with major commissions.277 Five years earlier, John Canaday, critic for The New
York Times, had been unmitigated in his praise of the artist, writing, “The increasing precision
and economy of Calder’s design make him a classical master in a current use of the term, but in
addition he has an apparently inexhaustible joie de vivre, an unflagging ebullience of
invention.”278
Born in New York in 1898, Calder was the descendant of two famous American artists:
his grandfather, Alexander Milne Calder, who created the statue of William Penn that crowns
Philadelphia’s City Hall; and his father, Alexander Stirling Calder, who created the George
Washington statue for the Washington Arch in New York.279 Both relatives had been celebrated
artists by the time the younger Calder graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology in
Hoboken, New Jersey with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1919. Enrolling in New
York’s Art Students League in 1923, Calder studied under artist John Sloan, and worked
primarily in oil painting. In 1926, his children’s book, Animal Sketching, was published, and
featured both text and illustrations by the artist. Also in 1926, Calder began a series of trips to
Paris where he was influenced by the collages of Joan Miró and the paintings of Paul Klee. His
Circus (1926-32), which was created during this time, featured miniature pieces in the shape of
animals, composed of wire and wood with movable parts.
One of the few American artists to be involved with Abstraction-Création, an avant-garde
arts group in Paris, Calder had been influenced by Piet Mondrian, who urged him to undertake
experiments with abstract constructions. In the early 1930s, this experimentation later resulted in
his creation of kinetic art consisting of mobiles that could be either hand-cranked or motorized.
Calder, who worked extensively with non-objective construction, was the inventor of the mobile,
“a kinetic construction of disparate elements that describe individual movements.”280 Later,
112
Calder expanded his wind-driven and mechanized mobiles to not only include geometric forms,
but also biomorphic ones as well. Regarding his preference for abstract motifs, Calder said, “I
feel there’s greater scope for the imagination in work that can’t be pinpointed to any specific
emotion. That is the limitation of representational sculpture. You’re often enclosed by the
emotion, stopped.”281 Combining Constructivist techniques and materials with Surrealist
imagery, the artist was a pioneer in initiating an entirely new art form that embraced technology.
During the 1950s, Calder continued to develop an idea that he had introduced in the
1930s: the stabile. Composed of large-scale metal sheets that were cut and painted, these
installations were stationery fixtures that later gained great popularity as outdoor public
sculptures throughout the United States and Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. In the meantime,
the artist continued to produce substantial mobiles such as 125 for Idelwild (John F. Kennedy)
Airport (1959) and Big Red (1959), as well as experimental new forms. The artist died in 1976.
In early April 1965, the Committee on Arts and Acquisitions sent a request to Parks
Commissioner Morris to approve the permanent loan of Alexander Calder’s stabile, Le Guichet,
for placement at the library entrance of Plaza North. Leading the campaign for approval was
Gordon Bunshaft, who, along with the center’s arts committee, considered the stabile with its
pedestrian-scale arches an appropriate piece to complement his building’s entryway. Comprised
of enormous, thin, steel plates painted black, Le Guichet was created in 1963 in Tours, France.
Although “le guichet” means “the ticket seller’s window,” Calder maintained “I only called it
that to identify it. I give names to the things I’m working on just like license plates.”282 After
Morris rejected Lincoln Center’s request on the basis that it did not “transmit thought”—as he
maintained good art should do—it was speculated that Mayor Robert F. Wagner had intervened
to get the work approved.283 However, the final determination was delivered on July 12, 1965 by
the city’s Art Commission which voted 5 to 4 in favor of accepting the work. Among the panel
members who voted in favor of accepting the loan were trustees from the Metropolitan Museum
113
of Art and Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, a landscape artist, an architect and the
Director of the New York Public Library. Those opposed included Morris, a sculptor, a painter
and a lay member of the commission. On November 15, 1965, Alexander Calder’s Le Guichet
was presented and dedicated to the citizens of New York. Robert W. Dowling, the city’s cultural
executive, praised the artist as “a boy genius, who has given to the United States a completely
new art form—massive, totally balanced, yet delicate—in which his spontaneity and ebullience
come through.”284
Lincoln Center Plaza North Critical Response
In spite of Dan Kiley’s significant contributions to Plaza North and other outdoor areas at
Lincoln Center, he had not been widely known as its principal landscape architect until years
later when his work had been altered, and a group of preservationists voiced their outrage to the
Lincoln Center organization. Nonetheless, Ada Louise Huxtable lauded the original design,
calling it “the only honestly contemporary vista in the place.”285 Moreover, the Times critic,
contrasting the grouping with the trio at Lincoln Center Plaza, proclaimed, “This is the sole
moment that lifts the spirit of those to whom the 20th century is a very exciting time to be alive,
and for whom the fleeting sensuosity of lighting effects and matching travertine is not
enough.”286 An unnamed critic for Time magazine remarked that the setting for Henry Moore’s
work, with its “tree-dotted promenade—designed for people bound for cultural
experiences…would have made Michelangelo turn green with envy.”287
Praise was also heaped on Reclining Figure in its setting, which the same critic deemed
“Manhattan’s mightiest piece of modern sculpture” that “mingl[ed] the domestic grace of a nude
in her bath with the powerful, primitive presence of a goddess disturbed from sleep by Leonard
Bernstein.”288 The reviewer also hailed Moore for his ability to “enliven a great geometric space
with a human form in bronze—the kind of intense life in art that the voids of architecture
114
demand.”289 New York Times critic, John Canaday, affirmed Moore’s oeuvre as “among the
most important expressions in contemporary art,” while his colleague, Hilton Kramer, called
Reclining Figure “one of the sculptor’s major works.”290 Although lamenting the placement of
Le Guichet’s in relation to Reclining Figure, Kramer complimented the Calder work itself, which
he called both “beautiful” and “first-rate.”291
Alterations to Lincoln Center Plaza North
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, three circumstances contributed to a dramatic
alteration of Dan Kiley’s Plaza North landscape: damage to the underground parking roof caused
by tree root expansion, tree disease and a lack of knowledge about the plaza’s significance.292
On April 23, 1990, The New York Times reported that the quartets of trees within the plaza’s
fourteen planters had been “cleaned out” and were being replaced with single “Aristocrat no
fruit-bearing pear tree[s] with a supporting cast of azaleas.”293 Thus, despite Kiley’s original
instructions to clip the plane trees above- and below- ground, the Lincoln Center organization
opted to replace them with a reduced number of an entirely different species. Kiley later wrote,
“Sadly, this action emasculated the volumetric power of the original planting plan and severed
the link between the architecture of plantings and buildings that together form a civic space of
integrity.”294 Another landscape architect, Peter Walker, saw the replacement as endemic of a
mindset that has generally prevailed among stewards of modern landscapes: “The Kiley design
was changed inadvertently because it wasn’t seen as something. Therefore you could change it.
Because it wasn’t anything.”295
As a result of these significant alterations, modern landscape advocates mobilized to
express their outrage.296 Following a letter of protest written by architect-historian Robert A.M.
Stern in 1993, the New York chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects began
lobbying on behalf of Kiley in order to open discussions between the landscapist and the Lincoln
115
Center organization. What transpired was not only an advocacy group supporting Kiley’s
original plan, but also a meeting between the renowned architect himself and Andre Mirabelli,
Vice President of Lincoln Center. In this meeting and others that followed, the architect
explained his motives and maintenance techniques to the center’s executive and gardening staff.
Although a dialogue was initiated between designer, management and maintenance, the London
plane trees and their accompanying shrubbery were never reinstated on Plaza North.
Concurrent with the landscaping alterations taking place in the early 1990s, another
significant aspect of the plazas was being modified. In an article detailing many planned and
implemented upgrades and changes, New York Times reporter, Richard F. Shepard, quoted the
center’s director of operations, Irwin I. Brooks, as saying that eventually all the travertine steps
would be replaced.297 Citing the fact that the steps “get the hardest pounding,” along with the fact
that “travertine is soft, doesn’t wear well,” Brooks said that his staff would be replacing the steps
with either granite or a more substantial material.298
The Metropolitan Opera Company and Original Metropolitan Opera House
Coinciding with the construction of its first opera house, the Metropolitan Opera
Company was founded in 1883 and has since been regarded as the leading opera company in the
United States, and “one of the most important” companies in the world.299 Since its inception,
the Metropolitan has featured an array of legendary singers from all over the world. Early
highlights of the Metropolitan Opera’s rich and illustrious history include performances by
Christine Nilsson in Faust, Lilli Lehman singing Wagner, Emma Calvé as Carmen and Enrico
Caruso performing I Pagliacci. Other talents who performed for the Metropolitan Opera
Company throughout the early- and mid- 20th century included Lucrezia Bori, Rosa Ponselle,
Ezio Pinza, Lily Pons, Lawrence Tibbett, Grace Moore, Kirsten Flagstad, Lauritz Melchoir, Jussi
Björling, Rïse Stevens, Richard Tucker and Robert Merrill. Under the general management of
116
Rudolph Bing beginning in 1950, a new crop of talent was introduced through the Met such as
Renata Tebaldi, Victoria de Los Angeles, Birgit Nilsson, Joan Sutherland, Renata Scotto,
Montserrat Caballé and Marian Anderson.
Conductors at the opera house have been just as distinguished, numbering, among others,
Richard Wagner’s disciple, Anton Seidl, Arturo Toscanini, Gustav Mahler, Artur Bodansky,
Bruno Walter, Fritz Reiner, George Szell and Dimitri Mitropoulos. In terms of American
premieres, like the New York Philharmonic, the Metropolitan Opera Company has had an
equally impressive history. Responsible for presenting the first American productions of
Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, Das Rhiengold, Götterdämmerung, Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal,
the company has also performed American premieres of Modest Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov,
Giacomo Puccini’s Turandot, Giusseppe Verdi’s Simon Boccanegra, Richard Strauss’ Arabella
and Benjamin Britten’s Peter Grimes. World premieres have included Puccini’s La Fanciulla
del West and Il Trittico, and Samuel Barber’s Vanessa.
The construction of the original Metropolitan Opera House, located between Broadway
and Seventh Avenue, and between West 39th and 40th Streets, was initiated by Mrs. William
Kissam Vanderbilt, who led a revolt against the Academy of Music and its subscribers for
monopolizing its opera boxes.300 In response, Vanderbilt, along with a group of wealthy
businessmen, formed and funded their own opera association which would enable them to build
a customized space and out-rival their competitor. Hosting a limited design competition, the
consortium chose Josiah Cleavelend Cady, an architect primarily known for his Romanesque
Revival-style college buildings and Protestant churches. Nicknamed “Cady’s Lyre,” after the
architect and his lyre-shaped plan, the yellow brick and terra-cotta opera house was designed in
the early Italian Renaissance style and opened on October 22, 1883.301 Although its detractors—
such as its rival impresario at the Academy of Music—deemed it the “yellow brick brewery,” the
117
Metropolitan Opera House nevertheless became the most renowned operatic institution in the
United States, and succeeded in driving the Academy of Music out of business.302
Although inspired by the great opera houses of Europe, the original Metropolitan Opera
House was also a product of its patrons’ economic interests. Concerned about soaring
construction and future operating costs, the nascent organization, called the Metropolitan Opera
House Company, Ltd., proposed selling an inordinate number of opera boxes to its fashionable
patrons, while having Cady incorporate commercial and retail storefront space into his plan. In
addition, although the auditorium had originally been proposed for a rectangular parcel of land at
East 43rd Street and Madison Avenue, a new site had to be found after an existing covenant was
discovered which prohibited “amusements” from taking place on the prospective site. The
alternate lot, located at West 39th Street and Broadway, had the peculiar advantage of additional
square footage compromised by an odd, trapezoidal shape. Rather than modify his interior plan
to create additional public space around the auditorium, Cady used his existing design, thereby
sacrificing what could have been a more efficient plan. Furthermore, after a fire destroyed parts
of the opera house in 1892, a revised fire code prohibited the owners from using the basement
area for set storage, thus eliminating any onsite storage space and relegating current-performance
sets to the outdoor sidewalk areas bordering the building.303
Inside, the public spaces were extremely limited as its three-thousand-plus-patrons had to
contend with nine-foot-wide-corridors in order to enter and exit the auditorium. Modeled after
London’s Covent Garden, the auditorium, as originally built, was comprised of 3,045 seats. This
number included an unprecedented 122 opera boxes—a number that cinched Cady’s victory in
the design competition, and significantly outnumbered the 9 boxes offered at the Academy.304
Of these, 73 were subscriber boxes that were dominated by a particular family. In addition,
public areas that included individual salons, reception rooms, vestibules and foyers primarily
catered to box-holders, thus reducing the circulation areas for the remaining seven hundred
118
patrons in the balcony and gallery, who also suffered obstructed views of the stage, and those
who sat in the orchestra section. Over the years, as economic considerations prevailed, opera
boxes were continually eliminated to allow for individual expansion. By 1953, the house had
been reduced to 35 boxes while increasing its seating capacity to 3,614.
Despite its functional imperfections, the old Metropolitan Opera House auditorium was
revered for its opulence and theatricality. As Rudolph Bing noted, “It must be said that the
auditorium was very beautiful, and somehow immensely theatrical: one could not step into that
house without a feeling of excitement.”305 Yet, in spite of its elaborately gilded halls, walls and
proscenium arch—reminiscent in size of the Paris Opéra and the Imperial Opera in St.
Petersburg—its deep horseshoe shape not only limited audience sightlines, but also compromised
public and backstage areas. While Bing praised the auditorium’s opulent interior, he also
criticized its inadequate facilities:
Everything backstage was cramped and dirty and poor. There were
neither side stages nor a rear stage: every change of scene had to
be done from scratch on the main stage itself, which meant that if
an act had two scenes, the audience had just to sit and wait,
wondering what the banging noises behind the curtain might mean.
The lighting grid was decades behind European standards, and
there was no revolving stage.306
In addition, dressing rooms for soloists, chorus, ballet and orchestra were deemed by one critic to
be a “rabbit warren, with worse plumbing than most rabbits are willing to tolerate,” and other
rooms used for rehearsals and coaching sessions were similarly criticized for their spatial
shortcomings.307
The Relocation to Lincoln Center
As noted, since 1918 the Metropolitan Opera Association had been considering either
renovation or replacement of its opera house, or the commissioning of a new structure at a
different location. In 1920, after the failure of a proposal by the opera company’s president to
119
replace the existing building at West 39th Street, a wealthy businessman named Philip
Berolzheimer suggested making it part of a performing arts center at West 57th and 59th Streets,
between Sixth and Seventh Avenues. Although the idea of a performance complex was
enthusiastically received by the mayor, the project could not get funding and was dropped by
1925. Another proposal for the site at West 57th Street west of Eighth Avenue emerged in 1926,
when the opera company’s president, Otto Kahn, asked architect, Joseph Urban, to design a new
opera house. Shortly thereafter, Kahn also asked architect, Benjamin Wistar Morris, III, to
collaborate with Urban, which the two designers did before developing their own individual
proposals.
Although both building designs were rejected, it is worth noting that Morris’ plan, with
its combination of opera house and office tower, served as the impetus for Rockefeller Center.308
In 1930, Wallace K. Harrison, in collaboration with Harvey Wiley Corbett’s firm, submitted his
first design for a Metropolitan opera house at Rockefeller Center. As the Metropolitan’s ticket
sales and revenues plummeted during the Depression, the company’s shareholders
reincorporated their enterprise as the Metropolitan Opera Association. In 1935, Mayor Fiorello
LaGuardia introduced a scheme whereby the Metropolitan Opera Company would join the
Philharmonic Symphony-Society as a part of a municipal arts center to be located at Columbus
Circle. Later in 1946, when this scheme did not materialize, William Zeckendorf suggested a
monumentally-scaled extension to the United Nations which would house a performing arts
complex, among other uses. But this proposal, like previous ones, could not get funding. In
1949, the Metropolitan Opera Association asked Harrison to investigate alternate sites, which he
continued to do until Robert Moses approached him in 1955 with his plan for Lincoln Center.
120
The Metropolitan Opera House Design
Finding the right location for the Metropolitan Opera House ended an almost fifty-year
search, but it did not answer another question which had plagued the organization since the early
20th century; namely, what form the new opera house should take. 309 As Harrison diligently
worked on a succession of schemes for the building, he also had to contend with his other
responsibilities as the center’s chief planner and architect, and the head of his own firm.
Coupled with these duties was the fact that he was under the intense scrutiny of members of the
Metropolitan Opera Building Committee, the Metropolitan Opera Association, the Lincoln
Center design team and the center’s parent organization. While each organization dictated its
needs to its respective architect, perhaps none was as exacting, conservative or formidable as the
Metropolitan Opera Association. In addition, the Lincoln Center architects had strong opinions
as to how Harrison’s opera house should fit within the context of their buildings, and urged him
to make drastic modifications. Thus, in spite of Harrison’s desire to design one of the most
avant-garde opera houses of the postwar years, his work was severely compromised by many
individuals who had their own ideas of how his building should take form.
The Metropolitan Opera was not the oldest of the Lincoln Center constituents, but it was
inarguably the most famous and most heavily endowed. As previously noted, it had also been
included in Moses’ original plan for the Lincoln Square Urban Renewal Area Project, and had
been highly sought after as an anchor tenant by both local developers and politicians alike since
the turn of the previous century. Thus, given its authority and reputation, it was primed to be
Lincoln Center’s premiere attraction from the moment the complex was conceived. Since it had
had a longstanding reputation for taking a conservative approach with its decision-making and
programming, it may seem somewhat surprising that it chose a modernist like Wallace K.
Harrison for its commission. On the other hand, Harrison’s longstanding relationship with both
the opera organization and with corporate executives of the city would have allayed any concerns
121
the organization might have had regarding his ability to deliver on time and within the allocated
budget. In spite of any support Harrison may have had from his client going into the project, this
relationship was sorely tested throughout the design process.
Between 1955 and 1957, Harrison began creating a series of dynamic schemes for the
Metropolitan Opera House that clearly proclaimed its presence as the center’s focal point. Early
drawings of the complex featured a modern double-circular colonnade surrounding a fountain—
evocative of Bernini’s St. Peter’s Square—which opened onto Columbus Avenue with a variety
of imaginative opera house configurations attached to it. Included among these designs was a
barrel-vaulted lobby attached lengthwise to a massive tile-domed structure—similar to his
Caspary Auditorium dome at Rockefeller University; a wedge-shaped building connected to an
enormous sphere; a mammoth, sloping, rectangular box with a curved façade abutting his
aforementioned plaza colonnade; and a wide, obelisk-shaped building placed on its side that
culminated in a colossal wall. During this period Harrison also made a sketch that was similar to
Jörn Utzon’s prize-winning design for the Sydney Opera House. Years later, he told biographer,
Victoria Newhouse, “My sketches for the opera house started with a bird, like Sidney [sic].”310
Other drawings completed in 1957 featured a pure, box-like structure with a louvered front and a
floating slab roof; a glass box fronted by thin columns resting on inverted pyramid-like capitals;
and an elevated colonnade surrounding an enormous fan-shaped building, with a huge
rectangular void running through the top of its tower.
At the same time Harrison was producing his series of design proposals, he was also
involved in ongoing discussions with Anthony Bliss and Herman E. Krawitz, two members of
the opera association’s building committee who presented him with detailed specifications
related to the opera’s programmatic and budgetary needs. Although Bliss, who was both the
opera board’s president and a lawyer, was focused primarily on economic issues, Krawitz was
122
unrelenting in his attention to both financial and technical details. A production analyst and
consultant, Krawitz had gone to Europe on a fellowship in 1955 to study opera houses and
theaters. In 1956, he returned to Europe with Harrison, Bliss, Rockefeller, Walther Unruh,
Herbert Graf and Allen I. Fowler of Day & Zimmerman, to further research auditoriums in Italy,
Austria, Germany, France and England.
Concurrent with his designs for the Metropolitan Opera, in the fall of 1955 Harrison was
commissioned by the building committee of Dartmouth College to design the Hopkins Center, a
performing arts complex to be placed on campus. After the committee rejected Harrison’s first
proposal, based on its incompatibility with Dartmouth’s neo-Georgian campus, the architect
presented a more traditionally-inspired design which the committee later approved. Modeled
after Florence’s 14th-century Loggia dei Lanzi, Harrison’s drawing featured a series of arches
comprised of thin, concrete shells. By 1957, these arches resurfaced in Harrison’s new designs
for the Metropolitan Opera House. Later, when asked why he chose them, he said, “I like
traditional arches…there’s something human about them. I think an opera house should look like
an opera house. And the soaring arches, I hope, help.”311 Although these later designs went
through many modifications over the next several years, including the addition of screened walls;
swooshing barrel-vaulted roof forms; and more arches on the building’s north and south sides;
the arched façade was retained.
Despite the approval that Harrison had received from the building committee and
advisory team in May 1958, he still had to contend with a series of cuts that were imposed on his
work. In November 1958, Rockefeller insisted that Harrison and the other architects reduce their
buildings’ costs by at least twenty-five percent. Harrison responded by eliminating office space,
rehearsal stages and rooms, a museum and exhibition area, an archival facility, two passenger
elevators, and ten percent of the lobby and auditorium area. Yet, these reductions only decreased
the opera house’s costs by twelve percent. Finally, on October 28, 1959, the architect met with
123
Rockefeller, his associates and the advisory team, and presented them with two designs: one,
featuring five prominent arches comprising a barrel-vaulted structure, and the other, with the
same arches enclosed in a rectangular frame. After four years and forty-three different
proposals, the group chose the more conservative one enclosed by the rectangular frame. While
this meeting determined the form of the façade, it did not determine the rest of the building’s
exterior or interior.
By April 1960, costs had risen to such an extent that Harrison was once again called upon
to modify his design. However, in contrast to previous reductions which had affected the
interiors, this time his advisory team urged him to reduce the height and width of the entire
building. In exasperation, Harrison called Anthony Bliss to oppose this decision, but instead, the
Metropolitan representative—who was on vacation and unable to consult other board
members—took the advisory team’s side. Consequently, what had formerly been a double shell
encasing the auditorium now became a single shell, thereby drastically reducing the office and
public areas. Furthermore, offices and private club rooms were now relocated between the
auditorium and the exterior glass wall, while public areas immediately surrounding the
auditorium were significantly decreased.
By the early part of 1961, Rockefeller and the Metropolitan Opera House were having
serious misgivings about Harrison’s ability to meet their demands. As a result, the architect was
given six months to deliver a final design within the allotted budget. In June 1961, a twentystory office tower that the architect had proposed for the back of the opera house was eliminated
due to a lagging economy. Although this tower was to be principally used for office rentals, a
portion of it was to accommodate service facilities, which subsequently had to be squeezed into
the main building. In July, Harrison eliminated stage elevators, a turntable and two workshops,
reconfigured dressing rooms and rehearsal halls, and opted for less expensive stage machinery.
Because these changes were not unanimously accepted, Harrison had to return the following
124
December with yet another proposal. Later, as scheduled, the architect finally received an
approval with one exception: Bliss insisted that he replace the side arches with masonry fins.
Reluctantly, the architect complied.
Although Harrison’s design was altered considerably according to both his client and
advisory team’s specifications, it was nevertheless a marvel in terms of its size and program.
Measuring four hundred, fifty-one feet in length, one hundred, seventy-five feet in width at the
façade and two hundred, thirty-four feet wide at the rear, the entire length is equivalent to a
forty-five-story skyscraper laid on its side.312 Referencing the balcony level, materials and
massing of Philharmonic Hall and the New York State Theater, the Metropolitan Opera House
stands ninety-six feet high and features travertine-clad double columns that culminate in five
concrete-shelled arches along its façade, and travertine fins spaced three feet, four inches apart,
along its north and south walls. Enclosed within this framework on the façade are one hundred,
fifty-six enormous glass panels, divided by a Mondrianesqe configuration of bronze window
muntins.
Originally meant to complement an entrance hall that was cut from Harrison’s previous
design, the outer lobby is a contemporary version of Charles Garnier’s Paris Opera House and
features a grand, double staircase with bronze-hammered railings that curves up to the inner
lobby.313 Substituting for marble—which was found to be cost prohibitive—the steel-reinforced,
pre-stressed concrete staircase was cast by master shipbuilders and made to mirror the center’s
Roman travertine cladding.314 On the entrance level, a terrazzo floor with gold-colored metalring inlays blends appropriately with a similarly-ringed gate. On the orchestra level and above,
the walls are covered with red velvet with occasional rhinestone-bejeweled sconces, while black
marble-topped bars line the public areas along the inner lobby areas. The floor areas on this, the
upper levels and portions of the staircases, are covered in red carpeting. Overhead, suspended
125
from a gold-leafed ceiling are “starburst form chandeliers, with a multitude of crystal clusters
attached to spokes emanating from a central node” that were donated by the Austrian
government in gratitude for American aid in helping to rebuild the Vienna State Opera after
World War II.315 These fixtures were designed by Hans Harald Rath and created by the firm of
J. & L. Lobmeyer.
Harrison’s approach for the opera house’s interior was to use standard opera house
measurements, and then alter them accordingly to fit the organization’s complex goals.316
Although public and production areas were expanded to accommodate the opera’s patrons,
performers and technicians, the stage size replicated Cady’s original so that existing sets from
the old Met could be re-used. In terms of perfecting the acoustics, Harrison frankly admitted to
the lessons learned from Philharmonic Hall:
In an opera house everything has to be designed in terms of sound.
Because sound is the main reason to go to the opera. But after the
Philharmonic experience the whole science of acoustics was
washed away. Until then everyone thought that sound travels as
light does, that it bounces off a wall at the same angle as it goes
into the wall…But now we know, for example, that the lower
frequencies don’t.317
Committed to a sound design which would be as least intrusive as possible, Harrison was
frustrated by his associates, Richard Bolt, Leo Beranek and Robert Newman, who insisted on
ceiling panels which would adjust accordingly during a performance.318 The architect eventually
replaced the team in 1961 with Vilhelm L. Jordan, who in turn asked Cyril M. Harris to assist
him. Although Harris and Jordan became estranged during their collaboration, this did not deter
Harrison from relying on Harris to advise him while Jordan was working elsewhere on his
acoustical models.319
Harrison was confronted with an extraordinary task in having to design an opera house
for almost 3,800 patrons. In contrast to the Paris Opera with its 2,156 seats, Covent Garden with
2,052, and the Bolshoi Theater with 2,000, the Metropolitan Opera House was to be the largest
126
repertory opera house ever constructed, with an unprecedented 3,765 seats.320 Moreover, unlike
renowned opera houses such as Milan’s La Scala and Vienna’s state opera house, the architect
resolved not to have electronic amplification. When asked what kind of plans he and his
designers had considered, Harrison responded:
Round, square, wedge-shaped, and many others. But, invariably, as
the study of possible alternates developed, we arrived back at the
form that was built—that of the classic Renaissance opera house.
Why? We arrived there by way of science and the advice of
acoustical experts, and because of our determination to provide the
greatest possible degree of comfort for the members of the
audience, as well as the feeling of luxury and glamour one always
associates with grand opera.321
Yet, the auditorium shape was ultimately a combination of a Renaissance-inspired horseshoe and
a wedge—a form that George C. Izenouer had suggested to the architect early on in their
discussions.322
Divided by two center aisles, the wide parquet is surrounded by five tiers of balconies.
