The following is a report I wrote on the novel Skyscraper, by Karl Sabbagh. The novel depicts the construction process that SOM goes through for Worldwide Plaza, a building in Hell's Kitchen, New York. It is a very good read and I highly recommend it to anyone looking to enter into the architecture/engineering profession.
Every little interaction, every word on a contract document, every signature and every handshake, hello and goodbye makes a building what it is. From the very moment the ribbon was cut, Bill Zeckendorf embarked on a quest to make Worldwide Plaza prime real estate. What followed, as best described in Karl Sabbagh’s Skyscraper, was a concatenation of deal making, fast tracking, low bidding and problem-solving. The march toward construction was almost never smooth and could be at times, as Sabbagh describes it, a “search for the guilty.” From an owner threatening his contractors to contractors willing to sue their owner, what Zeckendorf, SOM, HRH, O&M and every other partner involved discovered was how grueling, confrontational, intense and (at times) wonderful it was to be in on a project the size and scope of Worldwide Plaza. Yet, although their efforts were genuinely rewarded with high praise from critics like Paul Goldberger, this discovery process, upon recapitulation, was a process more expensive than any of them could have imagined.
One can glean easily from the chronicled development in Skyscraper a tone of regretful optimism. This is particularly apparent toward the end of the novel, when Zeckendorf (the owner) cuts his ties from HRH, his construction firm, after it is abundantly clear that the initial bidding estimate from HRH was off by roughly 4.5 million dollars. Arthur Nusbaum, representing HRH maintains, “[the] main problem [was] the feeling of the owner that we deserted him” (p.320). Whether HRH actually did desert Zeckendorf never becomes clear. And Zeckendorf’s own level of fiscal concern is only apparent toward the end. What does become clear is that disputes arise, people are blamed and bridges are torn.
The reasons for conflict mostly stem from fast-tracking the project, which in turn causes a lack of communication. In one instance, Hunt’s Point, the masonry contractors, submit a bid 2 million dollars lower than the next bidder and (according to Nusbaum) their price has to be accepted given costlier alternative bids (p. 276). Only later does Rob Schubert, the project manager for SOM, discover that the cheaper estimate specified limestone and not marble. As more contractors are brought in, a lack of clarification is only exacerbated. “There were several ways of losing money on a job,” Sabbagh explains, “only one of which is paying more than you expected… each trade [is] a self-contained bar, moving in stately fashion at its own pace across the months and years.” And if miscommunication wasn’t enough of a problem, when compounded with the lavish dreams of SOM and the more functional demands of the tenants, a unified vision of the skyscraper fades even as it nears completion.
Not all the problems result from deaf ears. Some, such as the trusses in the lobby and the waterproofing inspection, occur out of sheer lack of common sense. It seems like common logic, for instance, that when inspecting watertightness in a mock-up, one would hire an actual waterproofing inspector. But that is not the case. “It had seemed madness to SOM to go ahead and test the watertightness of the curtain wall without having the proper waterproofing team to prepare it,” Sabbagh writes, “but they were overruled by HRH and the owners, eager to proceed to the next stage” (p.202-203).
But spotting madness in others is easy enough; what is truly puzzling is how SOM and HRH, both pawned the construction of the trusses off on Hunt’s Point, who was largely unqualified to design them. “Hunt’s Point were first and foremost stone contractors,” Sabbagh explains, “and they had hired an engineering firm to design and make the trusses… The longer they let poor design continue, the more the job would fall behind.” For SOM and HRH to take “a very complicated system” (p.242) and hand it to a contractor to design seemed incredibly unwise. But, as Skyscraper warns its audience, even persons in high authority are not exempt to making unwise decisions.
Not everything in Skyscraper warrants stupefaction. One of the better aspects of the book is Sabbagh’s architectural point-of-view. Although he himself is quite impartial to the characters in his novel, one can sense his own sensibilities parallel that of David Childs, the lead architect of SOM, who near the beginning of the novel states that “architecture is not the drawn elevation or the perspective, it’s what’s built.”
Imagery is an acquired skill, too, and is very necessary for a novel like Skyscraper to work. Not all authors are capable of it, and obviously, it’s not easy to depict the construction of a building. But Sabbagh’s sleight of hand – in one paragraph, no less – provides all the visual needed (so much so, that at times, the diagrams in the novel seem superfluous). On page 190, for example, Sabbagh writes:
“Each section of wall – the strip between the two layers of sealant – would be attached to the floor so that, as the building moved, the section would move as a unit.”
For many, that is an intricate series of working drawings. But for Sabbagh, it’s functional. The curtain wall is a non-load-bearing partition that “fills in gaps” left by steel construction. It is primarily important as a barrier and not as a structural member, but the element itself still has to have some innate structure.
This interplay between architecture and engineering is perhaps the best lesson in design Sabbagh provides throughout the entire text. Because the architects “never stop designing” (p.99) the concept is never fully realized and because the engineers “always worry about collapse” (p.111) the safety is never fully secured. But both architects and engineers take strides to alleviate both concerns.
The most obvious concern is whether the building will stand up. Wind tunnel tests (described between pages 67-70) go a long way to replicate wind forces in a selected environment. Depending on how successfully crafted they are, the tests can add significant stability over the lifetime of a building. In Skyscraper, a wind-tunnel engineer is hired to build two different models (one out of wood, another carved out of Perspex). The second model provides contour maps that are reproduced for different wind speeds. The reason for having two tests was because of Worldwide Plaza’s asymmetrical elevations, which forced one side of the building to be stiffer than another. Ultimately, the tests were highly successful, and the finished core/tube design decreased the predicted sway by roughly 67%.
Another example of this interplay was the elliptical lobby. Given the structural “tube” that braced the building from excessive wind loads, the initial design by Childs seemed almost unmanageable. “You’d have a nightmare as far as putting it all together and holding it up,” Narbutas said of the design upon review (p.237). Gary Steficek, the structural engineer, also saw the problem: for the building to hold gravity loads, columns (theoretically) would have to be shot through to the elliptical foundation, which couldn’t hold the loads as they were shown. The engineers had to devise a solution to the problem and eventually they concluded that transfer levels had to be built.
As Sabbagh describes them, transfer levels are gigantic funnels that disperse vertical and lateral loads to floors below. They are almost entirely diagonal connections and all of them are connected to thicker columns beneath, none of which are situated in the foundation of concern. To the average eye, they can cause a lot of stress. Suzanne Smith, an architect for SOM, recalled that “in some cases, [SOM] was asked ‘Is this going to fit?’” (p.239). Thanks to updated structural engineering computer technology, she asserts, there is very little concern to be had about the transition.
And so, if the reader is to pull away any one positive thing from Skyscraper, it should be that architecture and engineering are a combination of dance steps, none of which are perfect, but when synchronized, can accomplish prodigious goals. As models such as BIM and IPD become standards for a more national platform, an architect/engineer (such as myself) should embrace the change and take any means necessary to ensure solid communication, wise decision-making and, most importantly, the most accurate drawings possible. If all three of those goals are fulfilled, then the lifelong dream of becoming a builder, in the truest of ways, will be fulfilled as well.