The walls of the house are covered in African Kewazinga wood, an irregularly-surfaced veneer
that was selected for both its beauty and its acoustical properties. The enormous proscenium
arch features a gold-leaf, waffle-patterned relief sculpted out of a copper-zinc alloy called Monel
metal that frames a gold damask curtain, while balcony fronts are paneled in gold fluting. In
spite of Harrison’s objections, a decorating committee led by Mrs. John Barry Ryan and
comprised of Francis Gibbs, Lucrezia Bori and Robert Lehman chose to have the auditorium
chairs upholstered with red mohair fabric and the balconies adorned with gold satin swags.323
Like the outer lobby, identical lighting fixtures surround a larger version—twenty-four in all—
and hang on mechanized cables that ascend at curtain time. The gold-leafed ceiling panels are
suspended by springs, and flooring is laid on a bed of cork and lead, all to enhance acoustics.
Below the stage apron at the front of the house are two orchestra lifts, capable of moving up to
110 musicians.
127
The stage machinery of the Metropolitan Opera House was the most technologicallysophisticated of its time. Three huge stage wagons—one featuring its own fifty-seven-footdiameter turntable—already pre-set for the next scene are capable of rolling onto the center stage
from three different directions at ninety feet per minute. The stage itself consists of seven sixtyfoot-wide by eight-feet-long hydraulic lifts, half of which are double-decked, capable of varying
speeds up to forty feet per minute. Five fly galleries are located on each side of the stage for
lighting and scenic effects, and 109 motorized battens hang overhead to hold backdrops in
addition to three motorized stage curtains. The lighting panel, nicknamed by the original crew,
“Cape Canaveral,” covers three walls.324 The fifty-three-foot-wide area at the back of the house
has room for four trucks to unload. Also located backstage are costume, wig-making, carpentry,
electric, scenic and painting shops, as well as dressing rooms for the soloists. Each soloist
dressing room features its own bathroom, and a sitting area with a piano. Other dressing rooms
for chorus and dancers have multiple lockers and bathrooms, and are located beneath the
auditorium. In addition to dressing rooms, twenty rehearsal halls are located throughout the
building. Among them, List Hall, located on the orchestra level of the auditorium’s south side,
doubles as a rehearsal space for the chorus and a lecture hall, with its tiered seating and capacity
to accommodate one hundred, forty-four people. The below-grade area, in addition to housing
some of the rehearsal halls, also has escalators and elevators for audience members arriving by
car.
Other areas for dining and administration are located along the building’s perimeter.325
The Top of the Met, no longer in operation, was a restaurant that was located along the curved,
sixth-level balcony facing the central plaza and designed by Harrison himself. Consisting of
crimson banquettes and carpeting, and silver-colored upholstered chairs, the restaurant was
enclosed on three sides by teak-topped railings with bronze slats and meshed grills, and offered
sweeping views of Lincoln Center plaza below. Also designed by Harrison, the light-filled
128
Cornelius Bliss Room, along the building’s south side was designed primarily as a meeting room
for the Metropolitan Opera’s board members, among other affiliated groups. Paneled in rift oak
with a circular recessed ceiling for subdued lighting, the room housed five Macassar ebony
tables with steel bases, complimented by tub chairs upholstered in emerald green velvet. Placed
along the windows, quartets of green velvet tub chairs surround Peruvian onyx coffee tables.
The entire room was carpeted in a brown wool with white wool draperies.
Other rooms were designed by noted decorators. On the north side of the building’s
plaza level, the Opera Café was designed by L. Garth Huxtable and, like the Bliss room, featured
a modern décor. Consisting of radiating spokes of small lights on its ceiling with gold- and
bronze- striped carpeting on its floors, the long and narrow space was divided into a semicircular dining area paneled in teak, and a rectangular bar area paneled in alternating teak- and
mirror- strips with strands of small lights separating them. Square teak- and circular marbletopped tables with upholstered tub chairs comprised the furniture. Nearby elevator banks were
adorned with photo murals of 17th-century opera set drawings by Bibiena.
Named after Eleanor Robson Belmont, the Belmont Room was designed by William
Baldwin of Baldwin & Martin.326 Spearheading the effort to save the Metropolitan Opera
Company from financial ruin during the Depression, Eleanor Robson Belmont helped transform
the private organization into a not-for-profit entity. She also founded the Opera Guild in 1933,
an organization devoted to fund-raising activities for the company and to the production of a
monthly magazine detailing opera stars and productions. In contrast to the more moderninspired decors, Baldwin chose “a frankly historicist and residential style to convey a
contemporary interpretation of a traditional drawing room” for this space that was to be devoted
to receptions and conferences.327 The decorator also incorporated colors from bird figurines in a
Chinese Chippendale mirror which Belmont donated to the room that included blue, green and
vermillion. Artifacts include a framed series of autographs by famous classical composers
129
ranging from J.S. Bach to Alan Berg; a bronze of soprano, Lucrezia Bori’s hands; and a death
mask of ballerina, Anna Pavlova, ironically made during her lifetime by Malvina Hoffman.328
Also included in the room’s collection is a life-like portrait of Mrs. Belmont herself, an 18thcentury Russian chandelier, a gilt console and a mahogany Regency sofa table. The press lounge
is located between the front of the house and the backstage, and features black-and-white
carpeting designed by David Hicks with low-scale red banquettes. Founder’s Hall, located on
the parking level of the opera house, contains other portraiture and sculptures of the
Metropolitan’s legendary singers that were relocated from the former house. In this instance,
Harrison had succeeded in convincing the decorating committee that these works would best be
viewed on the white walls of the hall rather than on the curved, red-velveted lobby walls
upstairs.329
Other up-and-coming designers were commissioned to decorate the Metropolitan Opera
Club and executive offices. Angelo Donghia of Yale R. Burge/Donghia Inc. designed the
Metropolitan Opera Club, located on the sixth floor of the building’s north side. Working in
silver and brown tones, Donghia’s interior, somewhat evocative of an elegant speakeasy,
featured a silver tea-papered ceiling accented by a gold-foiled rectangular soffit and dome with a
Russian crystal chandelier over a circular, wooden bar. On the walls, Donghia alternated panels
of dark brown leather and silver tea paper with occasional crystal sconces. Brown satin-covered
Regency-style chairs with gold and black-lacquered Chinoiserie patterns on their backs faced
brown velvet-upholstered banquettes with elegant, wooden tables in between.
Mario Buatta’s executive lobby and offices on the north side of the opera house were the
antithesis of Angelo Donghia’s club room. Instead of dark and metallic colors, Buatta chose a
light-filled ensemble of white with black-striped, open-weave Fiberglas draperies, offset by a
bold pattern of black and white carpeting, composed of alternating circles and squares. For
130
furniture, the designer created plush, patterned, citron velvet banquettes adorned with tassels
along with potted trees and a leather table.
Art Within the Metropolitan Opera House
Unlike Philip Johnson and Max Abramovitz, Wallace K. Harrison did not have as much
influence as his colleagues in either the selection or the placement of art within his building.
Instead, Rudolph Bing, the Metropolitan Opera Art Committee, chaired by Agnes Belmont and
headed by art collector Robert Lehman, and the Committee on Arts and Acquisitions made most
of the final decisions. The most significant disagreement surrounded the commissioning and
location of Marc Chagall’s paintings in the outer lobby.330 In having to accommodate the need
for more serviceable space while, at the same time, reducing the size of his building, Harrison
had to insert additional walls into the northern and southern portions of the outer lobby area.
Confronted with the prospect of four enormous blank walls, Rudolph Bing suggested to the
Metropolitan Opera Art Committee that it cover the two walls facing Lincoln Center Plaza with a
pair of paintings by Marc Chagall. Bing recalled:
My most important contribution to the looks of the building was
probably my wife’s lifelong friendship with Mrs. Marc Chagall…I
proposed Chagall paintings of scenes from opera to cover these
walls (they are not murals: they are on canvas and in theory could
be removed), and having received approval for this proposal went
to Chagall with a package suggestion of the two walls plus scenery
and costumes for a new production of Mozart’s The Magic Flute.
As a result, the costs to the Metropolitan and to Lincoln Center
were very much less than they might otherwise have been.331
The production of The Magic Flute, designed by Chagall, was mounted in 1967. Despite his
insistence that a more avant-garde artist such as Fernand Léger should have been chosen for the
commission, Harrison was overruled.
Since the early part of the 20th century, Marc Chagall had been known for his fantasy
paintings which combined folkloric imagery with expressive and vivid coloration.332 Born in
131
Belarus’ in 1887, Chagall briefly studied art in the local studio of Yehuda Pen, before moving to
St. Petersburg in 1907 to continue his education under Nicholas Roerich, and further training at
the Avantseva School. Between 1910 and 1914, Chagall earned distinction for painting a series
of imaginative subjects which were exhibited at Salons des Indépendents in 1912, 1913 and
1914. In 1913, the artist won international attention with his exhibition at Herwarth Walden’s
Erste Deutsche Herbstsalon in Berlin, which was then followed by a joint retrospective in
conjunction with the works of Alfred Kubin for Walden’s Der Sturm gallery in 1914.
After the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Chagall was appointed Commissar for the Arts
in Vitebsk, and founded an art school and museum, as well as painted various stage designs.
After a rival political appointment supplanted his position, the artist went to Moscow to design
sets for the opening production of the new State Kamerny Theatre. In 1923, Chagall migrated
with his wife and daughter to Paris, where he subsequently designed illustrations for a range of
books and completed his painting, The Dream (1927). This work confirmed the artist’s
reputation for vivid fantasy, which had previously been deemed “surnatural” by the poet
Apollinaire.333 Although Chagall refused to join the Surrealist movement, his work was
nonetheless associated with Surrealist motifs for its dreamlike representations. In 1937, the artist
became a French citizen but then had to immigrate to the United States in 1941 after an
imprisonment by the Vichy government. Relocating to New York, Chagall received a
commission to design sets for the New York Ballet Theater production of Aleko in 1942, and in
1946 was the subject of a major retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art. These were
followed by several well-publicized exhibits in Paris in 1947 and 1959.
In 1964, one year before he received the commission to paint Le Triomphe de la Musique
and Les Sources de la Musique at the Metropolitan Opera House, the artist painted five sectional
murals on the six-hundred-square-foot circular ceiling of the Paris Opera. When asked about his
subject matter, the artist said it was to act “as a ‘mirror’ to reflect ‘in a bouquet of dreams the
132
creations of the performers and composers.’”334 Similarly, Chagall’s vivid commissions for the
Metropolitan not only featured fantastical images of angels and musicians, but also Rudolph
Bing and the ballerina Maya Plisetskaya. Having worked closely with the artist, assistant
manager, Herman Krawitz, described Le Triomphe de la Musique as follows:
Chagall chose a vivid red as the dominant hue to celebrate “Le
Triomphe de la Musique” on the south side. Ballerinas, singers,
and musicians intermingle with images of St. Patrick’s Cathedral,
Rockefeller Center and the New York skyline, as Chagall pays
homage to American, French, and Russian music through jazz, folk
and opera references. Humorous and affectionate accents are
interposed by Rudolf Bing’s appearance in gypsy costume (the
central figure in a group of three on the left), by portraits of the
Chagalls and of Maya Plisetskaya of the Bolshoi Ballet, who posed
for this likeness.
With regard to Les Sources de la Musique, Krawitz offered:
In the predominantly yellow painting on the north “Les Sources de
la Musique,” cornerstone concerns of Chagall regarding love, hope
and peace are pervasive themes, through the tree of life (floating
on the Hudson against the Manhattan skyline), through the lyre
shared by a combined King David and Orpheus, through nods to
Beethoven’s FIDELIO, Mozart’s MAGIC FLUTE, Bach, Wagner
and Verdi.335
Measuring thirty-feet-wide by sixty-feet-long apiece, and protected by gray fiberglass draperies,
Chagall’s works were unveiled on September 8, 1966 and had been made possible through a
donation by the Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation in April 1965.
In November 1965, also through a gift of the Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable
Foundation, the Metropolitan Art Committee acquired two bronze sculptures by French sculptor
Aristide Maillol, Summer (1910) and Venus Without Arms (1920); and a third, Kneeling Woman:
Monument to Debussy (1930-33), through a gift from A. Conger Goodyear. Standing sixty-two
inches high, Summer was originally a commission from Savva Morosoff, a Russian collector,
and was placed within a niche on one of Harrison’s specially-designed curved marble walls on
the Grand Tier. Venus Without Arms is sixty-nine inches high and was acquired by the
133
Metropolitan Opera from the artist’s estate. This, too, was placed on a pedestal in another
curved, marble-walled niche on the same floor. Kneeling Woman: Monument to Debussy is
thirty-six inches high and was featured in an exhibition of the artist’s work at the Metropolitan
Art Museum in 1933.
Commemorating West Germany’s generous monetary gift to the Metropolitan Opera
House, the Gert von Gontard and the Myron and Anabel Taylor Foundation acquired and
donated a bronze cast of Die Kniende, or Kneeling Woman (1911) to the opera house in
September 1966.336 Created by Wilhelm Lehmbruck, the piece represented a turning point in the
artist’s career in which he veered away from a purely representational art to a more
expressionistic one. Combining a purity of form with a Gothic-like spirit, Kneeling Woman was
both sensational and controversial, having had its first showing in Paris, and then later at the
infamous New York Armory show of 1913. 337
In contrast to the other more established artists, Mary Callery was a contemporary
sculptress who was awarded the prestigious commission to design an untitled piece for the opera
house’s proscenium arch in 1966. A native New Yorker, Callery was born in 1903, and later
attended the Art Students League, where she trained under Edward McCarten.338 In 1930, she
moved to Paris and apprenticed in the atelier of the Russian sculptor, Jacques Loutchansky. Her
work at the time was heavily influenced by Maillol. In 1940, Callery returned to New York and
had her first one-woman show at the Buchholz Gallery. Other shows soon followed at New
York’s Curt Valentine and Knoedler Galleries, and in the Salon de Tuileries in Paris.
Departing dramatically from the formal training she received in France, Callery’s works
in the United States were characterized by “elongated figure studies with curious rubbery
appendages which set up relations between the internal and external space of the work.”339
Throughout the 1950s, these forms began to get more angular until they became total
abstractions that primarily stressed spatial relationships. Later, in the 1960s, the artist produced
134
“curvilinear forms [that] became preponderant together with an enhanced interest in surface
texture.”340 Among the galleries that own her work are the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney
Museum of Art, the Toledo Museum of Art, the Cincinnati Art Museum, and the San Francisco
Museum of Art. Mary Callery died in Paris in 1977.
In spite of the control that the Metropolitan Art Committee exerted over Wallace K.
Harrison in selecting and placing most of the art within the opera house, the Top of the Met not
only featured the architect’s interior design, but also reflected his artistic tastes. In 1950, famed
French artist Raoul Dufy had painted scenic backdrops of historic and contemporary people
engaging in leisurely activities for Gilbert Miller’s Broadway production of Jean Anouilh’s Ring
Around the Moon. Upon Harrison’s request, these scenic designs were subsequently donated to
the Metropolitan Opera House by the show’s producer.341
A later addition to the Metropolitan Opera House’s art collection were a pair of
identically-shaped sculptures by Japanese sculptor Masayuki Nagare of gray and black granite,
respectively, entitled Bachi 1972 and Bachi 1973, which were installed in the fall 1974.
Acquired through a donation from the Louis and Bessie Adler Foundation, the pair was,
according to The New York Times, “an abstraction of a pick used to play the samisen” and placed
in the north and south porticoes of the opera house’s outdoor promenade.342
The Metropolitan Opera House Opening and Critical Response
Although the Metropolitan Opera House did not formally open until September 1966,
there were two events which preceded it. On January 20, 1964, opera stars Leontyne Price and
Robert Merrill marked the completion of the roof by participating in a “topping-out ceremony,”
in which they signed their names to a structural steel beam which was hoisted to the opera
house’s highest point.343 Later, on April 11, 1966, the Metropolitan Opera Guild’s company
presented the first performance in the new house, Puccini’s La fanciulla del West, to an audience
135
of three thousand students. Accompanying them, Harrison and the acoustical designers sat and
listened to the rehearsal in anticipation of what the architect deemed the “$45 million aria.”344
Once the performance began, the designers were relieved and pleased to hear that the acoustics
were not just serviceable, but exceptional.345
The formal opening that took place several months later on Friday night, September 16th,
was one of the most auspicious events in the city’s cultural life, and one that ushered in a new era
for the Metropolitan Opera and its audiences. Weeks before, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson had
written the opera association’s president, Anthony Bliss, brimming with anticipation: “The
gaiety, the splendor, the excitement of this evening are really overwhelming. One cannot help
but feel that it is the beginning of another ‘Golden Age’ in the history of the Metropolitan
Opera.”346 Similarly enthralled, The New York Times ran a front-page headline the morning after
the opening that proclaimed, “Metropolitan Opera House Opens in a Crescendo of Splendor”
followed by photos and a full account of the event and its attendees, along with reviews of the
opera house, its art pieces and the opera itself.347
Like the debuts of Philharmonic Hall and the New York State Theater, the opening of the
Metropolitan Opera House was prominently attended by local, national and international
dignitaries. In addition to the First Lady were Mayor John B. Lindsay; Governor Nelson B.
Rockefeller; Rose, Robert, Ethel, Edward and Joan Kennedy; Secretary of Defense Robert S.
McNamara; White House Cultural Advisor Robert L. Stevens; United States Delegate to the
United Nations Arthur L. Goldberg; and President Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of the
Philippines. Representing New York society—and descendants of the Metropolitan Opera’s
founding members—were Alfred G. Vanderbilt, Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney and John Hay
Whitney. Also in attendance was Mrs. John Ryan, whose father, Otto Kahn, had begun the
search for a new opera house fifty-eight years before, and Wallace K. Harrison.348
136
As an estimated three thousand onlookers filled Lincoln Center Plaza, the opera’s patrons
began arriving around 6:00 p.m., whereupon they dined at either the Top of the Met, the Grand
Tier Restaurant or at Sherry’s, housed in Philharmonic Hall.349 Simultaneously, the
aforementioned dignitaries assembled in the Metropolitan Board Room where an exclusive
dinner party was held in their honor.350 Once inside the auditorium, the orchestra played the
National Anthem, and then John D. Rockefeller, III, acting on behalf of Lincoln Center, Inc.,
formally presented the opera house to Metropolitan Opera president, Anthony Bliss.
To mark the occasion, Rudolph Bing had commissioned famed American composer,
Samuel Barber, to write an opera.351 Barber’s new work—in collaboration with Franco Zeffirelli
as librettist, director and designer—was based on William Shakespeare’s Anthony and
Cleopatra, and starred Leontyne Price and Justino Diaz, with Thomas Schippers conducting. In
addition to the debuts of a new opera house and a new opera, Bing announced after the secondact intermission that a labor strike involving the orchestra had finally been settled, thereby
removing any uncertainty pertaining to the remainder of the season.352
Perhaps more attributable to the compromise imposed by committee than to the
architect’s inability, the reviews for the $46.8 million Metropolitan Opera House were mixed.
Calling it a “monument manqué,” Ada Louise Huxtable criticized it as “a sterile throwback
rather than creative 20th-century design,” and stated that “Architecturally…in the sense of the
exhilarating and beautiful synthesis of structure and style that produces the great buildings of our
age, it is not a modern opera house at all.”353 Once inside the auditorium, Huxtable further
observed, “There is a strong temptation to close the eyes.”354 Other critics concurred with
Huxtable’s assessment of the interiors. Shana Alexander, writing for Life magazine, called the
rhinestone and gilt décor “sleazy,” while Inez Robb of the World Journal Tribune decried that
“the auditorium has about it a cheap look …the tiers of boxes, far from giving the house a look
137
of luxury, have the insubstantial look of shallow paper paste-ons, stuck to the walls with glue and
Scotch tape.”355
Yet, in spite of her general disappointment with the design, Huxtable did acknowledge
some of the opera house’s attributes. Assessing the public areas, she noted, “It’s got a good plan
that works well in terms of circulation, bars, restaurants and general social movement.”356 Olga
Gueft, who had also been divided in her review, wrote:
The sculpture of the flowing promenade stairs is fractured by the
variety of materials in which it is carried out. The cruciform
pillars, marble screens, hammered bronze rails, and obese padded
bars could be in a Miami hotel…[But] for all its ineptitudes the
grand stairway and lobby are grand—and in their unity with
Lincoln Center’s Fountain Plaza—exhilarating.357
The authors of New York 1960 heaped praise on Harrison’s lobby, asserting, “More successfully
than any of the other Lincoln Center architects, Harrison was able to follow in the tradition of
Garnier, using the staircase to gather together all classes of the audience—from those arriving in
limousines to those entering from the subway via the underground concourse.”358
Of the house’s technical aspects, Huxtable reasoned, “Since the new opera promises to be
an excellent performing house, with satisfactory acoustics, it may not matter that the architecture
sets no high-water mark for the city…Performance, after all, was the primary objective.”359
Harold Schonberg, also reviewing for the Times, agreed with Huxtable, writing, “The new
building seems to be disliked in direct ratio to one’s sophistication. But there are several things
that cannot be taken away. The stage facilities are stupendous, and the auditorium is an
acoustical success. Those are two not inconsiderable items in an opera house.”360
Yet, another critic, writing for Architectural Record, disagreed with Huxtable and
Schonberg’s weighted assessments, maintaining:
The directors of the Metropolitan Opera Company…told the
architect: We do not want just an opera house…we want a house
for grand opera. And architect Wallace K. Harrison has given the
new Met that quality. Like opera itself, it is more flamboyant and
138
more colorful than life; an elegant setting of gold leaf, red plush,
and crystal; latter-day Baroque architecture for the most Baroque
of the arts—grand opera.361
Moreover, the same critic argued:
The architecture of the new Metropolitan mixes old and new; is
modern Baroque that sets out to provide the great spaces, the
flowing lines, the repeated curves, and the elaborate elegance of
the European houses. Thus, the abundance of gold leaf and red
plush, the crystal chandeliers, the rosewood paneling, the grand
stair. What could be more appropriate for grand opera in a great
metropolis?”362
The reviewer concluded by noting that the new Metropolitan was the “largest opera house yet
built,” and the first to be air-conditioned.”363 Edgar B. Young stressed the enormity of the stage
and backstage areas in comparison to the auditorium, which surpassed the dimensions of the old
house by more than three to one. 364
Other critics also had accolades for Harrison’s design. Robert Kotlowitz, writing for
Harper’s Magazine, waxed:
Wallace Harrison has designed the theater in an almost endless
series of curves that first beckon the audience from the high thin
arches at front, then lead them inside on their way up swirling
staircases past gently rounded walls, past a bar that is shaped
something like an S, into the huge auditorium finally with its own
immense curve and small decorative variations on the front arches.
The sightlines are perfect.365
Another reviewer, writing for Newsweek, hailed the exterior as “graceful and strong with its
ranks of pearly travertine columns and 96-foot-high glass façade,” while Inez Robb deemed it
“handsome.”366 Regarding the stage mechanics, a journalist for the New York Times Magazine
enthused about “the most modern and sophisticated stage equipment of any opera house in the
world.”367 Irving Kolodin, writing for Saturday Review, concluded:
The transformation of the backstage area has evolved into a
wonderland of facilities and accessories hitherto unknown to opera
in this country…It is all of these musical, mechanical, and material
factors which, together with its spare lines and architectural
proportions, characterize the new monumental Metropolitan as an
139
opera house on the American plan. Behind as well as before the
curtain it is projected as a prime instance of functional design that
will take a place of pride among the famous examples, world-wide,
of man-made solutions to a man-made problem.”368
Like the critic for the Architectural Record, Kolodin was one of the few critics who fully
embraced the new Metropolitan Opera House. Comparing the Metropolitan to other 20th-century
American opera houses, Kolodin deemed the auditorium a “one-seat” house that not only
provided effective sightlines for its entire audience, but also universal entrances and exits that
did not discriminate among its patrons.369
Like the architecture, the reviews pertaining to the art and their placement within the
Metropolitan Opera House were also divided. John Canaday, offering his perspective in the
Times the morning after the opening, declared, “Retardatory avant-gardism is the group character
of the art in the Metropolitan Opera House.”370 Calling the Chagalls “hardly daring,” the art
critic noted that “any person with a nimble wrist and access to a set of color reproductions of
Chagall’s recent work might have synthesized [them] as easily.”371 However, just as he had
questioned the merit of Chagall’s paintings, Canaday expressed similar reservations about their
placement:
Strictly speaking, they are too high for the space; you crane your
neck and then see them only in distortion, although the patterns
have been elongated in the upper portions as if to take into
consideration this curious angle. To see the compositions as a
whole, you have to go onto the balcony outside or into the central
court when, in either case, the flowing Chagall patterns are
segmented by the chastely Mondrianesque patterns of the thick
bronze partitions between panes of glass. But no matter. The
familiar segments are easily recombined by association.372
Ervin Galantay, while praising the paintings themselves, saw their accoutrements more
debilitating than their locations:
Their light dreamlike quality might have softened the maladroit
design of the lounge, were it not for heavy box frames and huge
draperies that entirely divorce the paintings from the architecture.
140
They are degraded to ‘lobby art,’ a genre much in favor with New
York’s commercial architecture.373
Galantay considered most of the art work—including the commissioned works—at Lincoln
Center to be “art appliqué,” alluding to the fact that most of it seemed to be more of an
afterthought than an integrated component of the architecture.374 However, Winthrop Sargeant
heartily disagreed, maintaining, “Generally, the art on the inside of [the Met] has a great deal
more dignity than the junk sculpture and other avant-garde stuff that clutter the State Theater and
Philharmonic Hall.”375
Inez Robb, endorsing everything about the Chagalls, raved, “It is a glorious sight as one
approaches it for a night performance. The two tremendous Chagall murals framed in that façade
are a joy to the eye and to the heart.”376 Robert Kotlowitz agreed, proclaiming:
The triumph of the theater are the two paintings by Chagall…One
of the most beautiful sights in New York now is the new Met
lighted up. At night it is all clear, light, beige travertine, with
crimson floor-and-wall carpeting visible through its enormous
vertical windows, while the two red and yellow Chagall murals,
dedicated to music, dominate the entire plaza with their cheerful
presence.377
Thus, perhaps more than any other individual work at Lincoln Center, the critics were harshly
divided in their views of Chagall’s paintings and their locations.
Contrasted with the mixed reviews that Chagall’s works received, Mary Callery’s untitled
sculpture was uniformly panned. Referring to Hilton Kramer’s review the previous week in
which the critic blasted the work as “not only a strikingly unlovely work in itself, but the kind of
work that immediately identifies itself as an artistic nullity,” John Canaday equated it with “a
piece of junk jewelry.”378 Ervin Galantay also dismissed the Callery installation, describing it as
“an enigmatic bundle of perforated strips and gilded noodles,” while Robert Kotlowitz deemed it
“meager as both art and decoration.” 379
The Maillol and Lehmbruck sculptures received more favorable notices. Robb called the
Maillols “lovely,” while Canaday referred to the pair and to the Lehmbruck sculptures as the
141
Metropolitan Opera House’s “best work.”380 On the other hand, Canaday reiterated Galantay’s
complaint about the misplacement of art, criticizing the three works as well as the Callery
sculpture as having “been acquired as an afterthought; much as one acquires mantel ornaments to
dress up the living room, while the commissioned work is so slight as to suggest that it is only
part of a temporary décor.”381
Although Canaday was tepid in his appreciation of the majority of the Metropolitan
Opera House’s artworks, he was undilutedly enthusiastic about the Raoul Dufy paintings, which
he remarked, “come off very well.”382 Moreover, he specified as to why he believed these works
in particular were successful:
The Dufys have a gaiety entirely appropriate to their location.
They are not asked to meet any great demand other than the one
they meet perfectly, which is to please, visually with a flair and
style that is its own complete, if inconsequential, reason for being.
They are murals in a restaurant, and they are very pleasant
paintings to eat by. The Dufy murals may in the long run, prove to
be the most successful decorations in the place, simply because
they are the least assuming of a complex that over-all, suffers from
gassy inflation.383
As previously noted, unlike most of the art within the opera house, it was Wallace K. Harrison—
not Rudolph Bing, nor any decorating committee—who had chosen these paintings.384
Furthermore, despite Ada Louise Huxtable’s severe critique of Harrison’s opera house,
she defended the architect himself. Recounting Harrison’s longstanding commitment to the
project, she praised his previous ideas:
The architect’s concept for the new house was for structurally
independent stage and seating enclosed within an arcaded shell, the
two separated by an insulating cushion of space…The possibilities
existed for logic, clarity, exciting contemporaneity and strong
visual drama. Reams of drawings testify to the effort put into
seating design and imaginative interior treatment.”385
Huxtable also acknowledged the compromise that often results when potentially good design
must adhere to budgetary constraints, which she called “the dirge like refrain to which design
142
quality and architectural excellence are being buried all over the United States.”386 Finally, she
not only let the architect identify those who had made the choices which she deemed
unfavorable, but also allowed him to defend himself. Harrison was quoted in her review as
saying, “We couldn’t have a modern house. I finally got hammered down by the opera people. I
personally would have liked to have found some way around it, but my client wouldn’t have
liked that at all.”387 Thus, in spite of any aspirations the architect may have had to produce an
architecturally innovative work, he was inhibited by a design process that subjugated his
creativity.
Alterations to the Metropolitan Opera House
With the exception of the plaza area directly in front of the Metropolitan Opera House,
whose low-rise pink marble granite stairs were deemed a liability and later replaced with a less
hazardous ramp of the same material, alterations within the opera house itself have been
minimal. Due to a lack of business, the Opera Café was discontinued in 1979 and a gift shop
was opened in its place. In addition, the Top of the Met ceased operations shortly after it opened
and now houses ticketing computers.388
In 1995, the opera association introduced “Met Titles” as a means of offering
simultaneous translations of its performances to each audience member.389 Attaching individual,
computerized screens to railings that were subsequently mounted on the backs of the
auditorium’s chairs and standing room corrals, the organization was able to make the operagoing experience more accessible through the least obtrusive means. Several features of “Met
Titles” include the option of having them on or off during a performance, and a uni-directional
visibility which does not interfere with other patrons’ enjoyment of the performance.
143
Damrosch Park
Although the proposal for Damrosch Park was not officially announced to the public until
1959, the inclusion of a park site had been a fundamental component of Robert Moses’ plan for a
performing arts center early on.390 Among his many titles, Moses’ job as the city’s parks
commissioner would not only have motivated him to establish public space, but also to have
provided a setting for free outdoor performances. Thus, before Harrison’s advisory committee
had even been assembled, Moses’ Committee on Slum Clearance had already determined that the
city-owned park would be located on the southwestern corner of the Lincoln Center site. This
allocation was then integrated into the advisory committee’s master plan beginning in the fall of
1956.391 In fact, as previously noted, in spite of later efforts by the advisory committee to
eliminate the park altogether, Moses instead facilitated the acquisition of an additional block
bordered by West 65th and West 66th Streets, and Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, to alleviate
crowding within the northeast part of the campus.392
On July 29, 1965, The New York Times reported that the city’s Art Commission had
approved a 2.34-acre park that was to be located in the southwestern parcel of Lincoln Center. 393
The park was to be named in honor of the Damrosch family, who had made significant
contributions to the city’s musical heritage in terms of performance and education.394 As noted
earlier, Maestro Leopold Damrosch had been the founder of the Symphony Society, which
merged with the Philharmonic to become the Philharmonic-Symphony Society, and later, the
New York Philharmonic. His son, Frank, had founded the Institute for Musical Arts, which later
became the Juilliard School, while Frank’s brother, Walter, had given music appreciation talks to
schoolchildren via radio broadcasts during the 1920s and 1930s. Frank and Walter’s sister,
Clara, and her husband, David Mannes, had founded the David Mannes School of Music in
1916. Mannes had also been the principle organizer of the Music School Settlement for Colored
People in 1912. As a park area dedicated to the memory of the Damrosch family, a bandshell,
144
“suitable for outdoor concerts, plays and other performances” was to be the main attraction—
named in honor of its donors, Daniel and Florence Guggenheim—and commissioned from the
reputable firm of Eggers & Higgins.395
Located in New York City, Eggers & Higgins was founded by Otto R. Eggers and Daniel
Paul Higgins, who had both joined the legendary John Russell Pope’s architectural firm in 1922.
Following Pope’s death in 1937, the pair formed their own practice, which grew to be one of the
largest in the country during the 1950s.396 Initially, Eggers & Higgins distinguished itself by
completing the designs of their former partner, including Washington, D.C.’s National Gallery of
Art (begun by Pope, 1935; completed by Eggers & Higgins, 1941) and the Jefferson Memorial
(begun by Pope, 1937; completed by Eggers & Higgins, 1943). New York projects completed
during this same period included Cardinal Hayes High School (1941), located on the Grand
Concourse at the southeast corner of East 153rd Street; Brooklyn War Memorial (1951), located
on the northern portion of Cadman Plaza; Governor Alfred E. Smith Houses (1952), between
South, Madison, and Catherine Streets and St. James and Robert F. Wagner, Sr., Places; and
New York University’s Vanderbilt Law School (1955) at Washington Square South, between
Sullivan and MacDougal Streets, and Holy Trinity Chapel, Generoso Pope Catholic Center
(1964), also at Washington Square South, located on the southeast corner of Thompson Street.
Among the firm’s commercial projects were New York City’s Canada House (1957), Morgan
Guaranty Bank Building (1961) and Jacob K. Javits Federal Building (in association with Alfred
Easton Poor and Kahn & Jacobs, 1967); Pittsburgh’s One, Two and Three Gateway Center
(1952), and Bloomington’s Willkie A and C Quadrangle (1965).
Eggers & Higgins’ design for the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Bandshell,
employing an onion-shaped section for its design, was a contemporary gloss on the late 19thcentury Eastern European tower motif. Housed on the western perimeter of the park, the
bandshell stands approximately fifty-five feet high, seventy-five feet wide and fifty-six feet deep,
145
and was built to accommodate seventy-five musicians. Structurally composed of slender
reinforced concrete ribs, the concrete mass of the shell was applied through a spraying process
called Gunite.397 According to the designers, the purpose of the pointed apex was to enhance the
acoustics by projecting sound down to the audience.398 In front of the bandshell, Eggers &
Higgins designed a paved open area with alternately-colored waves of terrazzo-like aggregate.
This area allows for 4500 people for either concert seating or festival events. Behind the
bandshell, the firm created a lounge area for the performers, as well as audience facilities.
Although the New York City Parks Department had originally hired Richard Webel of
Darling, Innocenti & Webel to do the landscaping of Damrosch Park, it eventually relied on
Daniel Kiley to refine the design. After receiving an enthusiastic response to his design for the
Plaza North, Kiley was asked to collaborate on Damrosch Park. Kiley remembered:
I worked very closely with all the Lincoln Center architects—Eero
Saarinen, Pietro Belluschi, Gordon Bunshaft of SOM, Philip
Johnson, Max Abramovitz, and Wally Harrison. All gave
enthusiastic and unanimous approval to the final design, as did
John D. Rockefeller III, so much so that Richard Webel, who had
been assigned the design of Damrosch Park, was directed to
incorporate precepts of my plan to assure site continuity.399
In contrast to the traditional park scheme originally submitted by Richard Webel, Kiley’s final
design bears his unmistakable imprint.
Ken Smith, in recounting the history of landscaping for Damrosch Park, detailed Kiley’s
involvement in the project. Smith noted that while Webel was delegated to determining sites for
a memorial flagpole and sculptural relief panel, Kiley had the more practical tasks of dealing
with schedules for plantings, drainage studies, planter seating and a prospective fountain.400
Smith also relates that the Parks Department had originally wanted the planters to include
backrests, which were later eliminated in favor of Kiley’s low-riding travertine planters.401 In
terms of the plantings themselves, while Kiley disagreed with the Parks Department’s planting of
Ginkgo trees and “miscellaneous types of shrubs,” he endorsed the inclusion of London plane
146
trees—already implemented in Plaza North—parallel to the Metropolitan Opera House’s south
side and the New York State Theater’s west side, and the grove of Sargent crabapple trees
grouped in a rectangular configuration along the eastern border of the bandshell’s audience area.
Like his specifications for Plaza North, Kiley provided the Parks Department with thorough
instructions as to the maintenance of these species, concerned that a lack of such would
compromise both the park’s aesthetic and the roof of the parking structure below.402
Damrosch Park Opening and Critical Response
Despite plans to open in the summer of 1966, several circumstances prevented Damrosch
Park from officially opening until spring 1969. Included among these delays were the temporary
housing of building machinery for the Metropolitan Opera House within the park’s perimeters,
and the completion of a parking facility below grade. In addition, on September 27, 1967, The
New York Times reported that the project was further stalled because the Parks Department had
not yet paid Eggers & Higgins for work relating to this and other projects. This delay caused
David Eggers to withhold construction drawings from the city agency until his firm received its
compensation.403
Finally, after settling the payment matter and completing the work, the Parks Department
opened Damrosch Park to the public on May 22, 1969. In attendance were Mrs. John V.
Lindsay; John D. Rockefeller, III; Parks Commissioner August Heckscher; and Marya Mannes,
representing the Damrosch family. Former Parks Commissioner Robert Moses, commenting on
the past delays, remarked, “There’s been an awful lot of bungling, especially in the last few
years.”404 Unlike the other plaza areas and buildings at Lincoln Center, Damrosch Park was not
extensively reviewed upon completion. In addition to the Times description in which reporter
Donal Henahan wrote that it “looks like a Spanish onion sliced in half,” a critic for Progressive
147
Architecture similarly described it as “a halved onion with a point,” while Robert Kotlowitz,
writing for Harper’s Magazine, referred to it as “ugly.”405
Alterations to Damrosch Park
In the early 1990s, several different types of alterations were made to Damrosch Park. In
1990, light towers were installed to enhance bandshell performances and anchor rings to secure
the tents of its winter tenant, the Big Apple Circus.406 In 1993, twelve London plane trees were
cut down in an effort to stave off a fatal tree disease known as cankerstein.407 According to Ken
Smith, subsequent meetings in 1995 between modern landscape preservationists and Lincoln
Center management after this time enabled some of Kiley’s original choices to be reinstated.408
Alice Tully Hall and The Juilliard School
In addition to the opening of Damrosch Park in the spring, 1969 also heralded the
completion of the Juilliard School in the fall. A project that took twelve years to complete, the
administrators of the Juilliard School not only had to accommodate their own board of directors,
but also other institutional boards as well.409 For example, part of the Juilliard School’s
agreement with Lincoln Center, Inc. entailed the inclusion of a chamber music hall within its
new facility, primarily for the umbrella organization’s uses.410 Endorsed by Juilliard’s then
president, William Schuman, who envisioned a future chamber music constituent, the project
received principle funding from Alice Tully, considered “one of the most generous of America’s
cultural philanthropists.”411
A former opera singer and recitalist, Tully had performed in Europe during the 1920s and
in the United States during the 1930s, before becoming a ferry pilot with the Civil Air Patrol in
1941, and an American Red Cross nurse’s aide thereafter. 412 Since World War II, she had been
active in many institutional boards throughout the city such as the Juilliard School, the New
148
York Philharmonic, New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts and the Alliance Français. In
1958, Tully inherited the estate of her maternal grandfather, William Houghton, the founder of
the Corning Glass Works. Seizing upon Tully’s lifelong commitment to the arts, her cousin,
Arthur Houghton, Jr., urged her to underwrite a chamber music hall at Lincoln Center. 413
Although the city had had many concert halls, by 1958, there was no space exclusively
devoted to—or ideally suited for—chamber music in New York City.414 Between the mideighteenth and late-nineteenth century, many multi-purpose halls for chamber music, symphony
and opera had been built by enterprising impresarios which were subsequently demolished by
fire, or closed due to changes in ownership.415 The earliest known venue was Mr. Burn’s New
Room (1770; location unknown). Over the years, others performance venues followed, such as
the Park Theater (1798), on Park Row near Ann Street; the aforementioned Apollo Rooms and
Castle Garden; the original Steinway Hall (1866), on 14th Street, east of Union Square; and the
previously-discussed Academy of Music, Metropolitan Opera House and Carnegie Hall.
During the early part of the 20th century, several new concert halls were constructed that
offered chamber, orchestral and jazz music, as well as solo and group recitals. Among these,
were Warren & Wetmore’s relatively short-lived Aeolian Hall (1912), which was housed within
the Aeolian Piano Company, located on 42nd Street, between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, and
closed in 1925.416 A second and more intimate Steinway Hall, also designed by Warren &
Wetmore, was constructed in 1925 and located on West 57th Street, between Fifth and Sixth
Avenues. This closed in 1955, after the building was sold to the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company.417 Consequently, when Alice Tully was asked about her inspiration for funding such
a chamber music hall, she replied, “Up until now, there’s been no real hall in the city that’s
exactly right for it. We feel this will answer the need.”418 Ironically, even though Tully’s pledge
to the center had ensured the creation of a chamber music hall at Lincoln Center in 1958, its
149
resident ensemble and constituent organization, the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center,
was not established until 1969.419
Although Belluschi was the lead architect for the Juilliard School, he was assisted by two
distinguished designers, Eduardo Catalano and Helge Westermann. Pietro Belluschi was born in
1899 in Ancona, Italy, and graduated from the University of Rome with a degree in engineering
in 1922.420 Immigrating to the United States upon completion of his undergraduate degree,
Belluschi subsequently studied civil engineering at Cornell University, and received his master’s
degree in 1924. Settling in Portland, Oregon, the architect began work at the architecture firm of
A. E. Doyle Associates in 1925, and became its chief designer after Doyle’s death in 1928. His
most notable achievement during his years at A. E. Doyle were his additions to the Portland Art
Museum (1931-32; 1937-38), which were “remarkably modern in [their] crisp, unornamented
brick and innovative use of natural daylighting.”421 Another design which won the architect
wide acclaim was his Finley Mortuary (1936-37), also located in Portland. Belluschi’s design of
his own Portland house (1936), with other houses to follow, was emblematic of his commitment
to the Modern movement as he fused ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright, barn designs and Japanese
motifs into a “true regional style.”422
In 1942, after re-instituting the A. E. Doyle firm under his own name, Belluschi
continued to create a range of modern buildings that included offices, shops, banks and churches.
In each one of these, the architect was able to “demonstrate his belief in the validity of a simple,
logically designed functional modern architecture” while revealing “a clarity of expression with
practical technological solutions.”423 Among his more notable achievements were the Zion
Lutheran Church in Portland (1948-51) and the Central Lutheran Church (1949-51), both in
Portland. These and other church designs gave him a reputation as “one of the foremost church
architects in the country” by the 1950s.424 Furthermore, Belluschi’s work in commercial design
150
was just as distinguished, as evidenced by his landmark Equitable Building (1945-48), which,
with its glass curtain wall and its unadorned aluminum grid cladding over reinforced concrete,
was a pioneer work of American corporate building design.425
After selling his practice to Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Belluschi accepted the
position of Dean of Architecture and Urban Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Cambridge, a job he held between 1951 and 1965. Serving as a design consultant
to various firms during his academic tenure, the architect collaborated on a variety of projects
such as Temple Koch in Swampscott, Massachusetts (1956; with Carl Koch and Associates);
Bennington College Library in Bennington, Vermont (1958-1959; also with Carl Koch and
Associates); the Portsmouth Abbey Church and Monastery in Rhode Island (1959; with
Anderson, Beckwith and Haible); and the Pan Am Building at 200 Park Avenue in New York
(1962; consultant with Walter Gropius to Emery Roth & Sons). Belluschi continued to consult
even after his retirement from M.I.T. in 1965, collaborating with various firms on more churches
and synagogues, dormitories, office buildings and a symphony hall. During a career that
spanned six decades, the architect was active on many different boards and foundations, having
also served as president of the Oregon chapter of the American Institute of Architects (1943-44)
and of the Portland Museum of Art (1947-48), and as a member of the National Fine Arts
Commission (1950-55). He also received many honorary distinctions, including fellowships
from the American Institute of Architects (1948) and the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences (1952), Knight Commander for the Republic of Italy (1965) and the Gold Medal from
the American Institute of Architects (1972). Pietro Belluschi died in 1994.
Eduardo Catalano, Belluschi’s associate on the Juilliard School and a former colleague at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was born in Buenos Aires in 1917 and immigrated to
the United States in 1951.426 Having obtained his undergraduate degree at the University of
151
Buenos Aires in 1940, Catalano earned two successive masters degrees in architecture in the
United States: one from the University of Pennsylvania in 1944, and the other through an
International Education/United States Department of State Scholarship to Harvard University in
1945. In 1958, after having won several design competitions, the architect established his own
firm, Eduardo Catalano, Architects and Engineers, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
During the 1960s the architect alternated between working on institutional projects at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at the University of Buenos Aires. At the former, he
collaborated on the Burton-Connor Dining Room (1961; with W. Brown), as well as designing
the Student Center (1963) and the Married Students Housing and Polaroid Building (1965). At
the University of Buenos Aires, he collaborated on the master plan (1961; with H. Caminos and
E. Sacriste), the Science Building (1962; with H. Caminos) and the Architecture Building (1965;
also with H. Caminos). Commenting on Catalano’s work, Stephen P. Hamilton wrote, “His own
designs exhibit an underlying and visible expression of pure form, often pure geometry in their
structural systems…All of the inside spaces and functions are subservient to the powerful
geometric shape.”427
During the 1970s and 1980s, Catalano broadened his scope of institutional buildings to
include civic centers and courthouses. Some of his works during this period include the Civic
Center in Springfield, Massachusetts (1969), the Government Center in Greensboro, North
Carolina (1970), the Hall of Justice in Springfield (1973) and La Guardia High School in New
York (1976). Commercial projects completed during this time include a Burlington office
building in Burlington, Massachusetts (1978), a Cambridge Park office complex (1981) and the
United States Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa (1986). In addition to his work as a practicing
architect, Catalano also taught design at the University of North Carolina in Raleigh between
1951 and 1956, and at M.I.T., between 1956 and 1977.
152
Belluschi’s other associate on the Juilliard School was Helge Westermann. Born in
Esbjerg, Denmark in 1914, Westermann received his architecture degree from Harvard
University’s Graduate School of Design in 1945.428 Between 1947 and 1955, he was a partner in
the firm Neergaard, Agnew, Craig & Westermann, and then ran his own firm between 1955 and
1964. In 1964, he formed a partnership with Richard Miller called Helge Westermann/Richard
Miller/Associates. Known primarily for his work on institutional projects, some of
Westermann’s works include Mercy Hospital in Baltimore (1962; with Taylor & Fisher),
Middletown State Hospital Rehabilitation Center in New York (1967); Smith College Center for
the Performing Arts in Northampton, Massachusetts (1968); and Caguas Area Hospital, Nursing
Home & Mental Health Center in Puerto Rico (1968).
Inarguably, Pietro Belluschi, Eduardo Catalano and Helge Westermann were confronted
with a more challenging task than their fellow architects in having to design a one-building
campus for the Juilliard School in conjunction with a chamber music auditorium. When
interviewed about the project, Helge Westermann stated:
This is the most complex building of the whole Lincoln Center
group. More so even than the Metropolitan Opera. That is because
it is so much more diverse in its function. It is a school, a
specialized school. It also will have theaters in it.429
Westermann’s response, however, while acknowledging the complexity of uses within the
building, did not delve into the specifics, which not only entailed drama-related activities for
Juilliard’s newly created drama division, but also large, customized, rehearsal studios for the
school’s dance department and George Balanchine’s School of American Ballet.430 Ultimately,
Belluschi, Catalano and Westermann integrated 28 soundproof classrooms, 15 two-story
rehearsal studios, 35 teaching studios and 84 practice rooms for music, dance and drama into one
facility, while also customizing spaces for a library, four auditoriums, a host of administrative
153
offices, a student-faculty lounge and snack bar, and several mechanical facilities.431 Perhaps it is
not surprising then, that when one architecture critic described the Juilliard School, she deemed it
“one of the most complicated buildings ever made…as intricate as a Chinese puzzle.”432
Like Harrison’s opera house, the design of the Juilliard School underwent many revisions
and faced numerous delays.433 In addition to the seventy preliminary drawings that Belluschi
and his associates made starting in 1958, an additional three hundred on-the-job sketches were
done once construction had begun.434 Complicating the design process were building height
restrictions, an uncertainty pertaining to the structure’s ultimate uses, and the final acquisition of
land and demolition of the existing structure—which were still not complete by 1962.435 In order
to build on the block bordered by West 65th and 66th Streets between Broadway and Amsterdam
Avenue, Lincoln Center had to purchase the existing High School of Commerce building, and
find an alternative location for a new school. Although a parcel was found within the Lincoln
Square Urban Renewal Area on the northwest corner of West 65th Street and Amsterdam
Avenue, the Board of Education delayed authorization to demolish the old high school building
until the new one was in operation. However, the Board of Education finally relented in 1965,
allowing demolition of the High School of Commerce to take place and work on the Juilliard
School to begin—in spite of the fact that the new school, later dedicated as “Martin Luther King,
Jr. High School,” was not completed until ten years later.436
Measuring three hundred, fifty feet along West 65th and 66th Streets, and two hundred feet
along Broadway, Belluschi, Catalano and Westermann’s complex, eight-million-cubic-foot
interior for the Juilliard School was manifested in its unrestrained exterior.437 Superimposing a
rectangular building footprint onto a rectangular lot cut on the bias, the architects created a
facility of four stories below grade and six stories above, including a wraparound terrace on the
second story, and a cantilevered mass above it. Referencing the Brutalist style introduced by the
154
French master architect, Le Corbusier, the shape of the building was defined by massive
“modernist block forms,” incorporating “béton brut” or “raw concrete,” in addition to the
center’s mandated travertine cladding.”438 These raw concrete surfaces are most apparent in the
coffered undersides of the building’s projecting elements.
While the architects’ use of travertine, along with glass, were in accordance with the
Lincoln Center design teams’ specifications, the ways in which they were applied to the Juilliard
School building were not. As previously noted, travertine had been Belluschi’s original
recommendation for the center’s principle cladding material; it had also been donated to the
Juilliard School by the Italian government.439 However, Belluschi and his associates eschewed
the larger rectangular panels used by the other Lincoln Center architects in favor of smaller
square ones, affixed side by side, thereby emphasizing the marble’s rich layers through
contrasting panels. Punctuating each floor were rows of square or rectangular windows, spaced
uniformly apart from one another, each embodying the type of space within. Like Dan Kiley’s
use of abstraction, uniformity and minimalism in his landscape designs, Belluschi and his
colleagues invested these same modernistic concepts into their Expressionistic design of the
Juilliard School.
Since the facility was to be used primarily by students and faculty arriving via street-level
transit and subway, and presumably not from Lincoln Center Plaza North, the architects placed
the main entrance in the middle of the school on West 65th Street underneath a bridge plaza, with
a secondary entrance and loading dock on West 66th Street. A third entrance on the bridge plaza
level enabled students to cross over West 65th Street and down a wide, pink marble granite
stairway to use the Library for the Performing Arts, while also allowing the general public access
to the Juilliard School’s performance venues from Lincoln Center. Formerly named Kaskel
Plaza, the travertine-enclosed bridge was renamed Paul Milstein Plaza on July 12, 1997, and
connects to a terrace which lines the Broadway façade, and features another granite stairway
155
leading down to the street level at Broadway and West 65th Street. Also on the plaza side above
is another projecting balcony which stretches the length of the school.
Entering the lobby from West 65th Street, intersecting exposed-concrete piers and beams
frame a wide stairway that leads up to the second-story. Due to budgetary constraints, the
architects had to forego wood finishes for exposed concrete in the lobby areas.440 Immediately
surrounding the stairway are crimson-colored-carpeted public areas that lead to the Juilliard
Theater, Alice Tully Hall, Paul Recital Hall, and other stairways and elevators. Divided into
three general zones, the Juilliard School’s bottom four levels house the Juilliard Theater and
Alice Tully Hall, lying parallel to Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway, respectively, as well as a
scenery workshop, an area for mechanical equipment and the school’s main lobby, located
within the south central area between the two auditoriums. As originally designed, this level also
housed the school’s music store to the north of the lobby area.441
Created to accommodate opera, drama and dance, the oval-shaped Juilliard Theater can
seat between 961 to 1,026 patrons. Two stage lifts enable theater technicians to extend or reduce
the length of the stage, thereby decreasing or increasing the number of seats available for
audience members. A movable ceiling in overlapping tiers of basswood and cherry wood is
capable of being adjusted into three positions, within a seven-foot span, to direct sound
reverberation according to performance requirements. Below the stage area, the orchestra pit can
accommodate up to ninety-five musicians. Like the paneled ceiling, the curved walls of the
orchestra and balcony sections are also finished in basswood and cherry wood, with blackupholstered seats and red carpeting. Over the audience areas, platforms and light bridges
facilitate a variety of light settings and accessibility for lighting designers and technicians.
Lighting for the Julliard Theater and other concert halls was designed by Jean Rosenthal
Associates, Inc.
156
Lying parallel to the Juilliard Theater along Broadway—a mere twenty feet from the
Interborough Rapid Transit subway line—is the 1,096-seat Alice Tully Hall. Accessible from
Broadway, the lobby to Alice Tully Hall is several feet below street level. Enclosed within a
structural envelope which isolates it from subway vibrations, the hall itself features insular
materials such as cork-lined asbestos that separate its foundation from the below-grade rock
surface. Designed principally for chamber music concerts, the diamond-shaped, bi-level
auditorium has basswood wall and ceiling finishes, lavender carpeting and raspberry-colored
seats. Tully had been personally involved in the selection of the carpeting and upholstery, and
had specified the organ manufacturer—the Theodore Kuhn Company.442 The stage measures
twenty-three-feet-deep by fifty-feet-wide, and can be extended an additional fourteen feet for
larger musical ensembles. In addition, an orchestra pit can also be implemented below the stage
area by removing two rows of auditorium seats. The Kuhn organ located upstage can be either
raised into view for performances or lowered completely out of sight. Other features include
pipes on electrical winches that hold the curtains, lighting and scenery, and stage side walls that
can pivot to provide greater access to the backstage area. Built also for film screenings, Alice
Tully Hall features a projection booth and sound system.
The second zone consists of administrative offices, public areas, lounges, Paul Recital
Hall and the Drama Workshop. A more intimate performance space than its counterparts, the
277-seat Paul Recital Hall, located in the middle of the block on the second story, is lit with large
globe fixtures and paneled in cherry wood with sloping ceiling coffers and plastic covered seats
for optimal sound diffusion. Equally adaptable to recitals or lectures, the single-level hall also
contains a Holtkamp organ onstage. To the west of Paul Recital Hall are the Green Room,
elevators and stairways, and the Drama Workshop, a semi-circular rehearsal and performance
space, also capable of seating 277 people. East of the recital hall are administrative offices and
fly spaces for the Juilliard Theater and Alice Tully Hall.
157
The third zone features the Orchestra Rehearsal and Recording Studio, the Lila Acheson
Wallace Library, a lounge area, large rehearsal studios, private teaching studios, practice rooms
and a mechanical room. Occupying the central core of the building, starting with the third floor
and ascending, are the fifty-by-seventy-foot Orchestra Rehearsal and Recording Studio, the
double-story Lila Acheson Wallace Library and adjacent lounge area, and the mechanical room.
To the east of these facilities, also starting with the third floor and ascending, are large studios
built especially for dance rehearsals, irregularly-shaped practice rooms, and teaching studios and
classrooms surrounding an open courtyard. To the west of the central core is another open
courtyard with administrative offices to the south. Lining the building’s perimeter of floors two
through five are additional practice rooms, teaching studios and classrooms.
Given the complexity and diversity of programs within the Juilliard School, good
acoustical design was essential. In addition to having to deaden the usual noise and vibrations
emanating from mechanical equipment, and heating and cooling systems, the architects also had
to contend with potential disruptions from outside noise, nearby subway trains, performance
spaces, practice and rehearsal rooms, and teaching studios. In an interview with The New York
Times, resident architect, Joseph Morog, stressing the critical nature of the school’s acoustical
design, stated, “There are between seventy-five and eighty practice rooms...Practice rooms are
no good if noise goes out or comes in. So we have had to insulate everything, floors, ceilings,
even fixtures like air-conditioning ducts.”443 In addition to wall insulation, the designers also
specified triple-glazed panels for the exterior windows.
Supervising sound design for the project was acoustician, Heinrich Keilholz, who had
made modifications to Philharmonic Hall’s acoustics between 1963 and 1965. Regarding the
intricacies of the Juilliard School’s design, Architectural Record critic, Mildred F. Schmertz,
wrote:
158
All major sound-producing spaces are insulated from the structure.
Each as a unique volume and special wall, floor and ceiling
treatments. As a result, no two floors of Juilliard are alike, and
floor slab elevations constantly vary. The building has cavity
walls, solid walls, walls with insulation and walls without. Because
of the intricacy of the plan, there is no direct transfer of loads to
the foundation.444
Schmertz further noted that floor loads for the building range between 250 to 280 pounds per
square foot, due to the structure’s concrete slabs, secondary slabs and floor finishes, thereby
making this diffusion of weight highly effective.445 Engineers involved in the project included
structural engineer, Paul Weidlinger; the mechanical and electrical engineering firm of Jaros,
Baum and Bolles; and moveable facilities engineer, Olaf Soöt.
The Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center / The Film Society of Lincoln Center
Once plans for an independent chamber music hall within the Juilliard School had been
finalized, William Schuman proposed a chamber music constituent as its resident ensemble.446
In addition to being devoted to music education, Schuman was equally committed to music
composition and appreciation. Born in New York City in 1910, Schuman had played several
different instruments in a jazz ensemble in high school, before attending Teachers College to
pursue a Bachelor of Music degree between 1932 and 1935.447 Joining the faculty of Sarah
Lawrence College in 1935, he was concurrently enrolled at Columbia University, where he
earned a Masters of Arts degree in 1937.
In 1941, he gained international notoriety for his composition, Symphony No. 3, for
which he received the first New York Music Critics Circle Award. Two years later, Schuman
won the Pulitzer Prize in music for his cantata entitled A Free Song, set to a text by Walt
Whitman. In 1945, Schuman resigned from his teaching position at Sarah Lawrence to become
director of publications for music publisher, G. Schirmer. That same year, he also became
president of the Juilliard School of Music, continuing to compose in his off-time. As previously
159
noted, Schuman’s tenure at Juilliard was marked by several notable changes, including the final
merger between the Institute for Musical Arts and the Juilliard School of Music, the initiation of
an innovative teaching method, the founding of the Juilliard String Quartet and the addition of a
dance division to the curriculum. After leaving Juilliard in 1961 to become the president of
Lincoln Center starting in 1962, Schuman continued to advocate music education in his new job
while also promoting musical performance.
In 1965, he approached Charles Wadsworth about creating a chamber music constituent
for Lincoln Center that would serve as the resident musical ensemble for Alice Tully Hall.
Although primarily identified as an accompanist, Wadsworth shared a similar interest in
promoting chamber music to the general public. Having earned his Bachelor’s and Master’s
degrees in piano, Wadsworth had also studied vocal repertoires extensively in Paris, Munich and
New York.448 Thereafter working as an accompanist, he played for Beverly Sills, Jan Peerce,
Monserrat Caballe, Shirley Verrett, Frederica von Stade and Dietrich Fisher Dieskau, among
others. In 1960, Gian Carlo Menotti invited him to devise and subsequently host the Chamber
Music Series at the Festival of Two Worlds in Spoleto, Italy, thereby garnering Wadsworth
distinction in the realm of chamber music appreciation.
Responding enthusiastically to Schuman’s request, Wadsworth collaborated with him to
create the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center. Enlisting Alice Tully to chair the board of
the new constituent, Schuman and Wadsworth determined that the Chamber Music Society
would be comprised of “highly esteemed performers, including a core of Artist Members to be
augmented each season by Guest Artists.”449 On February 17, 1969, the Chamber Music Society
of Lincoln Center became a constituent with Wadsworth serving as its artistic director.450
Previous to Schuman’s goals for a chamber music constituent in 1965, the newlyappointed president had also promoted the inception of a music theater constituent, a summer
160
festival and a film festival.451 Starting in 1963, under the auspices of Lincoln Center, Inc., these
film festivals were held with the assumption that a constituent organization would eventually
emerge from them, independent of the center’s sponsorship.452 In 1967, Schuman asked his
friend, Martin E. Segal, a cino-phile and businessman, to help with the endeavor. Segal in turn
approached William F. May, president of the American Can Company, and the Lincoln Center
Film Committee was subsequently organized.
In May 1969, after numerous budgetary uncertainties which had prolonged its
establishment, the Film Society of Lincoln Center was formed “to further appreciation of film as
a leading communicative art form.”453 Owing to a substantial grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts, patron pledges and a scaling back of the budget, these aforementioned
obstacles had been partially overcome.454 The new constituent organization featured Martin E.
Segal as its president and William F. May as its chairman.
Alice Tully Hall / Juilliard School Opening and Critical Response
Characterized by one critic as “quiet and dignified,” the opening of Alice Tully Hall on
September 11, 1969, preceded the official opening of the Juilliard School by one month.455 In
attendance were Alice Tully, John D. Rockefeller, III, Rudolph Bing, Parks Commisioner
August Heckscher and Heinrich Keilholz. In his speech, Rockefeller praised the hall as “a joy
both esthetically and acoustically,” and Tully, for “giving unstintingly of herself” in terms of the
hall’s design and décor.456 Tully herself waxed, “It’s a glorious evening. It’s fulfilled every wish
and dream of mine.”457 The evening also marked the debut of the Chamber Music Society of
Lincoln Center, which for this evening’s concert, was comprised of violinists, Pinchas
Zuckerman and James Oliver Buswell, IV; cellists, Pierre Fournier and Leslie Parnas; violist,
Walter Trampler; and harpsichordist and pianist, Charles Wadsworth. The evening’s program
161
consisted of Schumann’s Dichterliebe, sung by baritone, Hermann Prey; Bach’s Trio Sonata in C
and Schubert’s Quintet.
On the whole, reviews for Alice Tully Hall were complimentary. Calling the hall,
“handsome,” Harold C. Schonberg added, “Alice Tully Hall is warm and colorful without being
garish. It is all of a piece, with colors flowing into each other.”458 Regarding the acoustics, the
music critic commended the hall’s ability to produce a “nice, clear sound.”459 An unnamed critic
for Time magazine agreed with Schonberg, calling the auditorium, “Lincoln Center’s
acoustically superb home for chamber music.”460 Schonberg also hailed the Chamber Music
Society itself as fulfilling its purpose to “honestly represent what it stands for—the best in
chamber music, played by the finest musicians around.”461 Concluding his review, the music
critic wrote, “So everybody walked out content, knowing that New York now has a fine new hall
designed primarily for chamber music that really works.”462
Mildred F. Schmertz, writing for Architectural Record, included Alice Tully Hall in her
assessment, stating:
Juilliard’s interiors are in some ways better than those of the other
buildings. Its beautifully shaped wood paneled auditoriums, for
example, prove that it is possible to create elegant halls in
contemporary terms without resorting to skimpy evocations of the
gilt, plaster and crystal décor of the great halls of the past.463
Similarly, Ada Louise Huxtable, describing Alice Tully Hall as “attractive,” maintained, “The
richness of [the Juilliard] theaters is in their sweep of space, the warmth of their exposed wood
ceilings and walls, justness of colors and proportions, and the total absence of the gratuitous
gimmicks of glamour.”464
In contrast to the more understated opening of Alice Tully Hall, the inauguration of the
$29.7 million Juilliard School on October 26, 1969, was a major cultural event that garnered
national attention. Recounting the details of the previous night in a front-page story entitled,
“Juilliard School Dedication Marks Completion of Lincoln Center,” New York Times staff writer,
162
George Gent, noted that “More than 1,000 notables from music, politics, the arts, business and
society attended formal dedication ceremonies last night for the Juilliard School’s lavish new
home at Lincoln Center.”465 Among the dignitaries and luminaries noted in Gent’s article were
First Lady Patricia Nixon with son-in-law, David Eisenhower, and daughter, Julie; John D.
Rockefeller, III; President of Juilliard, Peter Mennin; Governor and Mrs. Rockefeller; Parks
Commisioner Hecksher; Pietro Belluschi; Lauritz Melchior; William Schuman; Jennie Tourel;
Martha Graham; Aaron Copeland; Rïse Stevens; Sol Hurok; Andre Previn and Mia Farrow.466
John D. Rockefeller, III, in a nationally-televised speech preceding the ninety-minute
concert in Alice Tully Hall, remarked on both the significance of the school and of the
completion of Lincoln Center. Of the Juilliard School, Rockefeller said that the students “‘will
benefit from proximity to the greatest professionals gathered at Lincoln Center, just as the
professionals ‘will be stimulated by their interaction with young aspiring artists.’”467 Moreover,
Rockefeller exclaimed, “With the completion of Lincoln Center, it is now the time of the artist
and his audience, for only they can make this Center a living testament to the quality of life.”468
Leonard Bernstein, acting as the televised concert’s emcee, offered that at Juilliard, ‘teachers
learn and students teach.’”469 Bernstein also praised the school’s completion for bringing “unity
to the complex,” allowing the center to transcend its value as an expensive piece of real estate.470
The program itself featured solo performances by three of the school’s graduates as well
as symphonic works played by the Juilliard Orchestra under the direction of Jean Morel.
Violinist Itzhak Perlman played Paganini’s Violin Concerto in D, mezzo-soprano Shirley Verrett
sang Mozart’s Alleluia and an aria from Donizetti’s Anna Bolena, and Van Cliburn played
Liszt’s E flat Piano Concerto. In addition, Leopold Stokowski conducted The Star-Spangled
Banner and the Preludes to Acts I and III of Wagner’s Lohengrin, as Morel closed the program
with Danse génerale from Daphnis et Chloe.
163
Upon its opening, the Juilliard School was unanimously endorsed by critics. Time
magazine hailed it as “a triumph of architecture” and “technology,” Newsweek referred to it as “a
friendly fortress,” while Architectural Record proclaimed it “the best building at Lincoln
Center.”471 Just as enthusiastic, Harold C. Schonberg, referred to the Juilliard School as “the Taj
Mahal of conservatories, opulent, beautiful and domineering.” 472 Schonberg’s review concluded
that, “the Juilliard School has become the most impressive conservatory in the entire world, with
facilities at its disposal that no other conservatory can begin to approach.”473
Having taken a preliminary tour of the building before its official opening, Ada Louise
Huxtable offered a review that was more mitigated in its praise, yet nevertheless enthusiastic.
Regarding the theaters, she maintained that they “promise to be the best in town.”474
Furthermore, she asserted that while she found Alice Tully Hall “attractive,” the Juilliard Theater
“promises to be even better,” with its “near-circular shape” providing “greater intimacy and
liveliness.”475 The following year, Huxtable elaborated:
The splendid Juilliard theaters are a suave exercise in taste and
beauty. They are traditional, and conventional, in that they use all
of the components of building with artful sophistication for elegant
detailed designs, objectives that architecture has always aspired to
historically. They represent Mr. Belluschi’s personal lifetime
philosophy of function, propriety, sensibility and respect for the
nature of materials.476
Critical commentary for Paul Recital Hall ranged from “lovely” to “beautiful” to “exquisite.”477
Schonberg compared the space to Alice Tully Hall, writing that it possessed “an air of quiet
elegance,” and Huxtable approved of the onstage organ as “an abstract sculpture that is hard to
beat.”478 On May 19, 1970, Belluschi, Catalano and Westermann were awarded the Bard Award
for Excellence in Architecture and Urban Design for their concert halls within the Juilliard
School, which, it was noted, were “three of the very finest halls the jury has seen anywhere.”479
In terms of the public areas, Huxtable wrote that the exposed concrete surfaces, were
“sometimes an aesthetic gain,” while “often leav[ing] something to be desired.”480 Yet, she
164
commended the design of the “open, central entrance court rising several stories,” which, she
asserted, “gives focus and orientation to the building.”481 Huxtable concluded her review by
praising Belluschi’s “restrained establishment modern” design, maintaining, “It is not avantgarde, but its refinements and simplicities are timeless. With the Beaumont Theater, Juilliard
offers architectural and esthetic reality to the cultural confusions of Lincoln Center, ending 14
years on an upbeat.”482 Moreover, the critic found deeper significance in Belluschi’s work at
Lincoln Center, claiming, “What he is actually presenting here is the case for modernism
preached by three generations of architects in the 20th century: a marriage of form and function
in terms of rational simplicity and bare-boned solutions.”483
Art Within the Juilliard School
On March 30, 1970, an untitled sculpture comprised of black Swedish granite in the
shape of a “truncated pagoda” was installed in the Juilliard School’s lobby stairwell.484 Created
by Masayuki Nagare, who later made the twin Bachi sculptures for the Metropolitan Opera
House’s outdoor promenade, the piece for the Juilliard School was acquired through a donation
by John D. Rockefeller, III. Citing the Juilliard School’s leadership in training foreign
students—who were predominantly Japanese—Rockefeller also expressed gratitude to the
Japanese Federation of Economic Organizations for its sizable contribution toward the school’s
capital campaign. Responding on behalf of the federation, Vice President Masahuru Doi echoed
President Eisenhower’s original ground-breaking speech, saying that he hoped “the center would
help ‘to upgrade existing art forms and create new ones, and as a consequence, improve peace
and amity throughout the world.’”485 Although not reviewed, Ada Louise Huxtable had
favorably anticipated that Nagare’s work would give Juilliard’s central stairwell “further
focus.”486
165
Acknowledging the Israeli contingent of students who had also benefited from Juilliard, a
lawyer and investor named George Jaffin donated a kinetic sculpture by Yaacov Agam to the
school on behalf of the America-Israel Cultural Foundation. 487 Weighing five tons and
consisting of three zigzagging columns of stainless-steel tubes, Agam’s movable sculpture was
called, “Three X Three Interplay.”488 When asked about the piece, Agam replied that it was “not
a statement, but a constant becoming, not a sculpture but many possibilities for one.”489 A
pioneer in the field of kinetic art, Agam used spectator-initiated time sequences in his works to
show “his entirely optimistic and dynamic interpretation and celebration of the force of life in art
and his total faith in the participation of the public in the creative process.”490
On May 4, 1971, “Three X Three Interplay” was unveiled at the southeast corner of
Milstein Plaza. Presiding over the ceremony were Bess Myerson, the city’s Consumer Affairs
Commissioner; violinist, Isaac Stern; the donors, Mr. and Mrs. George Jaffin; Dr. Avraham
Soltes, chairman of the International Jewish Music Library at Lincoln Center; and Yaacov
Agam. Employing a steel winch to move the three tubings, the artist said that his work was
meant to “create new visual spaces, visually and sculpturally interpreting sequences of the work
the way a musician plays a piece of music.”491 Avraham Soltes added, “Agam believes that
reality can’t be represented by a fixed image. He sees the world not as existence but possibility,
and he seeks to make sculptures that transcend the visible.”492 Meyerson praised the work for
adding “one more place of renewal of the spirit, one more moment of quiet reflection, one more
opportunity for a cultural adventure in which we can share the talent and insight of a gifted
artist.”493
Critical Response to Lincoln Center Since Its Opening
Perhaps no other performing arts center in the United States has inspired more written
commentary before, during and after its construction than Lincoln Center. Although the
166
federally-initiated John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has garnered much
discussion in terms of its funding, Lincoln Center has been the subject of continual debate in
terms of its design, its planning, its role as an urban renewal catalyst and its overall
significance—not to mention, its programming, its organizational structure, its constituents and
its unresolved plans for redevelopment. Noted New York Times theatre critic, Clive Barnes,
remarked:
It is curious that Lincoln Center met with hardly any opposition
while it was being planned, but once it was built and operating, it
became a continual Aunt Sally, with almost everyone taking pot
shots at its architecture, its constituent companies, its overall
planning, its subscription systems, even its catering facilities.494
Contrary to Barnes’ assertion about an early lack of opposition, Times critic, Paul Goldberger,
later countered that Jane Jacobs (and other planning critics) had been highly critical of the center,
describing it as “a sterile island cut of from the life of the city.”495
Regarding its design, Lincoln Center has continued to inspire divergent responses among
critics, architects, planners and preservationists. While some complaints about the complex have
lessened over time, others have become more pointed. Ada Louise Huxtable, who had originally
championed Abramovitz, Johnson—and even Harrison, to a certain extent—wrote an
unfavorable critique shortly after the Metropolitan Opera House opened in which she recanted
her previous endorsements.496 Acknowledging that such searing criticisms might seem
“churlish…in view of the fact that on any busy evening Lincoln Center is an agreeable place, full
of light and movement and the tangible promise of varied entertainments,” the critic then
launched into a diatribe against its buildings’ designs.”497
Describing Philharmonic Hall, the New York State Theater and the Metropolitan Opera
House as “a gift wrap job of travertine trim and passé partout colonnades applied to basic
boxes,” she further characterized them as structures “that the public finds pleasing and most
professionals consider a failure of nerve, imagination and talent.”498 Even the Vivian Beaumont
167
Theater, which Huxtable had previously praised as a distinctive piece of modernism, was now
said to have been “done better by Mies at Barcelona in 1929.”499 She ultimately concluded that
the campus “has defaulted as contemporary architecture and design.”500 Yet, in spite of
Huxtable’s later disdain for the trio of buildings, she never wavered in her praise of the plazas.
In contrast to Huxtable’s assertion that the buildings lacked innovation, Paul Goldberger,
writing about the trio of Lincoln Center Plaza buildings in 1979, insisted that “far from looking
backward, [they] seem now to be odd precursors of the current fashion for designing in
classically inspired styles.”501 In fact, this stylistic “precursor” to what would become known as
Post-modernism was actually, according to preservationist, Kathleen Randall, formalism.502
Characterized by “architecture that emphasizes form over pure functionalism or structural
expression,” formalist buildings, such as those designed by Abramovitz, Harrison and Johnson,
incorporated historicized elements thereby “creating an instant, easily readable
monumentality.”503 The term also echoed Johnson’s original characterization of the architects’
goals of “looking away from the Puritanism of the International Style toward enriched forms.”504
Nonetheless, Goldberger dismissed the architecture of Avery Fisher Hall, the New York State
Theater and the Metropolitan Opera House, claiming, “their problem was never that they were
classical, but that they were so badly classical. The three main buildings are prissy and
overdelicate both inside and out, with a heavy-handedness of form and a vulgarity of detail that
looked poor in the 1960’s and look no less so now.”505
Architectural historian, William H. Jordy, also acknowledged the classicism of the
complex, while also stressing its Beaux Arts antecedents. Citing a continuum between
Chicago’s Columbian Exposition, Rockefeller Center and Lincoln Center, Jordy stated:
Although…formal qualities of Lincoln Center generally
characterize all classically inspired architecture, its most
immediate prototypes for American architects are Beaux-Arts
buildings. So Lincoln Center brings the tradition of American
Beaux-Arts full circle, back to the Court of Honor at the
168
Columbian Exposition of 1892. Or, a circle within a circle: if
Rockefeller Center had marked the arc from Beaux-Arts to
modern, so the later Center marks the arc from modern back to
Beaux-Arts, with Wallace Harrison among the principal
participants in both enterprises.”506
Clearly, Wallace K. Harrison’s early training at the Ecole des Beaux Arts informed his design for
Lincoln Center. Although executed in a modern idiom, the campus’ axial plan, symmetry and
processionalism embodied Beaux-Arts principles as exemplified by the City Beautiful
Movement.
In contrast to Paul Goldberger’s criticism of Lincoln Center’s architecture, Clive Barnes
was more divided in his assessment. In his piece entitled, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for
America’s Number One Cultural Supermarket,” dated September 1968, the critic called it “A
Kubla Khan pleasure palace, reviled, admired, tolerated, and now, inescapably and wonderfully,
a part of New York City.”507 Lodging both compliments and criticisms, Barnes assessed the
Vivian Beaumont Theater: “the best-looking building at Lincoln Center…is also the least
effective;” Moore’s Reclining Figure: “perfectly arrogant and attractively mottled;” the New
York State Theater: “the magnificently proportioned main lobby does carry a hint of the coldsteel, machine-gun-scrutinized terraces of Alcatraz, but the theater is always a pleasure to visit;”
the Metropolitan Opera House: “If an opera house is a machine for making opera, you must
forget the Met’s gaudily homely looks and concentrate on how well it works;” and the overall
design: “The buildings do have a comfortingly solid look, but their architectural quality, I think,
falls short of being marvelous.”508
Martin Bloom, writing for the AIA Journal, was less divided. Alluding to Huxtable’s
1966 reassessment, Bloom endorsed her opinions regarding the design, writing, “Although
marble was chosen to sheath the buildings in an attempt to give a dignity and quality of the
eternal to a new center, its particular application does not give a sense of solidity. It seems more
169
like exterior wallpaper.”509 Then, specifying the motives behind this and other stylistic choices,
Bloom asserted:
The design of Lincoln Center evolved during a transition period in
20th century architecture. In the 1950s, designers were unsure of
what constituted monumentality. It was difficult for architects to
deal with classical subjects at a time when modern architecture was
only just finding its voice. There are many elements throughout the
center, both inside and outside of the buildings that betray either a
lack of assurance as to what might constitute a dignified and
monumental performing arts complex or a tendency toward
outright vulgarity.510
The critic summed up his appreciation by writing, “At best it is a half-hearted classicism, not as
evocative of the past as it could be nor as innovative as ‘50s architecture might have desired.”511
Concurring with Bloom’s statements, Herbert Muschamp’s assessments in 1996 and
2001 also acknowledged the architectural uncertainty pervading the design. Muschamp wrote:
The design of the center, too, was ahead of its time, at least in one
disturbing respect: It previewed the stylistic confusion that would
overtake architecture in the decade to come. Classical buildings for
a time that didn’t believe in classicism, ornamented buildings for a
time that didn’t believe in ornament, public spaces for a city that
has always had great difficulty grasping the concept of public
amenity: architecturally, Lincoln Center is the sum of its
contradictions.512
However, despite his reservations, Muschamp had praise for the individual buildings of the
campus. Comparing it to the Campidoglio in Rome, the architecture critic called it “a great
urban stage” in which “the main plaza and the three buildings facing onto it add up to one great
theater, a monumental showcase of urban spectacle.”513 Furthermore, Muschamp lauded the
“‘off-stage’ buildings” that “do not violate the cohesion that prevails throughout the complex,”
and added, “Given that each of the buildings at Lincoln Center was designed by a different
architect, that appearance of unity may be the center’s most remarkable achievement.”514
Regarding the interiors of the individual buildings, the New York Times architecture critic
was unusually effusive. Regarding Avery Fisher Hall, Muschamp reminisced:
170
I was dazzled by this building, designed by Max Abramovitz: by
the broad expanses of glass, by the escalators and, especially, by
‘Orpheus and Apollo,’…stretching through the air. I’d never seen
an artwork like this; the metal plates were minimal, but the sweep
across space was truly Baroque, and you practically moved
through it, while the escalators wafted you upward. 515
While Muschamp found the original concert hall’s interior “thrilling” and “regally modern,” he
was adverse to the current incarnation, which he contended was “nightmarish.”516 He concluded
that Lippold’s “gleaming metal cascade still glints with the promise of modernity and an era’s
belief that a better city lay within reach.”517
Muschamp called the New York State Theater “the most successfully realized of all the
houses at Lincoln Center,” adding that “no theater in New York has a more ennobling flow
space.”518 While he alleged that the theater could never “recapture the aura it possessed while
George Balanchine was alive,” he did resolve that it was still one of “Johnson’s greatest works,”
and through proper restoration, could reclaim its glory.519 Although not as enthusiastic about the
Metropolitan Opera House as he was about the State Theater, Muschamp was nonetheless
approving. After acknowledging the unfortunate compromise that Wallace K. Harrison had to
endure in order to complete the project, Muschamp enthused:
Still, when the lights go down and the curtain goes up, the Met is
one of the world’s great opera houses, the quality of its sound and
sightlines all the more miraculous considering that it seats nearly a
third more people than the largest European houses. 520
Alluding to the opera house’s crystal chandeliers, the critic characterized them as “A poignant
blend of Old World opera house and space-age Sputnik, these fixtures literally crystallize
Lincoln Center’s mid-century, hybrid esthetic.”521
On the other hand, Times music critic, Bernard Holland, looked disfavorably upon the
individual auditoriums of the campus, which he detailed in his 1997 article entitled, “A Music
Mecca Loved but Reluctantly.”522 Acknowledging the fact that Lincoln Center attracted five
million visitors every year, Holland, fraught with resignation, claimed, “In one way or another,
171
the buildings have let their inhabitants down, but with little hope of significant change, we have
gotten used to them.”523 Regarding Avery Fisher Hall, Holland wrote that it “gives off a glare, a
brightness, an unpleasant impression of heat…The new appurtenances, helpful as they are, add
more hideousness to what was already an antimusical atmosphere.”524 Assessing the New York
State Theater’s interior, the critic complained that its backstage areas were too small for its
operatic needs, while its audience space was too big to achieve any sort of intimacy with its
performers.525 Perhaps owing to the benefits of amplification, Holland did offer that the
acoustical design of the State Theater was “certainly better than it was.”526
By comparison, Holland’s survey of the Metropolitan Opera House was less incisive as
he applauded the fact that “Given its intractable problems, size being one, the Met shows
admirable resolve and intelligence.”527 Lamenting the lack of intimacy of the house, he
nonetheless praised its “relatively good” acoustics and its development of “the most
sophisticated and smoothly operating backstage in the world.”528 Holland’s conclusion about
Alice Tully Hall was that “it was too big for the small and too small for the big.” James S.
Russell, writing for Grid, thought that Alice Tully Hall resembled “a dated airport lounge, with
acoustics that are regarded as substandard for a hall of its modest size.”529 Quoting New Yorker
critic, Alex Ross, Russell noted, “’At Tully Hall, the missing element was the intangible one of
atmosphere.’”530 Martin Bloom’s 1981 review of the Vivian Beaumont Theater’s auditorium
called it “the theater that never worked,” and Russell’s 1999 assessment claimed that “the size of
the stage (three times the size of a typical Broadway theater) has defeated even the most talented
directors.” 531
The prospective sale of Jasper Johns’ Numbers, 1964 in late 1998 impelled Times art
critic, Roberta Smith, to conduct a critical examination of the organization’s art holdings.532
Regarding Numbers, 1964, Smith remarked that it was “one of the [center’s] most historically
important” works, and observed that the New York State Theater itself was the “only one that
172
conveys any of the artistic vitality of the moment that the building came into being, and the core
of this vitality is the Johns.”533 Clarifying this statement, Smith wrote, “The art that Mr. Kirstein
and Mr. Johnson chose, while not all of equal quality, forms an illuminating time capsule,
reflecting their different sensibilities and sampling the waxing and waning artistic reputations of
a significant transitional period in New York art.”534
Commenting on the individual artworks and their relationships to the theater’s interior
spaces, Smith asserted that the Higgins work “adds an appropriate motif of movement and grace
to the inner lobby of the theater,” while the Bontecou “is as specifically scaled to its site as the
Johns, answering back to it from the opposite side of the lobby, albeit more aggressively.”535
Maintaining that other pieces within the theater represent “artists and movements whose stars
were fading,” Smith noted “The decline of Abstract Expressionism is palpable in the fluttering
forms of Reuben Nakian’s bronze sculpture...and the lacerated surfaces of a sculpture by the now
forgotten Francesco Somaini.”536 In contrast, the critic thought that Lipchitz’s Birth of the Muses
“conjures European modernism with a certain period-look vitality.”537 In reference to
Nadelman’s Circus Women and Two Female Nudes, Smith pronounced them “one of the most
commanding indoor sculptural spectacles in New York City.”538
In contrast to the State Theater’s collection, Smith was not as approving of the center’s
other holdings, stating, “Much of the other art at Lincoln Center seems to have been pretty
moribund from the start and is certainly irrelevant now.”539 Offering a summation of the
Lippold, Hadzi and Lipton works, she concluded that none of them had “held up too well.”540
Responding to Chagall’s paintings, Smith called them, “lovable and cheerful but only faint
echoes of a great talent that was at its height in the 1910’s and 20’s”541
In contrast to Roberta Smith’s mixed response toward Lincoln Center’s art, most of the
reactions to the center’s planning of have been disapproving. As early as 1966, Ada Louise
Huxtable complained:
173
Lincoln Center has been created on a traffic island of converging
avenues and the situation worsens constantly as new buildings
open. The underground parking that repeats the tangle above
ground is neither the corrective nor the supporting circulation
design that should have been part of the original scheme.542
Clive Barnes, writing two years later, agreed, “This great bag of buildings makes transport and
parking difficult, puts heavy demands on the area’s restaurants and bars, and runs the danger of
becoming a separate precinct apart for the normal life of the city.”543 He then added, “But such
town-planning objections, however valid, are overruled by the spirit and momentum of Lincoln
Center.”544
But perhaps the most enlightening of all was Paul Goldberger, who criticized the center
for its undemocratic design. Dissecting its inefficiencies, Goldberger wrote:
The center has never managed to make itself physically
meaningful to any but the middle- and upper-middle-class patrons
of arts institutions. It turns its back on the public housing to its
west across Amsterdam Avenue, thus symbolically separating
itself from New York’s less affluent citizens,. And it has never
even related all that well physically to the parts of the city to which
it turns its front—the buildings sit flatly on their plaza, their
arrangement paying little heed to the unusual shape of their site at
Broadway and Columbus Avenue.545
Ironically, despite Huxtable, Barnes and Goldberger’s conclusions about the center’s inability to
interact with its local community, the three critics were unanimous in their approval of its public
plazas. Huxtable decried:
Fortunately, the scale and relationship of the plazas is good, and
they can be enjoyed as pedestrian open spaces, a value that may
well increase with use and age. This, and the massive amounts of
entertainment that will be provided are its major successes.546
Goldberger was even more enthusiastic, pronouncing the central plaza “a joy.”547 Contrasting
his review of the center’s buildings, the critic called Lincoln Center Plaza:
[O]ne of New York’s few true urban squares, and a further answer
to those who would say that Lincoln Center has no redeeming
value urbanistically. It is a splendid place, as is its more intimate
174
neighbor, the reflecting pool in front of the Vivian Beaumont
Theater containing Henry Moore’s ‘Reclining Figure.’548
Disagreeing with his colleague about the north plaza’s reflecting pool, Clive Barnes described it
as “sad…a thin puddle of grubby, often paper-infested water.”549 Yet, the critic did have
encouraging words for Kiley’s allée, observing: “At dusk the trees are lit, campily but
charmingly, and it is nice and human to walk through them. There are not many places in our
city where you can walk among trees at night.”550
Other commentary regarding the plaza areas has been just as favorable. One New York
Times journalist writing in 1969 called Lincoln Center Plaza “an oasis on the West Side” and
noted, “Even those who have spent a lifetime in the city are a little agape in Lincoln Center’s
wondrous lobby under the skies.”551 Another journalist echoed Huxtable’s original review of
Philharmonic Hall, asserting the distinctive sense of place created by the plaza when filled with
people: “The plaza and the buildings by themselves convey an atmosphere of elegant official
culture, but fill them with people and they assume a bright air of anticipation of a gala that is
about to begin and envelop everyone in something special. There is a sense of going out and, if
you are there, you become part of it.”552 Another reporter wrote, “The pleasures of the public
spaces are a prelude to the pleasures inside.”553 Martin Bloom, while criticizing the isolating
“checkerboard” relationship of the plazas to one another nevertheless praised each one
individually:
One finds that Lincoln Center makes some of its most favorable
impressions in its internal plazas. The main plaza with its central
fountain and concentrically radiating pavements can be pleasant at
performance time when it is animated with people moving toward
and through the various entrances to the theaters and by those
observing it all either from the rim of the fountain or from café
tables along the sides. The glass-enclosed lobbies and promenades
behind the columns that punctuate all of the plaza elevations
contribute brightness and a sense of festivity to the space. Under
the right conditions, the effect of all this can be disarming.554
175
Adding to his appraisal, Bloom lauded Lincoln Center Plaza North as “serene and dignified.”555
Even Huxtable, who had retracted her favorable opinions of the buildings at Lincoln Center, reaffirmed her praise for Lincoln Center Plaza North and its marriage of art and landscape design:
When the pool in front of the Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln
Center has water, the Henry Moore provides that essential,
fulfilling element of style and definition that raises the whole
complex to urban art. Not least is the strong, evocative sensuosity
of the work, as opposed to geometric abstraction. There is an extra
dimension of implied human reference that does much to make
people relate to the space. The all-important result must usually be
achieved in the modernist aesthetic by finesse of proportions and
scale.556
Assessments of Damrosch Park, on the other hand, have been favorable as well as disapproving.
Three years after hailing the central plaza as an “oasis,” Times reporter, Murray Schumach, had
similar plaudits for Damrosch Park, which he called “an enclave of relaxation and security where
the young play, the old dream and the only reminder of the city’s tension is an occasional
otherworldly police siren filtered through breeze-stirred trees.”557 Contrasted with this opinion,
Clive Barnes referred to the park as “an awkward neighbor put there by the city,” while Martin
Bloom called the south plaza area “unresolved” and the bandshell “ungainly.”558 However,
Bloom did allow that the park “has become the focus for many popular free events, day and
evening.”559 Perhaps owing to the more significant alterations of Dan Kiley’s original Plaza
North landscape, Herbert Muschamp found Damrosch Park to be the only redeeming design of
all the Lincoln Center plazas: “With the exception of Damrosch Park…all of the center’s public
spaces are calling out for the attention of a gifted landscape architect.”560
Urban Renewal Success
As a catalyst for urban renewal of the surrounding Upper West Side community, Lincoln
Center has received mostly ecstatic reviews. As early as 1961, while the campus was still under
construction, Herbert Kupferberg, noting how “Impetus has been given to improvement plans for
176
the entire West Side,” called the center “a magnificent success.”561 The following year, in an
article entitled “Lincoln Center Sparks Vast Renewal on the West Side,” the Times reported on a
spate of new development consisting of office buildings, apartment houses, motor hotels and
institutional buildings.562 Four years later, in 1966, a Times headline proclaimed “Lincoln Center
Brings Changes,” and detailed both new development and preservation efforts which were
resulting from the construction of the cultural complex.563 Another Times article in 1969
extolled, “the center’s gleaming facades and broad plazas continue to attract builders as well as
strollers and devotees of the arts to the area while spurring property owners in the neighborhood
to clean up, fix up and renovate.”564
Even Ada Louise Huxtable, who was highly critical in her reassessment of the center’s
buildings, maintained that “in terms of real estate” the center was “a smash.”565 Paul
Goldberger, observed that, contrary to Jane Jacobs’ dire predictions of urban alienation and
isolation, “Lincoln Center has turned out to have had a profound effect on the city around it,
spawning everything from restaurants and boutiques to luxury apartment houses.” 566 Martin
Bloom remarked that Lincoln Center had influenced its immediate surroundings, at least on its
‘front’ side, and much of the upper West Side, where property values have soared and
redevelopment carried out from the center northward.”567 Bloom asserted that the rejuvenated
area had “a certain vitality,” characterized by “clusters of restaurants…music and bookshops
relating to the performing arts …and nine cinemas.”568
Throughout its forty-year history, Lincoln Center has continued to be a catalyst for
upscale residential, retail and commercial development. Citing the enormous impact of the
complex, Herbert Muschamp wrote:
The proliferation of restaurants and sidewalk cafes, renovated
brownstones, new high-rises, movie theaters, health clubs: in the
wake of Lincoln Center, the Upper West Side has become the
spawning ground for a new upper-middle-class urban way of
life.569
177
Four years after Muschamp’s article, Brian G. Edwards, director of leasing at the Halstead
Property Company, predicted the results from the Jazz-at-Lincoln Center facility within the
Time-AOL Warner retail-condominium-hotel-office-production studio-concert hall at 4
Columbus Circle.570 Edwards, noting the preponderance of high-rise residential development in
the center’s neighborhood, said that many developers “that use Lincoln Center as an anchor will
also ride the coattails of the redevelopment of the New York Coliseum at Columbus Circle.”571
In spite of the endless controversy surrounding Lincoln Center’s design, even its
detractors acknowledge its significance. Clive Barnes, whose 1968 assessment was indeed
characterized by “bravos” and “barbs,” stated:
From every respect, looking back, Lincoln Center can be seen as a
historical necessity, and to question that necessity is to question the
mood and cultural climate of America and New York City. The
Center was a child of its time and not responsible for its
parentage.572
Furthermore, Barnes reasoned that, had the ambitious enterprise not been so bold and sweeping,
it may have never happened at all:
The Center was never envisaged as a group of local buildings. It
was a dream, and a dream of grandeur. Had Lincoln Center not
been made into this Pleiad of buildings, this constellation of
culture, it would never have been financially practicable.573
Confessing that he loved “the three huge, expensive slabs of culture,” in spite of their individual
flaws, he pronounced them, “undeniably impressive” and “bastions of the American way of
art.”574 Beverly Sills, former Chairwoman of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. and
opera star with both constituent opera companies, called the entire ensemble, “an icon in the
world.”575
Herbert Muschamp has also gleaned exceptional importance from the performing arts
center in spite of championing its redevelopment. Making a case for its preservation, Muschamp
wrote:
178
No part of Lincoln Center has been landmarked. Nonetheless, it is
a historic site. For better or worse, it is the mother of all
performing arts centers. It echoes with memories of great
performances. And it represents a pivotal moment in the history of
architectural taste, a time when the orthodoxies of modern
architecture were beginning to crumble. In this sense, Lincoln
Center stands at the threshhold [sic] of the present state of the art.
It ushered in an era of confusion that has since gone by many
names: eclecticism, pluralism, postmodernism or the relativity of
taste.576
Concerning its programming, Muschamp decried, “The arts complex itself is a grand artistic
synthesis—an opera, or Gesamtkunstwerk, in Wagner’s term—of pre-electronic
communications. Nightly, it stages a meta-performance by artists, audiences and the physical
settings that allow contact between them in public space.”577 Noting its artistic attributes, Martin
Bloom offered, “In spite of reservations about design, choice of materials and site planning,
Lincoln Center is a living, breathing institution because it fosters what lives and breathes within
it. By this measure, it is a success.”578
Contrasted with the plethora of critics who have been mixed in their reactions to Lincoln
Center, many preservationists, historians, scholars and design professionals have been
unanimous in their praise. Hailing Lincoln Center’s design, for example, Preservation League of
New York President Scott P. Heyl described its buildings as “excellent examples of Modern
architecture” that tell “a story of the change in architectural practices of the years.”579 Dr.
Theodore H. M. Prudon, adjunct professor of Columbia University’s Historic Preservation
Program, an architect and President of the United States chapter of DOCOMOMO, an
organization devoted to the preservation of “buildings, sites and neighborhoods of the modern
movement,” said its buildings “represent the work of America’s most significant architects at the
time,” whose “ work is synonymous with the development of American architecture after the
war.”580
In addition to the preservation community, other scholars and historians have given their
unmitigated endorsements. Robert A. M. Stern, Dean of Yale University’s School of
179
Architecture and former Director of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Program, an architect and
noted architectural historian, lauded the complex as “a textbook exemplar of mid-century
Modernism with buildings designed by some of the leading architects of the day”581 Thomas
Mellins, Stern’s associate and co-author of New York 1960, characterized the campus as “deeply
expressive of its time, and timeless in its ability to communicate to new generations of culture
seekers.”582
Prudon also lauded the buildings’ interiors. Clarifying the architects’ original intentions,
he observed:
The significance of the complex is not just limited to the exterior
envelope but also includes the interior of the buildings. Because of
the great transparency of the exterior wall some of these interiors
become doubly important at night when each and everyone of them
is visible and an integral part of the architecture as envisioned in
the original architectural design intent.583
In addition, advisors and historians have championed Lincoln Center’s artwork. Citing the
commissions of Henry Moore, Alexander Calder, Marc Chagall and Richard Lippold, among
others, public art advisor, Nancy Rosen, called them “exemplary, truly ‘world-class’” and
“pioneering example[s] of the marriage of art and site.”584 Rosen also referred to the works
within the New York State Theater as “exceptional,” concluding “Individually and collectively,
the works of art for Lincoln Center’s public spaces established a standard of excellence and
embody a vision that we continue to strive for today, as a City, as a State and as a Nation. This
must be the definition of a treasure.”585
Concurring with Rosen, Amy D. Newman, art historian and critic of 19th- and 20thcentury art, and former Columbia professor and managing editor of Artnews magazine, made an
analogy between the logo of the Metropolitan Opera and the Nadelman, Johns, Calder and
Chagall works, as defining “the identity of the theaters and public spaces.”586 Newman
summarized her analysis by writing, “These—and so many others, like the Lee Bontecou relief
180
in the State Theater and the Wilhelm Lehmbruck sculpture in the Metropolitan Opera House—
are artworks of the highest quality by artists of the first rank, and have over the years become
absolutely melded with their sites.”587 Praising the site-specific success of the art within the
State Theater, Times art critic, Roberta Smith, declared, “Of all the buildings at Lincoln Center,
the New York State Theater is the only one where the art still conveys any of the artistic vitality
of the moment that the building came into being, and the core of this vitality is the Johns.”588
Assessing the center’s landscape design, Sarah Bradford Landau, former commissioner of
the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (1987-1996) and current Professor of
Art History at New York University, called it “impressive.”589 Ken Smith, landscape historian,
architect and design critic at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, offered plaudits
for Dan Kiley’s Damrosch Park and Lincoln Center Plaza North:
At Lincoln Center, Dan Kiley designed a landscape of tightlyspaced tree bosquets which gave a sense of unifying order and
continuity to the complex as a whole. His use of strong, simple and
well-proportioned planters and plantings created spatial
containment and a balanced relationship between a series of open
plazas and courts and shaded bosquet areas. ‘Quartets’ of Plane
trees were planted in twenty-fort-square travertine marble planters,
which were partially recessed to minimize their scale. Dan Kiley
worked closely with the Lincoln Center architectural team and his
landscape concepts and designs are highly integrated into the
project as a whole.590
Smith concluded that Kiley’s work at the complex is “among the most significant examples of
mid-century modern landscape architecture produced in the United States.”591
Like its critics, proponents of Lincoln Center have offered consistent praise for its
success as a catalyst for urban revitalization in the surrounding area. Thomas Mellins called it
“the jewel of a massive urban renewal effort that triggered the rebirth of an entire urban district.
It helped return to the inner-city much of the vitality that, since the Second World War, had been
drained off by the explosive growth of the suburbs and the increasing privatization of
entertainment wrought by the advent of television.”592 Architect Rolf Ohlhausen wrote that
181
“Since its creation in the nineteen sixties, Lincoln Center has been a catalyst for dynamic
development of the surrounding community.”593 Dierdre Stanforth, author of Restored America
(Praeger, 1975) and Romantic New Orleans (Viking, 1977), both dealing with the historical
appreciation of architecture, maintained that the center “played a pivotal role in the renaissance
of the entire Upper West Side.”594 Robert A. M. Stern similarly waxed, “It would almost be too
difficult to overstate the importance Lincoln Center played in the growth and prosperity of the
area around it and the whole Upper West Sides.”595
Regarding Lincoln Center’s overall significance, the aforementioned professionals have
been just as forthcoming. Scott P. Heyl not only acknowledged Lincoln Center as a catalyst for
the preservation movement, but also deemed it, “architecturally, culturally and socially
significant…Taken together, the entire complex is a cultural center that promotes art and theater
unlike any other cultural arts center.” 596 Sarah Bradford Landau characterized the campus as,
“nationally significant” and an “influential group of buildings.” 597 Deirdre Stanforth argued that
“As the first American cultural center, it set an example that has inspired the building of arts
centers across America and around the world, and has become a tourist attraction second only to
Rockefeller Center.”598
Theodore H. M. Prudon called the ensemble a “nationally and internationally significant
complex created by architects of worldwide reputation.”599 Robert A. M. Stern hailed Lincoln
Center as “the most ambitious and successful attempt at traditional large-scale urban
placemaking to have been realized since Rockefeller Center.”600 Stern also stressed the
complex’s role within the framework of postwar American history by writing, “It is an heroic
testament to a time when New York and indeed the entire country, often derided as too focused
on the bottom line, was able to show the world that they could be serious players on the
international cultural stage.”601 Thomas Mellins pronounced that “Lincoln Center is, by every
conceivable measure, the lithic definition of a landmark,” attested by its “beautiful campus
182
dedicated to high culture” that enabled the city to prove “itself a worthy heir to Europe’s cultural
throne, as the Old World artistic hegemony gave way to a new world order.”602 Mellins
concluded that “Lincoln Center fulfilled a noble program at a pivotal moment in the evolution of
a great city, and became a model for cultural centers throughout the nation.”603
Performer / Performance Highlights
Since the completion of its first concert hall in 1962, Lincoln Center’s constituents have
consistently produced some of the finest entertainment in the world by employing
internationally-acclaimed conductors, directors, musicians, singers, actors, dancers and other
production personnel. Herewith are highlights from some of the center’s rich cultural offerings:
On February 18, 1999, the New York Philharmonic gave its 13,000th concert, considered
“a milestone unmatched by any other orchestra.”604 Since its opening at Avery Fisher Hall, the
world-class New York Philharmonic has continued its tradition of offering the best in classical
and modern music by some of the most esteemed conductors of the 20th century.605 These
include Leonard Bernstein (1958-1969), George Szell (1969-1970), Pierre Boulez (1971-1977),
Zubin Mehta (1978-1991) and Kurt Masur (1991-2002). World premieres at Avery Fisher Hall
include Aaron Copland’s “Connotations for Orchestra” (1962), Bernstein’s “Chichester Psalms”
(1965), Roger Sessions’ “Symphony No. 8” (1968), John Corigliano’s “Clarinet Concerto”
(1977) and William Schuman’s “On Freedom’s Ground” (1986). In addition, United States
premieres include Maxwell Davies “Symphonies” (1978) and Dimitri Shostakovich’s “October
(Symphonic Poem), Op. 131” (1988).
The success of New York City Ballet at the New York State Theater has been largely
attributable to its co-founder, George Balanchine, who inspired his company until his death in
1983.606 In addition to presenting revivals of works previously created at the City Center of
Music and Drama, Balanchine also choreographed new works for City Ballet which included
183
Jewels (1967), Violin Concerto (1972), Symphony in Three Movements (1972) and Vienna
Waltzes (1977). Among the talented dancers who made their debuts with New York City Ballet
at the New York State Theater were Suzanne Farrell, Patricia McBride, Merrill Ashley, Edward
Villella and Peter Martins.
When other noted choreographers such as Frederick Ashton, Antony Tudor, John Taras,
Todd Bolender, Peter Martins and Jerome Robbins staged dances for the company, their works
still bore Balanchine’s unmistakable artistic imprint.607 Some of Robbins more renowned works
for the company at the State Theater include Dances at a Gathering, Goldberg Variations, Glass
Pieces and I’m Old Fashioned. After Balanchine’s death, Peter Martins became ballet master,
along with Jerome Robbins, and subsequently choreographed original works entitled Ecstatic
Orange (1987) and Fearful Symmetries (1990).
Since moving to the New York State Theater, New York City Opera has flourished in
meeting and challenging conservative tastes through the introduction of both familiar and
unfamiliar works in its repertory.608 Under the artistic leadership of Julius Rudel, who had
served as the company’s general manager between 1957 and 1979, the company established
itself as a presenter of innovative 20th-century works by such diverse composers as Dominick
Argento, Lee Hoiby, Leon Kirchner, Robert Kurka, Gian Carlo Menotti, Douglas Moore,
Thomas Pasatieri, Ned Rorem, Robert Ward and Hugo Weisgall. During this time, it also
presented revivals of lesser performed works that included Giuseppe Verdi’s Macbeth, Gaetano
Donizetti’s Anna Bolena and Roberto Devereux, George Frederick Handel’s Julius Ceasar and
Claudio Monteverdi’s Orfeo.
Beverly Sills’ tenure as the company’s director began with her retirement from the stage,
and Rudel’s retirement from the organization in 1979. Following LaGuardia’s original
manifesto of “a people’s opera,” Sills’ outgoing and personable leadership brought more
attention to City Opera—and to opera in general—by presenting more mainstream works, and
184
incorporating super titles into its productions, beginning in 1983.609 Leaving City Opera in 1990
to accept an appointment as chairwoman of Lincoln Center’s board, she retired in 2002. Her
successor at City Opera, Christopher Keene, led the company until his death in 1996, debuting
new works that included Arrigo Boito’s Mefistofele, Leos Janácèk’s From the House of the Dead
and Léo Delibes’ Lakmé.
Keene’s successor, Paul Kellog, has continued the company’s long-standing tradition of
producing revivals and new works, most notably rediscovered baroque operas by Handel,
Christoph Willibald Gluck and Jean-Philippe Rameau. Most recently, the company has
previewed Tobias Picker’s Emmeline, Carlisle Floyd’s Of Mice and Men, Jack Beeson’s Lizzie
Borden and Virgil Thomson’s The Mother of Us All. Some of the company’s more famous
soloists during its tenure at the New York State Theater include Placido Domingo, Beverly Sills,
José Carreras, Carol Vaness, Samuel Ramey and Sherrill Milnes. Today, other soloists that have
joined its notable ranks include Lauren Flanigan, David Daniels, Mark Delavan and Elizabeth
Futral.610
Presenting more than two hundred performances a season, the Metropolitan Opera House
continues its reputation at Lincoln Center as one of the finest companies in the world for grand
opera.611 Under the general management of Rudolph Bing, the company mounted a new
production of Richard Wagner’s “Ring Cycle” between 1967 and 1970, which is still performed
throughout the world.612 Other production highlights during Bing’s tenure at the new opera
house included world premieres of Samuel Barber’s Antony and Cleopatra (1966) and Marvin
David Levy’s Mourning Becomes Electra (1967), in addition to works by Wolfgang Amadeus
Mozart, Richard Wagner, Ludwig von Beethoven, Giacomo Puccini, Guiseppe Verdi,
Gioacchino Rossini, Richard Strauss, Georges Bizet, Gaetano Donizetti, Maurice Joseph Ravel
and Samuel Barber. More recently, the company has introduced modern works to its standard
185
repertory such as John Corigliano and William Hoffman’s The Ghosts of Versailles (1991),
Philip Glass’ The Voyage (1992) and John Harbison’s The Great Gatsby (1999).
Some of the more famous soloists who made their American debuts on the stage of the
Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center include Placido Domingo, Marilyn Horne, Kiri Te
Kanawa, José Carreras, José Van Dam, Tatiana Troyanos, Jessye Norman and Samuel Ramey.
After Rudolph Bing, the company was led by Schyler Chapin (1972-1975), followed by brief
stints by Bruce Crawford and Hugh Southern. Since 1990, Joseph Volpe has served as general
manager. In 1971, James Levine made his conducting debut and has continued to lead the famed
company and orchestra into the 21st century, having become the company’s artistic director in
1986. When it is not presenting its repertory between the months of September to April, the
Metropolitan Opera House hosts the American Ballet Theater, as well as foreign dance and opera
companies.613
Despite the uncertain future of its constituent during its first twenty years, the Vivian
Beaumont Theater has nevertheless had an auspicious production history since its opening in
1965, and has now become, according to the New York Times, “the pre-eminent theater in the
country.”614 Although its constituent, the Repertory Theater of Lincoln Center was established
in 1963, the organization only lasted until 1973, prompting the theater to become a temporary
home to several resident New York companies, as well as a rental space to several touring
productions. During its first ten years, the theater featured critically-acclaimed actors such as
James Earl Jones in George Buechner’s Danton’s Death, Jessica Tandy and Al Pacino in
Tennessee Williams’ Camino Real, Diana Sands in George Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan and
Robert Symonds in Cyrano de Bergerac.
Between 1973 and 1977, Joseph Papp’s New York Shakespeare Festival became a
constituent of the center, presenting legendary new works such as In the Boom Boom Room,
Streamers and Short Eyes, and revivals, starring Sam Waterson in Hamlet, Raul Julia in Three
186
Penny Opera and Irene Worth in The Cherry Orchard. Following Papp’s tenure, Vivian
Beaumont Theater, Inc., under the direction of Richard Crinkley between 1979 and 1984,
presented productions of The Philadelphia Story, Macbeth and The Floating Light Bulb.
In July 1985, director, Gregory Mosher and executive producer, Bernard Gersten,
founded the non-profit Lincoln Center Theater and the organization replaced Vivian Beaumont
Theater, Inc. as the new drama constituent under the Lincoln Center parent entity. Between 1985
and 1992, Lincoln Center Theater’s productions within the Vivian Beaumont Theater included
world premieres of Death and the King’s Horsemen, The Regard of Flight, The Tenth Man, Some
Americans Abroad, Monsters in a Box and Six Degrees of Separation. Revivals within the same
theater included The Front Page, The Comedy of Errors and Anything Goes. Also during this
time, taking place within the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater, Lincoln Center Theater presented both
old and new works such as Prairie du Chien, Boys’ Life, Waiting for Godot, Measure for
Measure, Ubu and Mr. Gogol.
Since 1992, under the direction of André Bishop and Bernard Gersten, Lincoln Center
Theater has produced award-winning premieres within its two theaters that included My Favorite
Year, In the Summer House, Gray’s Anatomy, Arcadia, Racing Demon, It’s A Slippery Slope,
Juan Darien, Parade, Four Baboons Adoring the Sun, The Substance of Fire, The Sisters
Rosensweig, Playboy of the West Indies, Hello Again, SubUrbia, Hapgood, Pride’s Crossing, A
New Brain, Far East, Ancestral Voices, Marie Christine and Contact. Revivals have included
Abe Lincoln in Illinois, Carousel, The Little Foxes, Ivanov, Ah, Wilderness! and Twelfth Night.
Since its inception, Lincoln Center Theater productions, produced at Lincoln Center and on
Broadway, have earned a total of twenty-eight Tony awards, thirty-eight Drama Desk Awards,
fifteen Outer Critics Circle Awards, twelve Obie Awards and four nominations for the Pulitzer
Prize.615 In addition, the reputable organization has garnered hundreds of Tony and Drama Desk
nominations.
187
In addition to regular performances sponsored by the constituents, a host of performance
series were initiated under the auspices of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. These
included “Great Performances” (established 1965), featuring renowned soloists in concert;
“Midsummer Serenades” (originally established 1966; renamed “Mostly Mozart” Festival in
1972), a comprehensive festival featuring the works of Mozart, involving presentations by all of
the constituents; the “Everyman-Community Theater” Festival (established 1971; later renamed
“Lincoln Center Out-of-Doors” in 1974), an outdoor festival celebrating the talents of street
performers; and Midsummer Night Swing (established 1989), a summer dance event open to the
public with free dance lessons. “Reel to Real for Kids,” sponsored jointly by the Film Society
and Lincoln Center, Inc., was initiated in 1996 and combines film screenings and live
performances for children. Also in 1996, the Lincoln Center Festival was established to present
the works of international artists on the center’s indoor and outdoor stages. The American
Songbook series was created in 1999 to showcase American popular song composers.
Educational Outreach
Beyond the exceptional work that the Juilliard School has done to educate aspiring artists,
and the performing arts branch of the New York Public Library has done to facilitate research
and learning, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. has been highly instrumental in
initiating ground-breaking educational outreach programs for individuals of all ages. In fact,
having adhered to its mission to foster arts education in addition to building its campus, the
board of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. formed a committee to facilitate and
oversee these types of activities under the chairmanship of Dr. George Stoddard.616 Using the
Fund for Education and Creative Artistic Advancement in order to finance its goals, the
committee appealed expressly to the center’s constituents to implement these aims, encouraging
innovative educational programs beyond the organizations’ regular missions.
188
Even prior to these appeals, the committee had already awarded funds to the Metropolitan
Opera Studio, the Juilliard School of Music, and later, to the New York Philharmonic, for the
purpose of giving mini-performances to schoolchildren. On June 20, 1960, Lincoln Center for
the Performing Arts, Inc. initiated the Lincoln Center Youth Program, also known as the Lincoln
Center Student Program, in cooperation with the city’s Board of Education.617 Developed to
make the performing arts accessible to schoolchildren, the program was facilitated by bringing
both constituent performers to the schools and bringing students to the performance venues. Six
years after it was established, the professional singers and musicians in the program were
performing at 250 schools in cities in and around New York.618 In addition, teaching guides
were prepared and distributed to teachers to educate students about the performances. As a result
of the Student Program, the Lincoln Center Council on Educational Programs was created in
October 1964 in order to devise policy and content for the Student Program. Eventually, New
York City Ballet and Opera, Chamber Music Society, Film Society and the Repertory Theater
(later, Lincoln Center Theater) were added to the list of participating constituents, along with its
original participants.
Perhaps the least conventional yet the most pioneering effort of these educational
programs was the establishment of the Lincoln Center Student Program (renamed the Lincoln
Center Institute, May 20, 1974). 619 Expanding upon an idea to use performance to educate
children about the arts, this program has used “aesthetic experience as a basic component of
education” for other non-arts-related subjects as well.620 Through its promotion of this
innovative teaching technique, the Lincoln Center Institute has not only exerted an enormous
influence on the way New York City schoolchildren learn, but also on the way other
schoolchildren have learned through its nationwide emulation and application.
189
Communications
Another goal that had been originally discussed and later realized was the dissemination
of performing arts to a mass audience on an ongoing basis. Consistent with the center’s goals of
arts education and accessibility, Rockefeller’s exploratory committee encouraged the expansion
of broadcast capabilities into the realm of televised performances, ensuring that several of the
performance halls were technically suited to these goals. Beginning in 1922, the New York
Philharmonic, under the principle direction of Willem Mengelberg, had been giving locallybroadcast concerts via radio, which were expanded to include a nationwide audience in 1930
under the direction of Arturo Toscanini.621 Today, the New York Philharmonic is the country’s
only symphony orchestra that is nationally broadcast live on a regular basis.622 The Metropolitan
Opera, on the other hand, began a regular schedule of radio broadcasts in 1931, which
culminated in the Texaco-sponsored radio programs which were initiated nine years later.623
Since 1940, the Metropolitan Opera offered live matinee concerts to listeners throughout the
United States and Canada.624 In 1990, over twenty-five European countries had been added to
the radio network, followed by Australia and New Zealand in 1997.625
With regard to previously televised performances, Philharmonic conductor, Leonard
Bernstein, had been highly influential in introducing classical music to young and old audiences
with “Omnibus” (broadcast 1953-1957), a show devoted to the presentation of classical music,
opera and dance, and his “Young People’s Concerts” (broadcast 1958). 626 The latter production
featured talks by Bernstein and musical highlights from the New York Philharmonic, and was
televised out of Carnegie Hall. After Philharmonic Hall opened in 1962, Bernstein’s “Young
People’s Concerts” resumed production and was broadcast from the new auditorium.627 In the
succeeding years, complete concert performances were televised from the hall with the
encumbrance of additional production equipment.
190
Then, on January 30, 1976, with an estimated five million viewers tuning in, “Live from
Lincoln Center” debuted from Avery Fisher Hall, featuring Andre Previn conducting the New
York Philharmonic and soloist Van Cliburn.628 In contrast to previous telecasts of performances
which required extra lighting and equipment in order to facilitate the production, this
presentation used innovative cameras that were able to rely exclusively on the lighting within the
auditorium, and thereby retain the live authenticity of the performance. Today, “Live from
Lincoln Center” is television’s only live performing arts series, not only offering performances
of classical music, but also opera, drama and dance.629 During its auspicious history, the show
has garnered nine Emmy Awards, forty-six Emmy nominations, two Grammy Awards, two
George Foster Peabody Awards, three Monitor Awards and a Television Critics’ Circle
Award.630
In contrast to the New York Philharmonic, the Metropolitan Opera had a more extensive
history of televised performances. On March 10, 1940, the Metropolitan offered its first
televised performance. However, it was not until the mid-1970s that the opera company began
broadcasting on a consistent basis through regular programming. One year after the debut of
“Live from Lincoln Center,” the first production of “Live from the Met,” featuring a
performance of La Bohème, was broadcast on March 15th, 1977, to an estimated four million
viewers.631 In addition to full-length operas, the program also features gala performances by
world-renowned artists and has been critically acclaimed as well.
New Constituents
Several constituents were added to Lincoln Center after its performing arts campus was
completed in 1969. Lincoln Kirstein and George Balanchine’s School of American Ballet,
founded in 1933 and among one of the best dance schools in the United States, joined Lincoln
Center on May 4, 1987.632 Initially, faculty and students of the School of American Ballet used
191
facilities housed within the Juilliard School, but then relocated most of their operations into the
Samuel B. and David Rose Building upon its opening in 1990. On July 1, 1996, Jazz at Lincoln
Center became a constituent, after having had success with its own programming at Avery Fisher
and Alice Tully Halls. At present, construction is underway for a new performance hall for this
constituent within the proposed mixed-use building by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill at 1
Central Park.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Although less than fifty years old, Lincoln Center is an exceptionally important ensemble
of buildings and plazas that satisfies multiple criteria of significance pertaining to important
events, association with noteworthy individuals, the embodiment of a distinctive period of design
and the work of acknowledged masters. In addition, Lincoln Center satisfies Sub-Category C
criteria of architecture, art, cultural history, performing arts, communications, education,
landscape architecture and commerce. Created by mid-20th-century leaders in modern
architecture and planning, and the prototype for over sixty cultural centers across America, the
Lincoln Center campus has not only been influential within the cultural history of New York
City, but moreover, the United States and the world. Initiated by the legendary public
entrepreneur, Robert Moses, in 1955, and guided to completion by John D. Rockefeller, III,
Lincoln Center was instrumental for not only initiating a new type of building complex in
America devoted to arts performance and education, but also for being the first urban renewal
project of its kind to be used as a catalyst for economic revitalization. Moreover, the constituents
for the center were some of the most renowned organizations and educational institutions in the
world related to the performing arts. Comprised of existing organizations such as the
Metropolitan Opera Association, the Philharmonic-Symphony Society, the New York City
192
Ballet, the New York City Opera, the New York City Library for the Performing Arts and the
Juilliard School of Music; and brand new organizations such as the Music Theater Association,
the Repertory Theater Association, the Chamber Music Society and the Film Society, Lincoln
Center was and continues to be an unparalleled cultural conglomeration of arts performance and
study. Architecturally, the collection of buildings and plazas comprising Lincoln Center
represent a distinct transition in the history of the Modern movement in which pure forms, solely
expressive of structure, gave way to a formalist aesthetic. Embodied by such monumental
buildings as Avery Fisher Hall, the New York State Theater and the Metropolitan Opera House,
this formalism manifested itself in the superimposition of historicizing elements onto glass
curtain wall structures, and can now be understood as a link in the evolution between Modern
and Post-Modern building design. In addition, other buildings of the campus, such as the
Library-Museum for the Performing Arts and the award-winning Vivian Beaumont Theater,
embody purer ideals of Modernism, while the critically-acclaimed Juilliard School exemplifies
the divergent and dynamic Brutalist style. Both the planners of Lincoln Center, Wallace K.
Harrison, Philip C. Johnson, Sven Markelius, Marcel Breuer, Pietro Belluschi, Henry R. Shepley
and Alvar Aalto; and the architects, Harrison, Johnson, Belluschi, Max Abramovitz, Eero
Saarinen, Gordon Bunshaft, Eduardo Catalano and Helge Westermann; were among the most
important designers creating corporate, institutional and residential architecture during the
postwar era. As an ensemble working together on Lincoln Center, they represent the largest
collaboration of American postwar planners and architects on one undertaking. Complementing
their distinctive works, Daniel Urban Kiley, considered a leader in modern landscape design, in
conjunction with Wallace K. Harrison, Max Abramovitz, Philip C. Johnson and Richard Miller,
configured the plaza areas to provide an appropriate counterpoint of minimalism, abstraction and
geometry to the center’s surrounding buildings. A novelty within the realm of public-private
enterprises, the art at Lincoln Center consisted of works that were either commissioned for
193
specific spaces, acquired or donated. Its artists, consisting of Richard Lippold, Dimitri Hadzi,
Seymour Lipton, Elie Nadelman, Francesco Somaini, Lee Bontecou, Edward Higgins, Jasper
Johns, Reuben Nakian, Jacques Lipchitz, Henry Moore, Alexander Calder, Marc Chagall,
Aristide Maillol, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Mary Callery, Raoul Dufy, Yaacov Agam and Masayuki
Nagare, together represent an entire anthology of mid- and late- 20th-century modern art,
originating in America and Europe. Thus, architecturally and artistically, Lincoln Center stands
as a testament to New York and America’s ambitions to compete in the international cultural
arena, thereby occupying a distinct place within the nation’s cultural history. By literally
elevating buildings dedicated to music, opera, dance, theater, film, research and instruction on its
centralized campus and housing some of the world’s most renowned constituents, it attempted to
and succeeded in raising the consciousness of the arts on local, national and global levels.
Presenting the greatest number of American and world premieres of opera, dance and music in
the United States, and showcasing performances of both established and emerging classical
artists, Lincoln Center has been an acknowledged leader in the classical performing arts, making
it equally noteworthy for the events transpiring within its halls and on its plazas, as for the
individuals performing on its stages and guiding its vocal and musical ensembles. It has also
been an innovator in the field of communications, having been the first to customize several of
its auditoriums with state-of-the-art broadcast technology in order to transmit live performances
via radio and television simulcasts to unprecedented numbers of listeners and viewers.
Furthermore, in the realm of education, the center’s branch of the New York Public Library
features the most comprehensive research and lending facility in the United States devoted to the
performing arts; its Juilliard School offers one of the most reputable conservatories in the world
for music, voice, dance and drama; and its Lincoln Center Institute has pioneered teaching
methods through its use of art as an educational tool. Other educational programs, such as the
Lincoln Center Youth Program and the Lincoln Center Council on Educational Programs, have
194
been instrumental in making the arts accessible to multitudes of schoolchildren in the
Metropolitan region. Beyond its campus, Lincoln Center’s role as a catalyst for commerce has
transformed the blighted Lincoln Square area of Manhattan’s Upper West Side into an
economically vital and attractive destination for retail and housing, thus fulfilling its intent as a
catalyst of urban renewal, and serving as the premiere prototype for other cities seeking to use
the performing arts as a means of spurring economic redevelopment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
For Robert Moses, see Joel Schwartz, “Moses, Robert,” in Kenneth T. Jackson, ed., The Encyclopedia of New
York City, (New Haven: The Yale University Press, 1995) pp.774-775.
For history on the Lincoln Square Urban Renewal Area Project, see Edgar B. Young, “Needs and Opportunity,”
in Lincoln Center: The Building of an Institution, (New York: New York University Press, 1980) pp.11-12, and
Young, “Urban Renewal,” pp.35-48; Robert A. M. Stern, Thomas Mellins, David Fishman, “Lincoln Square,” in
New York 1960: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Second World War and the Bicentennial, (New York:
The Monacelli Press, Inc., 1995) p.677-681; Joseph C. Ingraham, “Slum-Razing Plan Offers Fordham Midtown
Campus,” The New York Times, April 8, 1955, pp.1,19; Charles Grutzner, “Moses Outlines City Within City for
Lincoln Sq.,” The New York Times, May 28, 1956, pp.1,21; Richard A. Miller, “Lincoln Center: ‘a new kind of
institution,’” Architectural Forum, August 1958, pp. 74-77,158.
For a brief history of the Lincoln Square area, see Mario A. Charles, “San Juan Hill,” in Jackson, ed., p.1043,
and Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square,” pp.674-677.
The name “San Juan Hill” has been attributed to the African-American veteran soldiers who fought in the
Spanish-American War and subsequently settled there, and also to the interracial brawls among its inhabitants.
Regarding its musical significance, some of the area’s most notable residents included bandleader Benny Carter
and pianist Thelonious Monk. Charles, “San Juan Hill,” p.1043.
“75,000 Families Here Must Move,” The New York Times, October 27, 1957, VIII, p.1.
Quoted in Victoria Newhouse, “Lincoln Center,” in Wallace K. Harrison, Architect, (New York: Rizzoli, 1989)
p.187.
Grutzner, “Moses Outlines City Within City for Lincoln Sq.,” p.1.
For history on the Metropolitan Opera Association’s redevelopment efforts, see Newhouse, “The Metropolitan
Opera House: beginnings,” pp.198-203; Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” pp.677678; Young, “Needs and Opportunity,” pp.11-14.
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” pp.677-678.
Miller, “Lincoln Center: ‘a new kind of institution,’” p.77.
Ross Parmenter, “New Opera House Approved By ‘Met,’” The New York Times, October 18, 1955, p.1.
For background on the New York Philharmonic’s imminent eviction from Carnegie Hall, see Newhouse,
“Lincoln Center,” p.186, and Young, “Needs and Opportunity,” p.14.
Newhouse, “Lincoln Center,” p.186.
For John D. Rockefeller, III, see Peter J. Johnson, “Rockefeller, John D(avison), III,” in Jackson, ed., p.1014.
Seymour Peck, “A Rockefeller Enters ‘Show Biz,’” The New York Times Magazine, November 18, 1956, p.62.
For detailed background on Rockefeller’s Exploratory Committee for a Musical Arts Center, see Young, “The
Exploratory Committee:1955-1956,” pp.19-34.
According to Richard Butsch in his study of U.S. audiences entitled The Making of American Audiences: From
Stage to Television, 1750-1990, in 1950, 9% of U.S. households owned television sets and watched an average of
4.6 hours a day, whereas by 1956, 64.5% of U.S. households owned television sets and watched an average of 5
hours of television a day. Richard Butsch, The Making of American Audiences: From Stage to Television, 17501990, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000) p.236.
For specifics related to President Eisenhower’s cultural initiatives, see “Ike Likes the Arts, So-U.S. May Export
Culture,” U.S. News & World Report, January 28, 1955, v.38, pp.68-70.
ibid., p.68.
195
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
ibid.
ibid., p.70.
Articles concerning America’s cultural obsession and inferiority include: Irwin Edman, “The Myth of America in
Europe,” The Saturday Review, May 23, 1953, v.36, pp.11-12,39-40; “A Cultural Explosion,” Life, October 18,
1954, v.37, p.38; “The Clamor For Culture,” Newsweek, February, 10, 1958, v.51, pp.98-104.
Statistics from “The Clamor For Culture,” p.98.
Young, “The Exploratory Committee: 1955-1956,” pp.20-21.
Although separate facilities for the visual arts had also been suggested, the Exploratory Committee ultimately
decided that since they were already well represented within the city, they should be placed within the proposed
performing arts buildings. Young, “The Exploratory Committee: 1955-1956,” p.21.
For detailed background on the development of Lincoln Center, Inc.’s organizational structure and constituents,
see Young, “Development of the Institution: 1956-1959,” pp.51-64.
ibid., p.51.
For background on the Institute of Musical Art, the Juilliard School of Music and the Juilliard School, see
Andrew S. Dolkart, “Building for the Mind and Spirit: Seminaries and a Musical Institute,” Morningside
Heights: A History of Its Architecture & Development, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998) pp.257266; James M. Keller, “Juilliard School,” in Jackson, ed., p.628; and “The Juilliard School Press,”
www.juilliard.edu./press/overview.html, pp.1-9.
For Frank Damrosch, see Dolkart, “Building for the Mind and Spirit: Seminaries and a Musical Institute,” p.257,
and Nancy Shear, “Damrosch, Frank (Heino),” in Jackson, ed., p.310.
Dolkart, “Building for the Mind and Spirit: Seminaries and a Musical Institute,” p.258.
ibid., p.258.
ibid., p.259.
ibid., p.259.
ibid., p.260.
ibid., p.260.
ibid., p.261.
For August D. Juilliard, the Juilliard Music Foundation and the Juilliard Graduate School, see Dolkart, “Building
for the Mind and Spirit: Seminaries and a Musical Institute,” pp.261-262, and “The Juilliard School Press,” p.2.
Dolkart, “Building for the Mind and Spirit: Seminaries and a Musical Institute,” p.253
ibid., p.265.
For William Schuman, see “The Juilliard School Press,” www.juilliard.edu./press/overview.html, pp.2-3.
ibid., p.2.
ibid., p.2.
Young, “Urban Renewal: 1955-1958,” p.42, and “Development of the Institution: 1956-1959,” p.55.
For the Exploratory Committee’s proposals for the Juilliard School of Music at Lincoln Center, see Young,
“Development of the Institution: 1956-1959,” p.55.
“The Juilliard School Press,” www.juilliard.edu./press/overview.html, p.4.
Young, “Development of the Institution: 1956-1959,” p.55.
ibid., p.61.
For Wallace K. Harrison, see Victoria Newhouse, “Harrison and Abramovitz,” in Adolf K. Placzek, ed.,
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects, (New York: The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1982)
pp.324-326; Edward A. Eigen, “Harrison, Wallace K(irkman),” in Jackson, ed., p.530; “Cheops’ Architect,”
Time, September 22, 1952, v.60, pp.78+; “Realistic Architect,” The New York Times, November 17, 1958, p.33;
Josh Greenfield, “Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison,” The New York Times Magazine, August 21, 1966,
VI, pp.37+; Paul Goldberger, “Wallace Harrison Dead at 86; Rockefeller Center Architect,” The New York
Times, December 3, 1981, p.1.
Greenfield, “Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison,” p.86.
Newhouse, “Lincoln Center,” p.189.
J.M. Richards, ed., Who’s Who in Architecture from 1400 to the Present, (New York: Rinehart and Winston,
1977) p.201; For more on Sven Markelius, see Arnold Whittick in Muriel Emanuel, ed., Contemporary
Architects. 3rd Edition, (New York: St. James Press, 1994) pp.618-619.
For Alvar Aalto, see Liisa Sarakontu, “Alvar Aalto, Finnish architect, 1898-1976,” www.hut.fi/Misc/aalto.html.
Newhouse, “Lincoln Center,” p.190.
For Marcel Breuer, see “Marcel Breuer,” www.greatbuildings.com/gbc/architects/Marcel_Breuer.html.
For Philip Johnson, see Carol Willis, “Johnson, Philip (Cortelyou),” in Jackson, ed., pp.624-625; “Architect of
Elegance: Philip Cortelyou Johnson,” The New York Times, November 16, 1964, p.33; “Johnson, Philip C.,”
196
http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp; Charlayne Hunter-Gault, “Portrait of an Artist,”
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/johnson, pp.1-2.
56
Quoted in Ada Louise Huxtable, “He Adds Elegance To Modern Architecture,” The New York Times, May 24,
1964, XI, p.18.
57
“The 20th Century Form Givers,” Time, July 2, 1956, v.68, p.51. Also included in Time’s list were Frank Lloyd
Wright, Le Corbusier, Walter Adolf Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Richard Neutra, Gordon Bunshaft
(later commissioned to design Lincoln Center’s Library for the Performing Arts), Minoru Yamasaki, I.M. Pei,
Paul Rudolph, Buckminster Fuller and Eduardo Catalano (later an associate architect to Pietro Belluschi on
Lincoln Center’s Juilliard School).
58
Young, “Preliminary Architectural Planning: 1956-1959,” p.80.
59
For background on the planning of Lincoln Center, see Newhouse, “Lincoln Center,” pp.189-196; Kathleen
Randall, “Planning the superblock,” in Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts: Cultural Visibility and Postwar
Urbanism, Masters of Science Thesis, Historic Preservation, Columbia University, (New York: Graduate School
of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, 1992) pp.60-72; Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square:
Lincoln Center,” p.681; Young, “Preliminary Architectural Planning: 1956-1959,” pp.79-96.
60
ibid., p.87.
61
ibid., p.85.
62
For background on the selection of architects for Lincoln Center, see Newhouse, “Lincoln Center,” pp.193-195;
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” pp.681-682; Young, “Preliminary Architectural
Planning: 1956-1959,” pp.86-89.
63
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” p.681.
64
ibid., p.682.
65
Young, “Preliminary Architectural Planning: 1956-1959,” p.89.
66
Quoted in “Lincoln Center Aids Ancient Spa,” The New York Times, August 27, 1963, p.33.
67
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” pp.682-683.
68
ibid., p.683.
69
Harold C. Schonberg, “The Lincoln Center Vision Takes Form,” The New York Times Magazine, August 27,
1963, VI, p.7.
70
“monumental modern”: Ross Parmenter, “Lincoln Square Plan Developing Toward World Cultural Center,” The
New York Times, July 23, 1956, p.1; “applied modern”: Greenfield, “Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison,”
p.31; “monumental temporary”: Herbert Muschamp, “Lincoln Center’s Enduring Vision,” The New York Times,
July 19, 1996, p.C1.
71
Quoted in Howard C. Schonberg, “Six Architects in Search of a Center,” The New York Times Magazine,
February 8, 1959, VI, p.22.
72
For Brooklyn Academy of Music history, see www.bam.org/asp/info.asp. A survey undertaken by William J.
Baumol and William G. Bowen concluded that by 1964, 82 American cities had plans to erect cultural centers. It
also stated that there were 54 existing cultural centers and 39 in various stages of completion in 1964. The
authors noted that the term “cultural centers” had been interpreted loosely by many “borderline” organizations
who defined themselves as such even though they were more community centers than performing arts centers.
William J. Baumol and William G. Bower, Performing Arts – The Economic Dilemma, (New York: The
Twentieth Century Fund, 1966) p.40.
73
Louise Fenton Brand, former music and drama critic of the Sentinel, as quoted in Jay Joslyn, “A War
Memorial Is Born,” at www.marcuscenter.org/hist_war.html, p.1.
74
Jay Joslyn, “A War Memorial Is Born,” at www.marcuscenter.org/hist_war.html, p.1.
75
In 1995, the board of the Milwaukee Performing Arts Center voted to change the name of the complex to
the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts, after having received a substantial donation from the Marcus
Corporation Foundation for its redevelopment campaign.
76
For background on the establishment of a national cultural center, see “Kennedy Center Slowdown,” Newsweek,
March 10, 1969, v.73, p.109; “Whatever Happened to…THE KENNEDY CULTURAL CENTER,” U.S. News &
World Report, September 22, 1969, v.67, p.17; “Cultural Crown for the Nation’s Capital,” U.S. News & World
Report, March 8, 1971, v.70, p.38.
77
“Kennedy Center Slowdown,” p.109.
78
Quoted in “Cultural Centers Across the Land,” Newsweek, September 24, 1962, v.60, p.54. For background
information on the Los Angeles Music Center, see Report to the County of Los Angeles on a New Auditorium
and Music Center, (Cambridge, MA: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1956); “The Stage: Three in the West,” Time, April
21, 1967, v.89, pp.88-89.
197
“History,” www.musiccenter.org/history.html, p.1, and Walter McQuade, “A New Generation of Cultural
Centers,” Fortune, September 1, 1968, v.78, p.111.
80
ibid.
81
“Room for Culture, Too, in the President’s Plans,” U.S. News & World Report, February 1, 1965, v.58, p.41.
82
Mildred F. Schmertz, “For concerts, dance and drama: FLEXIBLE DESIGN,” Architectural Record,
February 1967, v.141, p.116.
83
“President Turns Earth to Start Lincoln Center,” The New York Times, May 15, 1959, p.1. For more information
on the ground-breaking ceremony, see Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” p.683;
Young, “Ground Breaking: May 14, 1959,” pp.97-101;
84
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Lincoln Center,” p.683.
85
Quoted in “Addresses by Eisenhower and Moses,” The New York Times, May 15, 1959, p.14.
86
ibid.
87
ibid. Previously, on December 19, 1956, John D. Rockefeller had met with Pres. Eisenhower’s assistant,
Sherman Adams, in order to obtain the president’s support for the Title I write-down subsidies of the Lincoln
Center project. Using the New York Times’ July 23rd endorsement, Rockefeller reiterated that “the Lincoln Center
project is in harmony with the President’s program to strengthen the cultural position of the United States around
the globe.” Joel Schwartz, The New Approach: Robert Moses, Urban Liberals, and the Redevelopment of the
Inner City, (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1993) p.283.
88
ibid.
89
For detailed background on the construction of Lincoln Center, see Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House:
completion,” in Wallace K. Harrison, Architect, pp.222-223; Young, “Evolution of the Organization,” pp.105117, and “Construction Underway:1959-1962,” pp.139-163.
90
For a history of the New York Philharmonic Society, the New York Symphony Society and the PhilharmonicSymphony Society, see Barbara Haws, “New York Philharmonic,” in Jackson, ed., pp.838-839, and “Orchestra’s
Quest for a Home Ends After 116-Year Migration,” The New York Times, September 24, 1962, p.35.
91
For a complete listing of New York Philharmonic American and world premieres, see
www.newyorkphilharmonic.org/education/welcome/premiere_test.htm.
92
For a complete listing of New York Philharmonic conductors, see
www.newyorkphilharmonic.org/whatsnew/history.htm.
93
For Max Abramovitz, see Newhouse, “Harrison and Abramovitz,” pp.324-326, and “Concern for Detail,” The
New York Times, September 24, 1962, p.3.
94
“Concern for Detail,” p.3.
95
Quoted in Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Philharmonic Hall,” p.684.
96
ibid.
97
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Philharmonic Hall,” p.684.
98
Quoted in “The Architecture of Max Abramovitz,” An Exhibition at the Krannert Art Museum, College of Fine
& Applied Arts, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, November 2-December 1963.
99
John D. Rockefeller, III, as quoted in Young, “The Exploratory Committee,” p.23.
100
For background on the selection of art at Lincoln Center, see Young, “Visual Arts in Lincoln Center:1960-1970,”
pp.203-220.
101
Calvin Tomkins, “Profiles: A Thing Among Things,” The New Yorker, March 30, 1963, v.39, p.48.
102
Quoted in Tomkins, “Profiles: A Thing Among Things,” p.48.
103
For Richard Lippold, see Mantle Fielding, “Lippold, Richard,” in Glenn B. Optiz, ed., Mantle Fielding’s
Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors & Engravers, (Poughkeepsie, New York: Apollo, 1986) p.546.David
M. Sokol, “Lippold, Richard,” in Jane Turner, ed., The Dictionary of Art, (New York: MacMillan Publishers
Limited, 1996) v.19, p.454; “190-Foot Sculpture by Lippold To Hang in New Philharmonic,” The New York
Times, March 15, 1962, p.37; and Tomkins, “Profiles: A Thing Among Things,” pp.47+.
104
Quoted in Tomkins, p.69.
105
Sokol in Turner (ed.), p.454.
106
Quoted in Tomkins, p.72.
107
For a detailed history of Lippold’s commission for Philharmonic Hall, see Tomkins, “Profiles: A Thing Among
Things,” pp.47+
108
Stuart Preston, “Art: ‘Orpheus and Apollo’: Lippold’s Copper Alloy-Steel Sculpture Is Hung in Philharmonic
Hall,” The New York Times, December 21, 1962, p.5.
109
Quoted in Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Philharmonic Hall” p.688.
110
Other art acquisitions for Philharmonic Hall discussed in Young, “Visual Arts in Lincoln Center:1960-1970,”
pp.204-206.
79
198
For Seymour Lipton, see Fielding, “Lipton, Seymour,” in Glenn B. Optiz, ed., p.546, and Harry Rand, “Lipton,
Seymour,” in Turner, ed., p.458.
112
John Canaday, “An ‘Archangel’ Adorns Philharmonic Hall,” The New York Times, February 19, 1964, p.36.
113
“Philharmonic Unveils Sculpture,” The New York Times, February 19, 1964, p.36.
114
For Dimitri Hadzi, see Fielding, “Hadzi, Dimitri,” in Optiz, ed., p.360.
115
For the opening of Philharmonic Hall, see Young, “The Opening of Philharmonic Hall: September 23, 1962,”
pp.165-172, and Ross Parmenter, “Lincoln Center Assumes Role in City Cultural Life,” The New York Times,
September 24, 1962, pp.1+.
116
Parmenter, “Lincoln Center Assumes Role in City Cultural Life,” p.1.
117
Harold C. Schonberg, “Music: The Occasion,” The New York Times, September 24, 1962, p.34.
118
Quoted in “The Welcoming Address,” The New York Times, September 24, 1962, p.34.
119
Parmenter, “Lincoln Center Assumes Role in City Cultural Life,” p.34.
120
Schonberg, “Music: The Occasion,” p.34.
121
Ada Louise Huxtable, “Concertgoers Give Building Life,” The New York Times, September 24, 1962, p.35.
122
Huxtable, “Concertgoers Give Building Life,” p.35.
123
“Orpheus and Apollo,” Time, January 4, 1963, v.81, p.30.
124
Stuart Preston, “Art: ‘Orpheus and Apollo,’” The New York Times, December 21, 1962, p.5.
125
John Canaday, “An ‘Archangel’ Adorns Philharmonic Hall,” The New York Times, February 19, 1964, p.36.
126
“Philharmonic Unveils Sculpture,” The New York Times, October 29, 1964, p.32.
127
For a history of Philharmonic Hall’s acoustical renovations, see Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Philharmonic
Hall” pp.688-691; Young, “Epilogue,” pp.306-308; “Low-Key, High-Fidelity Donor: Avery Robert Fisher,” The
New York Times, p.50; and Bruce Bliven, Jr., “Annals of Architecture: A Better Sound,” The New Yorker,
November 8, 1976, v.52, pp.51+.
128
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Philharmonic Hall,” p.691.
129
Bernard Holland, “A Music Mecca Loved but Reluctantly,” The New York Times, July 20, 1997, II, p.34.
130
Young, “The Growing Federation: 1959-1962,” p.118. For more information on City Center of Music and
Drama’s preliminary discussions with Lincoln Center, Inc., see Young, “Development of the Institution,” pp.5861, and “The Growing Federation: 1959-1962,” pp.118-121.
131
For a brief history of the City Center of Music and Drama, see Barbara L. Tischler, “City Center of Music and
Drama,” in Jackson, ed., p.228.
132
ibid.
133
For a history of New York City Ballet, see Anatole Chujoy, New York City Ballet, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1953); Nancy Reynolds, “New York City Ballet,” in Jackson, ed., p.826; “Ballet’s Fundamentalist,” Time,
January 25, 1954, v.63, pp.63+; and www.nycballet.com/about/aboutnycb.html, pp.1-2.
134
www.nycballet.com/about/aboutnycb.html, p.1.
135
Quoted in Chujoy, New York City Ballet, p.203.
136
George Balanchine, “Chronology,” in Francis Mason, ed., Balanchine’s Complete Stories of the Great Ballets,
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1954) p.481.
137
“Ballet’s Fundamentalist,” pp.66-72.
138
Quoted in www.nycopera.com/about/history.cfm, p.2. For a brief history of New York City Opera, its
productions and performers, see James M. Keller, “New York City Opera,” in Jackson, ed., p.827, and
www.nycopera.com/about/history.cfm, pp.1-3.
139
Young, “Evolution of the Organization,” p.108.
140
For complications regarding City Center’s lease agreement with Lincoln Center, Inc., see Ýoung, “The Growing
Federation: 1959-1962,” pp.118-121.
141
Young, “Vexations of Federation,” p.242.
142
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “New York State Theater,” p.691.
143
Quoted in Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “New York State Theater,” p.691.
144
“icy and flat,”: Hunter-Gault, p.2; “our generation had…,”: Forrest Wilson, “Philip Johnson’s Modern…,”
Interiors, July 1964, v.CXXIII, no.12, p.86; “processionalism” and “the relationships and effects…,”: Huxtable,
“He Adds Elegance To Modern Architecture,” p.101.
145
Quoted in Stern, Robert A.M, ”Philip Johnson,” New Dimensions in American Architecture, (New York: George
Braziller, Inc., 1977) p.42.
146
Governor Nelson Rockefeller, as quote in Russell Lynes, “A Parlor for New York,” Harper’s Magazine, May
1964, v.228, p.30.
147
Quoted in Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “New York State Theater,” p.692.
148
ibid.
111
199
Quoted in “Theater Glamour Again,” Architectural Record, May 1964, v.135, p.138.
For Vilhelm L. Jordan, see Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” pp.223-224.
151
Quoted in Hubert Saal, “Caution: Choreographer At Work,” The New York Times Magazine, VI, Part II, p.18.
152
Quoted in Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “New York State Theater,” p.691.
153
For a survey of art within the New York State Theater, see www.nycballet.com/about/artofnyst.html, pp.1-2.
154
Young, “Visual Arts at Lincoln Center,” pp.206-207.
155
For Elie Nadelman, see Francine Koslow Miller, “Nadelman, Elie,” in Turner, ed., v.22, pp.425-426.
156
Quoted in ibid., p.425.
157
A later addition to the New York State Theater collection was Ancient Song and Ancient Dance (1972) by
Yasuhide Kobashi. Having designed sets for New York City Ballet, Kobashi was commissioned by Lincoln
Kirstein to design two gilt reliefs incorporating the themes of ancient song and dance for the eastern and western
staircases. www.nycballet.com/about/artofnyst.html, p.2.
158
For an analysis of Numbers, see www.nycballet.com/about/artofnyst.html, p.1; Carol Vogel, “Outcry at Talk of
Selling Lincoln Center Art,” The New York Times, January 11, 1999, p.A1; “‘Numbers’ at Lincoln Center,” The
New York Times, January 13, 1999, p.A18.
159
“things the mind…,” Jasper Johns, as quoted in Michael Crichton, “Johns, Jasper,” in Turner, ed., v.17, p.613;
“ambiguities and contradictions, ” Michael Crichton, ibid.
160
For Jasper Johns, see Crichton, “Johns, Jasper,” in Turner, ed., v.17, pp.613-615.
161
“the subtlest monument…,”: quoted in Roberta Smith, “Art Worth More Than Money at Lincoln Center,” The
New York Times, January 25, 1999, E8; “The sale of this painting…,”: quoted in Carol Vogel, “Outcry at Talk of
Selling Lincoln Center Art,” The New York Times, January 11, 1999, p.A1,B7.
162
Quoted in Vogel, “Outcry at Talk of Selling Lincoln Center Art,” p.B7.
163
Smith, “Art Worth More Than Money at Lincoln Center,” E8.
164
For Lee Bontecou, see Alberto Cernuschi, “Bontecou, Lee,” in Turner, ed., v.4, p.337.
165
http://www.nycballet.com/about/artofnyst.html, p.1.
166
ibid.
167
For Reuben Nakian, see Burt Chernow, “Nakian, Reuben,” in Turner, ed., v.22, p.446.
168
ibid.
169
For Edward Higgins, see Patricia A. Flinsch-Rodriguez, sr. ed., “Higgins, (George) Edward,” in Who’s Who in
American Art: 1999-2000, 23rd Edition, (New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999) p.547.
170
For Jacques Lipchitz, see Alan G. Wilkinson, “Lipchitz, Jacques,” in Turner, ed., v.19, pp.437-439.
171
Quoted in ibid., p.438.
172
http://www.nycballet.com/about/artofnyst.html, p.1.
173
For Francesco Somaini, see Renato Barilli, “Somaini, Francesco,” in Turner, ed., v.29, p.55.
174
Quoted in Young, “Building Progress: 1962-1966,” p.184.
175
Ada Louise Huxtable, “Promenade Will Be One of State Theater’s Bright Stars,” The New York Times, March
23, 1964, p.26.
176
ibid.
177
ibid.
178
Allen Hughes, “Beautiful Setting: New State Theater Enhances Ballet,” The New York Times, May 3, 1964, II,
p.7.
179
ibid., p.7
180
“Dance: Jewel in Its Proper Setting,” Time, May 1, 1964, v.83, p.58.
181
Edwin Denby, “’Dear Dance Fan,’” Dance Magazine, June 1964, v.38, p.34.
182
ibid.
183
“Theater Glamour Again,” Architectural Record, May 1964, v.135, p.137.
184
Quoted in Wilson, “Philip Johnson’s Modern…,” p.86.
185
Ilse M. Reese and James T. Burns, as quoted in “Critical Trialogue on Johnson’s Lincoln Center Theater,”
Progressive Architecture, May 1964, v.XLV, p.58.
186
Quoted in ibid., p.58.
187
Quoted in ibid., p.58.
188
Quoted in ibid., p.58.
189
Quoted in ibid., p.58.
190
Quoted in ibid., p.59.
191
Quoted in ibid., p.58.
192
Hilton Kramer, “Another Sculptural Nullity for New York’s Lincoln Center,” The New York Times, July 31,
1966, II, p.17.
149
150
200
“Lincoln Center,” The Nation, March 29, 1965, v.200, p.206.
Denby, “’Dear Dance Fan,’” p.34.
195
Winthrop Sargeant, “Housewarming,” The New Yorker, May 9, 1964, v.XL, n.12, p.146.
196
John Canaday, The New York Times, March 23, 1964, p.26.
197
ibid.
198
ibid.
199
ibid.
200
ibid.
201
Huxtable, “He Adds Elegance To Modern Architecture,” The New York Times, May 24, 1964, XI, p.18.
202
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “New York State Theater,” p.695.
203
Quoted in Robert C. Doty, “Lincoln Plaza Fountain to Dance to Computer Tune,” The New York Times, March 7,
1964, p. 25. For information on Lincoln Center Plaza, see ibid.
204
ibid.
205
“Dance: Jewel in Its Proper Setting,”p.58.
206
www.lincolncenter.org/aboutLC/archive_history.
207
Young, “Development of the Institution,” p.61.
208
For a history of the New York Public Library, see Robert Sink, “New York Public Library,” in Jackson, ed.,
pp.840-842.
209
Young, “The Growing Federation:1959-1962,” p.122-123.
210
ibid., p.123.
211
Quoted in “The Collaborators,” Time, October 29, 1965, v.86, p.60.
212
Quoted in Mel Gussow, “Curtain Going Up at Renovated Performing Arts Library,” The New York Times,
October 11, 2001, p.E6.
213
Quoted in Carol Hersell Krinsky, Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore, Owings, Merrill. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988)
p.150.
214
For Eero Saarinen, see Nathan Silver, “Saarinen, Eero,” in Muriel Emanuel, ed., pp.826-827, and Peter C.
Papademetriou, “Saarinen, Eero,” in Turner, ed., v.27, pp.474-478.
215
Papademetriou, “Saarinen, Eero,” in Turner, ed., p.477.
216
Quoted in Milton Esterow, “Beaumont Theater Opens at Lincoln Center,” The New York Times, October 13,
1965, p.38.
217
ibid., p.1.
218
“The Forum Is Dedicated As the Mitzi Newhouse,” The New York Times, November 6, 1973, p.34.
219
C. Ray Smith, “A Thrust Forward for the Theater,” Progressive Architecture, November 1965, v.46, p.176.
220
Otto Preminger and Alan J. Lerner, as quoted in “The Collaborators,” Time, October 29, 1965, v.86, p.60.
221
C. Ray Smith, “A Thrust Forward for the Theater,” p.189.
222
ibid., p.192.
223
ibid., p.192.
224
“Design Difficulties in the Centering of Culture,” Fortune, February 1965, p.180.
225
C. Ray Smith, “A Thrust Forward for the Theater,” p.194.
226
ibid., p.194.
227
Clive Barnes, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for America’s Number One Cultural Supermarket,”
Holiday,September 1968, p.92.
228
Ada Louise Huxtable, “Adding Up the Score,” The New York Times, September 25, 1966, II, p.29.
229
Robert Kotlowitz, “If You Must Build A Cultural Center,” Harper’s Magazine, July 1967, v.235, p.98.
230
“Lincoln Center Unit to Receive Award of Concrete Board,” The New York Times, November 14, 1965, p.1.
231
Richard F. Shepard, “At Lincoln Center, It’s Regilding Time,” The New York Times, April 23, 1990, p.B5.
232
Quoted in ibid., p.B5
233
www.lct.org/history.html, p.1.
234
For Gordon Bunshaft, see Paul Spreiregen, “Bunshaft, Gordon,” in Emanuel, ed., pp.136-137, and James D.
Kornwolf, “Bunshaft, Gordon,” in Turner, ed., v. 5, pp.175-176.
235
Spreiregen, “Bunshaft, Gordon,” in Emanuel, ed., p.137.
236
Quoted in C. Ray Smith, “The Library-Museum At Lincoln Center,” Progressive Architecture, April 1966, v.47,
p.176.
237
David Dachs, “The New Long-Playing Libraries,” The Saturday Review, January 29, 1966, v.49, p.50.
238
C. Ray Smith, “The Library-Museum At Lincoln Center,” p.178.
239
ibid., p.176.
240
ibid., p.177.
193
194
201
Allen Hughes, “’It’s a Neat Pad,’” The New York Times, February 13, 1966, II, p.13.
Kotlowitz, “If You Must Build A Cultural Center, p.98.
243
“New Library,” The New Yorker, July 30, 1966, v.42, p.19.
244
C. Ray Smith, “The Library-Museum At Lincoln Center,” p.178.
245
ibid., p.178.
246
Quoted in Gussow, “Curtain Going Up at Renovated Performing Arts Library,” p.E6.
247
Quoted in ibid., p.E6.
248
Quoted in ibid., p.E6.
249
Young, “Construction Underway: 1959-1962,” p.141.
250
For Dan Kiley, see Pauline Saliga, “Kiley, Daniel Urban,” in Emanuel, ed., pp.515-518, and Joseph Disponzio,
Introduction, in William S. Saunders, ed., Daniel Urban Kiley: The Early Gardens, (New York: Princeton
Architectural Press, 1999) pp.9-16.
251
Disponzio, Introduction, p.13.
252
Ken Smith, “Preserving a Modernist Legacy,” GSD News, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Fall
1996, p.15.
253
Quoted in Pauline Saliga, “Kiley, Daniel Urban,” in Emanuel, ed., p.517.
254
Quoted in The Work of Dan Kiley: A Dialogue on Design Theory, Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium
on Landscape Architecture, Campbell Hall, February 6, 1982, (Charlotte, VA: The University of Virginia, 1982)
p.28.
255
ibid.
256
Quoted in “Daniel Urban Kiley: When the Landscape Smiles,” [SOURCE, DATE], p.9.
257
For early drawings showing Wallace K. Harrison’s proposals for Lincoln Center, see Kathleen Randall, Lincoln
Center for the Performing Arts: Cultural Visibility and Postwar Urbanism, Masters of Science Thesis, Historic
Preservation, Columbia University, (New York: Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation,
1992) Figures 19, 20, 21, 27, 29, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40.
258
Dan Kiley, “Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, New York, New York, 1960,” Dan Kiley: The Complete
Works of American Master Landscape Architect, (NY: Bulfinch Press, 1999) p.57.
259
ibid., p.56.
260
Quoted in a letter to Robert A.M. Stern, October 20, 1993, as reprinted in Ken Smith, “The Challenge of
Preserving Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts,” Charles A. Birnbaum, ed., Preserving Modern Landscape
Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill-National Park Service Conference, November 1995, v.10, (Cambridge,
MA: Spacemaker Press) p.50.
261
For general background on the commissioning of Henry Moore’s Reclining Figure, see Young, “Visual Arts in
Lincoln Center, pp.208-17; George P. Elliott, “A Center in Search of a Role,” The New York Times Magazine,
September 11, 1966, II, p.47; and Vera and John Russell, “Moore Explains His ‘Universal Shapes,’” The New
York Times Magazine, November 11, 1962, VI, pp.60-82.
262
“most important…,” according to Alan G. Wilkinson, “Moore, Henry (Spencer),” in Turner, ed., v.22, p.54;
“modern master” according to “Maker of Images,” Time, September 21, 1959, v.74, p.81.
263
For Henry Moore, see Alan G. Wilkinson, “Moore, Henry (Spencer),” in Turner, ed., pp.54-58.
264
Quoted in ibid., p.55.
265
Russell, “Moore Explains His ‘Universal Shapes,’” p.60.
266
“Maker of Images,” p.82.
267
Quoted in Wilkinson, “Moore, Henry (Spencer),” in Turner, ed., p.56.
268
Quoted in Russell, “Moore Explains His ‘Universal Shapes,’” p.60.
269
Quoted in Wilkinson, “Moore, Henry (Spencer),” in Turner, ed., p.57.
270
Quoted in Russell, “Moore Explains His ‘Universal Shapes,’” p.78.
271
ibid., pp.74-5.
272
“My sculpture must be… the middle of it,”: quoted in ibid., p.75; “Since you can walk…”: quoted in John
Canaday, “Henry Moore to Supervise Installation,” The New York Times, August 25, 1965, p.41.
273
Canaday, “Henry Moore to Supervise Installation,” p.41.
274
Young, “Lincoln Center 1960-1970: Visual Arts at Lincoln Center,” p.217.
275
Since 1938, the artist had been making maquettes, or small models, on which his larger works were based. A
smaller model of Reclining Figure, cast in bronze, can be found within the courtyard facing the Weisner
Building at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus. Acquired by Moore’s patron, Vera Glaser List,
the bronze sculpture was installed and dedicated to Samuel Glaser, an MIT graduate, in 1963.
276
Howard Lippman, as quoted in Grace Glueck, “Ticket Window (Nonfunctional) Is Installed at Lincoln Center,”
The New York Times, November 12, 1965, p.49.
241
242
202
“Finale,” The New York Times, February 7, 1965, II, p.20.
John Canaday, “Two Sculptors: Alexander Calder and Leonard Baskin Impressive in Contrasting Shows,” The
New York Times, March 20, 1960, II, p.20.
279
For Alexander Calder, see Joan Marter, “Calder, Alexander,” in Turner, ed., v.5, pp.422-424, and Phyllis
Tuchman, “Calder’s Playful Genius,” Smithsonian, May 2001, v.32, no.2, pp.83-92.
280
Marter, “Calder, Alexander,” in Turner, ed., p.423.
281
Quoted in Tuchman, “Calder’s Playful Genius,” p.88.
282
Glueck, “Ticket Window (Nonfunctional) Is Installed at Lincoln Center,” p.49.
283
Paul L. Montgomery, “Calder Work for Lincoln Center Is Said to Get Morris’s Blessing,” The New York Times,
April 18, 1965, p.67.
284
Quoted in Grace Glueck, “A ‘Knockout’ Ends Sculpture Fight,” The New York Times, November 16, 1964, p.59.
285
Huxtable, “Adding Up the Score,” p.29.
286
ibid.
287
“The Heroic Bather,” Time, September 3, 1965, v.86, p.60.
288
ibid.
289
ibid.
290
“among the most important…”: John Canaday, “Moore’ Work Analyzed,” The New York Times, July 26, 1962,
p.30; “one of the sculptor’s…”: Kramer, “Another Sculptural Nullity for New York’s Lincoln Center,” p.17.
291
Kramer, “Another Sculptural Nullity for New York’s Lincoln Center,” p.17.
292
For background on alterations to Dan Kiley’s landscapes at Lincoln Center, see Smith, “The Challenge of
Preserving Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts,” in Birnbaum, pp51-52.
293
Shepard, “At Lincoln Center, It’s Regilding Time,” p.B5.
294
Dan Kiley, “Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, New York, New York, 1960,” p.57.
295
Quoted in Anne Raver, “Cherishing Landscapes as Living Art,” The New York Times, III, November 30, 1995,
p.C6.
296
For background on the public response to alterations of the landscaped plazas, see Smith, “The Challenge of
Preserving Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts,” in Birnbaum, pp.51-52.
297
Shepard, “At Lincoln Center, It’s Regilding Time,” p.B5.
298
ibid.
299
John W. Freeman, “Metropolitan Opera,” in Jackson, ed., p.758. For a detailed history of the Metropolitan
Opera, see ibid., pp.757-758.
300
For general background on the original Metropolitan Opera House, see Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera
House: beginnings,” p.198, and Kathleen Randall, “Eliminating Alternatives: Existing Houses and Early Art
Center Proposals,” pp.22-26.
301
According to Quaintance Eaton, “lyre” was the name of J.C. Cady’s winning architectural entry for the
Metropolitan Opera House. Quaintance Eaton, “Cady’s Lyre,” The Miracle of the Met: An Informal History of
the Metropolitan Opera: 1883-1967, (New York: Meredith Press, 1968.) p. 45.
302
Freeman, “Metropolitan Opera,” in Jackson, ed., p.758.
303
Randall, “Eliminating Alternatives: Existing Houses and Early Art Center Proposals,” p.24.
304
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: beginnings,” p.198.
305
Rudolph Bing, 5000 Nights at the Opera, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972) p.138.
306
Bing, 5000 Nights at the Opera, pp.138-9.
307
Cecil Smith, as quoted in Bing, p.139.
308
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: beginnings,” p.200.
309
For detailed information on the design phase of the Metropolitan Opera House, see Newhouse, “The
Metropolitan Opera House: beginnings,” pp.198-221, and “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” pp.222235.
310
Quoted in Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: beginnings,” p.210.
311
Quoted in Greenfield, “Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison,”p.84.
312
Francis Robinson, Celebration: The Metropolitan Opera, (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1979) p.30.
313
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.228.
314
Author’s notes from Lincoln Center Tour, June 25, 2001.
315
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Metropolitan Opera House,” p.704.
316
Greenfield, “Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison,” p.84.
317
ibid., p.84.
318
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.223.
319
ibid., p.224.
277
278
203
320
ibid., p.233.
Quoted in “A House for Grand Opera,” Architectural Record, September 1966, v.140, p.150.
322
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera house: beginnings,” p.209.
323
ibid., p.225-6.
324
“The World’s Most Mechanized Opera House: The Met’s Amazing Stage,” Architectural Record, September
1966, v.140, p.156.
325
For descriptions regarding the Metropolitan Opera House restaurants and private meeting rooms, see Newhouse,
“The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.230, and “MORE OF THE MET: Restaurants and clubs,”
Interiors, December 1966,v.126, no.5, pp.124-127.
326
For information on the Belmont Room, see Robinson, Celebration, p.37.
327
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Metropolitan Opera House,” p.710.
328
Robinson, Celebration: The Metropolitan Opera, p.37. In March 1966, Lincoln Kirstein, upon receiving an Anna
Pavlova death mask in bronze from ballerina, Nadia Nerina, donated the artifact to the New York Public Library
for the Performing Arts for its permanent collection. “Pavlova Death Mask,” The New York Times, March 24,
1966, p.48.
329
Robinson, Celebration: The Metropolitan Opera, p.37.
330
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.228.
331
Bing, 5000 Nights at the Opera, p.302.
332
For Chagall, see Susan Compton, “Chagall, Marc,” in Turner, ed., v.6, pp.383-386.
333
Quoted in ibid., p.384.
334
Quoted in “Chagall to Do 2 Murals for Met Opera,” The New York Times, April 27, 1965, p.39.
335
Quoted in Young, “Visual Arts in Lincoln Center,” p.219.
336
“West Germany’s Gift To Met Is Dedicated,” The New York Times, September 7, 1966, p.51.
337
For Wilhelm Lehmbruck, see Dietrich Schubert, “Lehmbruck, Wilhelm,” in Turner, ed., v.19, pp.94-95.
338
For Mary Callery, see “Callery, Mary,” in Harold Osborne, ed., The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century
Art, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1981) p.93, and Fielding, “Callery, Mary,” in Optiz, ed., p.127.
339
ibid., p.93.
340
ibid., p.93.
341
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.230.
342
“New Sculpture at Metropolitan Opera,” The New York Times, September 17, 1974, p.39.
343
Robinson, Celebration: The Metropolitan Opera, p.29.
344
Quoted in Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.228.
345
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.228.
346
Quoted in Charlotte Curtis, “First Lady Adds to Glitter; Musicians’ Strike is Settled,” The New York Times,
September 17, 1966, p.1. For the opening of the Metropolitan Opera House, see Young, “The Opening of the
Metropolitan Opera House: September 16, 1966,” pp.251-259; Charlotte Curtis, “First Lady Adds to Glitter;
Musicians’ Strike is Settled,” The New York Times, September 17, 1966, pp.1,16-17; and “New Metropolitan
Opera House Opens in a Crescendo of Splendor,” The New York Times, September 17, 1966, p.1.
347
“New Metropolitan Opera House Opens in a Crescendo of Splendor,” p.1.
348
Curtis, “First Lady Adds to Glitter; Musicians’ Strike is Settled,” p.16.
349
ibid., p.16.
350
Young, “The Opening of the Metropolitan Opera House: September 16, 1966,” p.252.
351
Curtis, “First Lady Adds to Glitter; Musicians’ Strike is Settled,” p.1.
352
Young, “The Opening of the Metropolitan Opera House: September 16, 1966,” p.254.
353
Ada Louise Huxtable, “Met as Architecture: New House, Although Technically Fine, Muddles a Dramatic
Design Concept,” The New York Times, September 17, 1966, p.17.
354
ibid., p.17.
355
Shana Alexander, “Culture’s big super-event,” Life, September 30, 1966; Inez Robb, “The New Met: All Front,
No Center,” World Journal Tribune, April 26, 1967.
356
Huxtable, “Met as Architecture: New House, Although Technically Fine, Muddles a Dramatic Design Concept,”
p.17.
357
Olga Gueft, “Lincoln Center Realized,” Interiors, September 1966, v.126, p.96, 98.
358
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Metropolitan Opera House,” p.706.
359
Huxtable, “Met as Architecture: New House, Although Technically Fine, Muddles a Dramatic Design Concept,”,
p.17.
360
Harold Schonberg, “After It Was All Over,” The New York Times, September 25, 1966, II, p.17.
361
“A House for Grand Opera,” p.149.
321
204
362
ibid.
ibid.
364
Young, “The Opening of the Metropolitan Opera House: September 16, 1966,” pp.255-6.
365
Robert Kotlowitz, “On the Midway at Lincoln Center,” Harper’s Magazine, December 1966, v.233, p.136.
366
“graceful and strong”: “The New Met,” Newsweek, November 8, 1965, v.66, p.98; “handsome”: Robb, “The
New Met: All Front, No Center.”
367
“Met Backstage—A Bigger Show,” The New York Times, September 11, 1966, p.14.
368
Irving Kolodin, “Opera House on the American Plan,” Saturday Review, September 17, 1966, v.49, p.48.
369
ibid., p.47.
370
John Canaday, “The List of Art: Of the 8 Works Decorating the Met, Dufy’s May Prove the Most Successful,”
The New York Times, September 17, 1966, p.17.
371
ibid.
372
ibid., p.40.
373
Galantay, “Architecture,” p.474.
374
ibid.
375
Quoted in Robert A.M. Stern, Thomas Mellins, David Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Metropolitan Opera House,”
p.708.
376
Robb, “The New Met: All Front, No Center.”
377
Kotlowitz, “On the Midway at Lincoln Center,” p.137.
378
“not only a…”: Kramer, “Another Sculptural Nullity for New York’s Lincoln Center, p.17; “a piece of…”:
Canaday, “The List of Art: Of the 8 Works Decorating the Met, Dufy’s May Prove the Most Successful,” p.17.
379
“an enigmatic bundle…”: Ervin Galantay, “Architecture,” The Nation, April 10, 1967, v.204, p.474; “meager as
both…”: Kotlowitz, “On the Midway at Lincoln Center,” p.136.
380
“lovely”: Robb, “The New Met: All Front, No Center”; “best work”: Canaday, “The List of Art: Of the 8 Works
Decorating the Met, Dufy’s May Prove the Most Successful,” p.17.
381
Canaday, “The List of Art: Of the 8 Works Decorating the Met, Dufy’s May Prove the Most Successful,” p.17.
382
ibid.
383
ibid.
384
Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,” p.228.
385
Huxtable, “Met as Architecture: New House, Although Technically Fine, Muddles a Dramatic Design
Concept,”p.17.
386
ibid., p.17.
387
Quoted in ibid., p.17.
388
For alterations to the Metropolitan Opera House, see Newhouse, “The Metropolitan Opera House: completion,”
p.230.
389
www.metopera.org/history/intro.html.
390
For the planning of Damrosch Park, see Young, “Preliminary Architectural Planning: 1956-1959,” pp.80, 85, 87.
For background on the design of Damrosch Park, see Smith, “The Challenge of Preserving Lincoln Center for
the Performing Arts,” in Birnbaum, pp.51-52, and William F. Farrell, “Art Agency Approves Lincoln Center
Park Plan,” The New York Times, July 29, 1965, p.17.
391
Young, “Preliminary Architectural Planning: 1956-1959,” p.80.
392
ibid., p.87.
393
Farrell, “Art Agency Approves Lincoln Center Park Plan,” p.17.
394
ibid., p.17. For a specific listing of Damrosch family contributions to New York’s musical culture, see Murray
Schumach, “Damrosch Park Sounds a Quiet Note,” The New York Times, August 4, 1972, p.33.
395
ibid., p.17.
396
For Eggers & Higgins, see Steven McLeod Bedford, “Eggers & Higgins,” in Placzek, ed., p.12.
397
Farrell, “Art Agency Approves Lincoln Center Park Plan,” p.17.
398
ibid., p.17.
399
Quoted in Smith, “The Challenge of Preserving Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts,” in Birnbaum, p.51.
400
ibid., p.51.
401
ibid., p.51.
402
ibid., p.51.
403
Donal Henahan, “Architect Refuses to Give City Plans for Lincoln Center Park,” The New York Times,
September 27, 1967, p.42.
404
Quoted in Donal Henahan, “Lincoln Center Fanfare For Park and Band Shell,” The New York Times, May 23,
1969, p.36.
363
205
“looks like…”: Donal Henahan, “Lincoln Center Fanfare For Park and Band Shell,” The New York Times, May
23, 1969, p.36; “a halved onion…,”: as quoted in Stern, “Lincoln Square: Plaza,” p.713; “ugly” in Robert
Kotlowitz, “If You Must Build A Cultural Center,” Harper’s Magazine, July 1967, v.235, p.96.
406
Shepard, “At Lincoln Center, It’s Regilding Time,” p.B5.
407
“Destroying Trees to Save Them,” The New York Times, September 19, 1993, VIII, CY, p.8.
408
Smith, “The Challenge of Preserving Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts,” p.52.
409
Mildred F. Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” Architectural Record, January 1970, v.147, p.121.
410
For Alice Tully Hall, see “The Chamber Music Society’s Origins” at www.chamberlinc.org/hisory.htm, p.3.
411
For the Chamber Music Society, see “The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” pp.1-5.
412
For Tully, see Donal Henahan, “Auditoriums Come and Go, but They Always Move Uptown,” The New York
Times, September 11, 1969, p.50.
413
“The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” p.3.
414
For chamber music halls in New York City, see Donal Henahan, “Auditoriums Come and Go, but They Always
Move Uptown,” The New York Times, September 11, 1969, p.50.
415
ibid.
416
ibid.
417
Marc Ferris, “Steinway Hall,” in Jackson, ed., p.1121.
418
Quoted in Donal Henahan, “Auditoriums Come and Go, but They Always Move Uptown,” The New York Times,
September 11, 1969, p.50.
419
“The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” p.1.
420
For Pietro Belluschi, see Meredith L. Clausen, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Turner, ed., v.3, p.682; Marion Dean Ross,
“Belluschi, Pietro,” in Placzek, ed., pp.172-173; Lucinda Hawkings Collinge, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Emanuel,
ed., pp.99-101.
421
Meredith L. Clausen, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Turner, ed., p.682.
422
Marion Dean Ross, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Placzek, ed., p.172.
423
Meredith L. Clausen, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Turner, ed., p.682.
424
Marion Dean Ross, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Placzek, ed., p.172.
425
Meredith L. Clausen, “Belluschi, Pietro,” in Turner, ed., p.682.
426
For Eduardo Catalano, see Stephen P. Hamilton, “Catalano, Eduardo” in Emanuel, ed., pp.165-166, and Michael
Hollander, “Catalano, Eduardo” in Placzek, ed., v. 1, pp.393-394.
427
Stephen P. Hamilton, “Catalano, Eduardo” in Emanuel, ed., p.166.
428
For Helge Westermann, see John F. Gane, “Westermann, Helge,” in AIA, ed., American Architects Directory, 3rd
Edition, (New York: R.R. Bowker Co., 1970) p.980.
429
Quoted in Harold C. Schonberg, “Mainly We Will Look for Talent,” The New York Times, May 5, 1968, II, p.19.
430
For expanding uses and height restrictions, see Mildred F. Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” Architectural
Record, January 1970, v.147, p.122.
431
“The Juilliard School Press,” p.5.
432
Mildred F. Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” p.121.
433
For construction delays of the Juilliard School, see Stern, “Lincoln Square: Juilliard School,” p.713, and Young,
“Building Progress: 1962-1966,” pp.199-202.
434
Mildred F. Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” p.121.
435
ibid., p.122.
436
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Juilliard School,” p.713.
437
For Juilliard School building specifications, see Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” pp.121-128; Schonberg,
“Mainly We Will Look for Talent,” The New York Times, May 5, 1968, II, p.19; Stern, Mellins, and Fishman,
“Lincoln Square: Juilliard School,” pp.713-716; and “The Juilliard School,” Wisconsin Architect, December
1969, v.40, n.11, pp.18-23.
438
For a discussion of brutalism, see Reyner Banham, “brutalism,” in Turner, ed., v.5, pp.55-57.
439
Stern, Mellins, and Fishman, “Lincoln Square: Juilliard School,” p.713.
440
Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” p.123.
441
The store has since been relocated to Milstein Plaza.
442
“The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” p.3.
443
Quoted in Schonberg, “Mainly We Will Look for Talent,” p.19.
444
Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” p.128.
445
ibid.
446
For the origins and founders of the Chamber Music Society, see “The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” pp.1-5.
405
206
For William Schuman, see “William Schuman” in “The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” pp.1-2, and Allen J.
Share, “Schuman, William (Howard),” in Jackson, ed., pp.1048-1049.
448
For Charles Wadsworth, see “Charles Wadsworth” in “The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” pp.4-5.
449
“The Chamber Music Society’s Origins,” p.1.
450
Young, “Chronology of Lincoln Center,” p.XIV.
451
Young, “Evolution of the Organization: 1959-1962,” p.115. The Music Theater of Lincoln Center, Inc. was
established in February 1963 to present revivals of musicals and commission new shows as a means of
showcasing an indigenous American art form. Under the direction of Richard Rodgers, the constituent company
presented productions part of the year in the New York State Theater beginning in 1964 until the organization
disbanded in 1974. Young, “Vexations of Federation:1962-1966,” p.241, and
www.lincolncenter.org/aboutLC/archive_history. The international summer festival, originally planned for the
summer of 1966, was delayed one year, and has been produced intermittently since 1967 under the auspices of
Lincoln Center, Inc. According to Young, “Schuman’s primary motivation for [the festivals] and for assumption
by Lincoln Center of artistic and financial responsibility was his conviction that Lincoln Center’s latent potential
for leadership in the arts rested on such activities.” Young, “Crisis and Resolution:1966-1970,” pp.282-283.
452
Young, “Crisis and Resolution:1966-1970,” p.285. For more information on the Film Society of Lincoln Center,
see ibid., pp.297-299.
453
Young, “Crisis and Resolution: 1966-1970,” p.296.
454
ibid., p.297-298.
455
Harold C. Schonberg, “Music: Good Acoustics,” The New York Times, September 12, 1969, p.36. For more on
the opening of Alice Tully Hall, see Grace Glueck, “J.D. Rockefeller, J.S. Bach Inaugurate Tully Hall,” The New
York Times, September 12, 1969, p.35.
456
Quoted in Schonberg, “Music: Good Acoustics,” p.36.
457
Quoted in ibid.
458
ibid.
459
ibid.
460
“A Jewel of a Juilliard,” Time, October 31, 1969, v.94, p.46.
461
Schonberg, “Music: Good Acoustics,” p.36.
462
ibid.
463
Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” p.121.
464
“attractive”: Ada Louise Huxtable, “Juilliard’s New Building: Esthetic Reality,” The New York Times, October 8,
1969, p.59; “The richness of these…”: “Dissimilar Buildings, Similar Awards,” The New York Times, May 24,
1970, VIII, p.7.
465
George Gent, “Juilliard School Dedication Marks Completion of Lincoln Center,” The New York Times, October
27, 1969, p. 1. For more on the opening of the Juilliard School, see ibid., pp.1+, and Harold C. Schonberg,
“Juillliard Program Symbolizes a Decade,” The New York Times, October 27, 1969, p.57. Paul Recital Hall,
named after its donor, Colonel C. Michael Paul, was dedicated the following year, on November 30, 1970,
although it was in operation since the Juilliard School’s opening. For the dedication of Paul Recital Hall, see
Raymond Ericson, “An Orchestra Divided—On Purpose,” The New York Times, November 29, 1969, II, p.17,
and Harold C. Schonberg, “Paul Recital Hall: Little but Exquisite,” The New York Times, December 2, 1970,
p.55.
466
Gent, “Juilliard School Dedication Marks Completion of Lincoln Center,” p.57.
467
Quoted in ibid.
468
Quoted in ibid.
469
Quoted in ibid.
470
ibid.
471
“triumph of architecture…”: “A Jewel of a Juilliard,” p.46; “a friendly fortress”: “Juilliard at Home,” Newsweek,
October 13, 1969, v.74, p.127; “the best building…”: Schmertz, “The Juilliard School,” p.121.
472
“Taj Mahal of Music”: Harold C. Schonberg, “Taj Mahal of Music,” The New York Times, October 3, 1969, p.47;
“Taj Mahal on a budget”: Huxtable, “Juilliard’s New Building: Esthetic Reality,”p.59.
473
Harold C. Schonberg, “Taj Mahal of Music,”p.47.
474
ibid.
475
ibid.
476
Huxtable, “Dissimilar Buildings, Similar Awards,” p.7.
477
“lovely”: Huxtable, “Juilliard’s New Building: Esthetic Reality,”p.59; “beautiful”: Ericson, “An Orchestra
Divided—On Purpose,” p.17; “exquisite”: Schonberg, “Paul Recital Hall: Little but Exquisite,” p.55.
447
207
“an air of quiet…”: Schonberg, “Paul Recital Hall: Little but Exquisite,” p.55; “an abstract sculpture that…”:
Huxtable, “Juilliard’s New Building: Esthetic Reality,”p.59.
479
“Award Given Museum, Ex-Pool Hall,” The New York Times, May 20, 1970, p.83. The Juilliard School
architects shared first honors with Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, which created the Bedford-Lincoln
Neighborhood Museum.
480
Huxtable, “Juilliard’s New Building: Esthetic Reality,”p.59.
481
ibid.
482
ibid.
483
Huxtable, “Dissimilar Buildings, Similar Awards,” p.7.
484
Glueck, “Lincoln Center Unveils Gift of Japanese Sculpture,” p.34.
485
ibid.
486
Huxtable, “Juilliard’s New Building: Esthetic Reality,” p.59.
487
Grace Glueck, “Juilliard’s First Outdoor Sculpture Is Agam’s ‘Tree,’” The New York Times, May 5, 1971, p.56.
488
Quoted in ibid.
489
Quoted in Glueck, “Juilliard’s First Outdoor Sculpture Is Agam’s ‘Tree,’”p.56.
490
ibid., p.12.
491
ibid.
492
Quoted in ibid.
493
Quoted in ibid.
494
ibid., p.40.
495
Paul Goldberger, “Architecture: Lincoln Center and Changes Wrought by 20 Years,” The New York Times, May
21, 1979, III, p.15.
496
Huxtable, “Adding Up the Score,” p.29.
497
ibid.
498
ibid.
499
ibid.
500
ibid.
501
ibid.
502
For a discussion of formalism, see Kathleen Randall, “Modern Icon: Lincoln Center,” Landmark West!
Newsletter, Spring 2000, p.4.
503
ibid., p.87.
504
Quoted in Schonberg, “Six Architects in Search of a Center,” p.22.
505
Goldberger, “Architecture: Lincoln Center and Changes Wrought by 20 Years,” p.15.
506
William H. Jordy, “Rockefeller Center and Corporate Urbanism,” American Buildings and Their Architects: The
Impact of European Modernism in the Mid-Twentieth Century, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1972)
pp.387-388.
507
Barnes, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for America’s Number One Cultural Supermarket,” p.37.
508
ibid., p.38, 92.
509
Martin, Bloom, AIA, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” AIA Journal, August 1981, p.36.
510
ibid., pp.36-37.
511
ibid., p.37.
512
Herbert Muschamp, “Lincoln Center’s Enduring Vision,” The New York Times, July 19, 1996, p.C1.
513
ibid.
514
ibid., p.C25.
515
ibid.
516
ibid.
517
ibid.
518
ibid.
519
ibid.
520
ibid.
521
ibid.
522
Holland, “A Music Mecca Loved but Reluctantly,” pp.1ff.
523
ibid., p.1.
524
ibid., p.34.
525
ibid.
526
ibid.
527
ibid.
478
208
528
ibid.
James S. Russell, “What’s Wrong with Lincoln Center,” Grid, Summer 1999, v.1, no.3, p.114.
530
Quoted in ibid.
531
“the theater that…”: Bloom, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” p.36; “the size of the…”: Russell, “What’s
Wrong with Lincoln Center,” p.114. In spite of these previous reviews criticizing Saarinen’s theaters, under the
direction of Bernard Gersten, Lincoln Center Theater, comprised of the Vivian Beaumont and Mitzi E.
Newhouse Theaters are thriving. To date, long-running hits include the Tony award-winning revival of Carousel
and Contact.
532
Smith, “Art Worth More Than Money Enriches Lincoln Center,” p.E1ff.
533
ibid., p.E8.
534
ibid.
535
ibid.
536
ibid.
537
ibid.
538
ibid.
539
ibid.
540
ibid.
541
ibid.
542
Huxtable, “Adding Up the Score,” p.29.
543
Barnes, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for America’s Number One Cultural Supermarket,” p.44.
544
ibid., p.44.
545
Goldberger, “Architecture: Lincoln Center and Changes Wrought by 20 Years,” p.15.
546
Huxtable, “Adding Up the Score,” p.29.
547
Goldberger, “Architecture: Lincoln Center and Changes Wrought by 20 Years,” p.15.
548
ibid.
549
Barnes, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for America’s Number One Cultural Supermarket,” p.38.
550
ibid.
551
Murray Schumach, “Lincoln Center: Visitors Relax in a Lobby Under the Skies,” The New York Times, June 16,
1969, p.49.
552
Richard F. Shepard, “About New York: Lincoln Center’s Outdoor Gala,” The New York Times, July 29, 1978,
pp.19ff.
553
“Urbane Renewals,” The New York Times, May 20, 1979, p.20.
554
Bloom, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” p.35.
555
ibid.
556
Ada Louise Huxtable, Goodbye History, Hello Hamburger, (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1986)
p.144.
557
Murray Schumach, “Damrosch Park Sounds a Quiet Note,” The New York Times, August 4, 1972, p.33.
558
“an awkward neighbor…”: Barnes, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for America’s Number One Cultural
Supermarket,” p.42; “unresolved” and “ungainly”: Bloom, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” p.35.
559
Bloom, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” p.35.
560
Muschamp, “Lincoln Center’s Enduring Vision,” p.C25.
561
Herbert Kupferberg, “The Culture Monopoly at Lincoln Center,” Harper’s Magazine, October 1961, v.223, p.96.
562
Glenn Fowler, “Lincoln Center Sparks Vast Renewal on the West Side,” The New York Times, September 16,
1962, VIII, p.1ff.
563
Glenn Fowler, “Lincoln Center Brings Changes,” The New York Times, September 16, 1962, p.45.
564
William Robbins, “Din of Construction Resounds in Lincoln Center Area,” The New York Times, April 20, 1969,
VIII, p.1.
565
Huxtable, “Adding Up the Score,” p.29.
566
Goldberger, “Architecture: Lincoln Center and Changes Wrought by 20 Years,” p.15.
567
Bloom, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” p.38.
568
ibid.
569
Muschamp, “Lincoln Center’s Enduring Vision,” p.C25.
570
Rachelle Garbarine, “Twin Towers in Lincoln Center Area,” The New York Times, March 31, 2000, Metro, p.B8.
571
Quoted in ibid., p.B8. In 1991, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. capitalized on both the value of its
name and its real estate holdings. Responding to a demand for additional space, the organization negotiated a
deal with the Stillman Group of Scarsdale, New York, that would both address these needs and generate
additional income for the organization. Under the terms of the agreement, the Stillman Group paid the
529
209
organization forty-eight-and-a-half million dollars to build a 60-story high-rise condominium on the site.
Furthermore, in exchange for use of the Lincoln Center address, the developer constructed a 28-story mixed-use
tower adjacent to the Juilliard School for the parent organization and its constituents’ use. Designed by Davis,
Brody & Associates, the Lincoln Center facility, called the Samuel B. and David Rose Building, featured
administrative offices, 9 dance studios, two theaters for the Film Society and Lincoln Center Institute,
dormitories and rehearsal studios. For more information on the Samuel B. and David Rose Building and 3
Lincoln Center, see Paul Goldberger, “A Shot of Cultural Adrenaline At Lincoln Center,” The New York Times,
July 28, 1991, II, p.29.
572
Barnes, “Lincoln Center: Bravos and Barbs for America’s Number One Cultural Supermarket,” p.37.
573
ibid., p.44.
574
ibid., p.38.
575
Daniel J. Wakin, “Modern Architecture Has a Midlife Crisis: Preservationists Help an Old Foe,” The New York
Times, May 15, 2000, p.B1.
576
Herbert Muschamp, “Lincoln Center’s Next Big Production: Itself,” The New York Times, January 21, 2001, II,
p.46.
577
ibid., p.1.
578
Bloom, “Cultural Colossi: Lincoln Center at 19,” p.39.
579
Scott P. Heyl, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, August 24, 2000.
580
Theodore H.M. Prudon, Ph.D/AIA, letter to Katherine [sic] Howe, New York State Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation office in favor of National Register nomination of Lincoln Center, June 20, 2000.
581
Robert A.M. Stern, FAIA, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, July
19, 2000.
582
Thomas Mellins, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, July 14, 2000.
583
Prudon, letter to Howe, June 20, 2000.
584
Nancy Rosen, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, August 25, 2000.
585
ibid.
586
Amy Newman, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, October 2, 2000.
587
ibid.
588
Smith, “Art Worth More Than Money at Lincoln Center,” p.8.
589
Sarah Bradford Landau, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, August 8,
2000.
590
Ken Smith, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, in favor of National Register nomination of Lincoln Center, July 10, 2000.
591
ibid.
592
Mellins, letter to Castro, July 14, 2000.
593
Rolf Ohlhausen, FAIA, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation, in favor of National Register nomination of Lincoln Center, June 30, 2000.
594
Stanforth, letter to Castro, July 27, 2000.
595
Stern, letter to Castro, July 19, 2000.
596
Heyl, letter to Castro, August 24, 2000.
597
Landau, letter to Castro, August 8, 2000.
598
Dierdre Stanforth, letter to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, in favor of State and National Register nominations of Lincoln Center, July 27, 2000.
599
Prudon, letter to Howe, June 20, 2000.
600
Stern, letter to Castro, July 19, 2000.
601
ibid.
602
Mellins, letter to Castro, July 14, 2000.
603
ibid.
604
For background on the New York Philharmonic at Avery Fisher Hall, see
www.newyorkphilharmonic.org/whatsnew/history.htm, and Haws, “New York Philharmonic,” in Jackson, ed.,
p.839.
210
605
ibid.
For background on New York City Ballet at the New York State Theater, see
www.nycballet.com/about/aboutnycb.html, pp.1-2, and Reynolds, “New York City Ballet,” in Jackson, ed.,
p.826.
607
Reynolds, “New York City Ballet,” in Jackson, ed., p.826.
608
For background on New York City Opera at the New York State Theater, see Keller, “New York City Opera,” in
Jackson, ed., p.827, and www.nycopera.com/about/history.cfm, pp.1-3.
609
www.nycopera.com/about/history.cfm, p.3. It bears noting that New York City Opera was the first opera
company in America to use supertitles in its productions. ibid.
610
List of contemporary performers obtained from Ralph Blumenthal and Robin Pogrebin, “Lincoln Center
Renovation Plan Has Opera Houses at Odds,” The New York Times, January 25, 2001, Metro, p.B1.
611
For background on the Metropolitan Opera Company at the Metropolitan Opera House, see
www.metopera.org/history/intro.html, and Freeman, “Metropolitan Opera,” in Jackson, ed., p.758.
612
Robert F. Moss, “Lincoln Center: The Crown Jewel,” The Saturday Review, February 1981, v.8, p.48.
613
Before American Ballet Theater began performing at the Metropolitan Opera House, it performed at City Center
of Music and Drama, various Broadway theaters and subsequently, the New York State Theater when New York
City Ballet and Opera were not in residence. It bears noting that Natalia Makarova and Mikhail Baryshnikov
both made their American debuts with American Ballet Theater at the New York State Theater in 1970 and 1974,
respectively.
614
Quoted in www.lct.org/about.html. For background on performers and productions within the Vivian Beaumont
Theater since its opening, see www.lct.org/about.html, and www.lct.org/history.html.
615
www.lct.org/about.html.
616
For background on the Committee on Education, see Young, “Evolution of the Organization,” pp.113-114.
617
For background on the Lincoln Center Student Program, see Young, “Programs Begin: 1962-1966,” pp.232-235.
618
ibid., p.233.
619
www.lincolncenter.org/aboutLC/archive_history, p.1.
620
For a background on the Lincoln Center Institute, see Young, “Epilogue: 1970-1980,” pp.305-314.
621
Haws, “New York Philharmonic,” in Jackson, ed., p.838.
622
www.newyorkphilharmonic.org/whatsnew/history.htm.
623
Freeman, “Metropolitan Opera,” in Jackson, ed., p.758.
624
www.metopera.org/broadcast/radio.html.
625
ibid.
626
Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows: 1946-Present, (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1988) pp.581-582; Ed Weiner & the Editors of TV Guide, The TV Guide TV Book, (New
York: HarperPerennial, 1992) p.221.
627
Haws, “New York Philharmonic,” in Jackson, ed., p.838.
628
Young, “Epilogue: 1970-1980,” pp.311-312.
629
www.lincolncenter.org/programs/lflc_about.asp.
630
ibid.
631
www.metopera.org/broadcast/radio.html.
632
www.lincolncenter.org/aboutLC/archive_history.
606
211