As Charles Garnier prepared the design for the Paris Opera House in 1861, the lack of
acoustical design information and the contradictory nature of the information that he
found forced him to leave the acoustic quality to chance and hope for the best. With few
exceptions, this was the condition of architectural acoustics at the beginning of the 20th
century. In 1900, with the pioneering work of Wallace Clement Sabine, the dark
mysteries of “good acoustics” began to be illuminated. In his efforts to remedy the poor
acoustics in the Fogg Art Museum Lecture Hall (1895–1973) at Harvard University,
Entries A–F 19
Sabine began experiments that revealed the relationship among the architectural materials
of a space, the physical volume of the space, and the time that sound would persist in the
space after a source was stopped (the reverberation time). Predicting the reverberation
time of a room provided the first scientific foundation for reliable acoustic design in
architecture. This method is still regularly used as a benchmark to design a range of
listening environments, from concert halls to school classrooms.
The first application of this new acoustical knowledge occurred during the design of
the Boston Symphony Hall (1906) by McKim, Mead and White. Original plans for the
hall called for an enlarged version of the Leipzig Neues Gewandhaus (1884), a classical
Greek Revival theater. The increased size would have been acoustically inappropriate, as
it doubled the room volume, leading to excessive reverberation. Sabine worked with the
architects to develop a scheme with a smaller room volume in the traditional “shoe box”
concert hall shape. The Boston Symphony Hall remains one of the best in the world.
Adler and Sullivan’s Auditorium Building (1889) in Chicago was praised for its
architectural and engineering achievements as well as for the theater’s superb acoustics.
As the profession of acoustical consulting emerged in the design of listening spaces, the
firm of Bolt, Beranek and Newman made a significant impact on the development of
architectural acoustics in the 20th century. Their work with architects Harrison and
Abramovitz on Avery Fisher Hall (1962) in New York City represented a legitimate
attempt to incorporate new scientific principles of acoustical design rather than merely
copying previous halls that were known to be good. Although it presented several
failures, one key acoustic point gleaned from a study of European halls for Avery Fisher
Hall was that the room should hold 1,400 to 1,800 seats. Yielding to economic pressures,
the architect increased seating to almost 3,000.
A more successful implementation of modern acoustical theories is the Berlin
Philharmonic (1963). Architect Hans Scharoun’s vision of a hall in the round blurs the
traditional distinction between performer and audience. The approach posed quite an
acoustical challenge, given the directionality of many orchestral instruments; it required
an extremely unconventional acoustical design. The resulting “vineyard terrace” seating
arrangement resolved many potential acoustical difficulties while creating a spatial
vitality that resonates outward to form the profile of the building. This collaboration
between Scharoun and the acoustic consultant Lothar Cremer engendered a truly inspired
architectural design.
Possibly inspired by the failure of Avery Fisher Hall and the desire to understand what
went wrong, concert halls, as the crucible for applying sonic theories, gave rise to an
acoustical renaissance in the latter part of the 20th century. Acoustically designed spaces
need high-quality direct sound, strong sound reflections from the ceiling and side wall
surfaces soon after the direct sound, a highly diffuse and controlled reverberance, and
heavy solid sound reflecting materials. Formerly thought to be mutually exclusive, these
sonic properties exist together in the latest halls of the 20th century through an integration
of both historic precedent and new understandings of room acoustics and listening. An
extraordinary example of this union is the 1,840-seat Concert Hall in the Cultural
Congress Center (1999) in Lucerne, Switzerland, by architect Jean Nouvel and acoustic
consultant Russell Johnson.
New techniques for improved acoustic environments are applied in many building
types, including school classrooms, music practice rooms, church sanctuaries, movie
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 20
theaters, transportation hubs, and industrial facilities. Simultaneously, with more and
more exposure to digital-quality sound, clients have become keenly aware of their sonic
environment and expect high levels of performance. Speech intelligibility in classrooms
has been related to learning, with efforts to reduce excessive background noise from
mechanical equipment. The issue has become the focus of a U.S. federal government
assessment and proposal for a nationwide acoustical standard for schools. Additionally,
careful selection of materials, their quantities, and their locations in classrooms are
important to enhance speech intelligibility. Music practice spaces require adequate room
volume with both soundabsorbent and sound-diffusing materials to control loudness and
reduce the risk of noise-induced hearing loss to musicians and teachers. Religious liturgy
relies more heavily on intimate spoken sermons, cathedral-like choir singing, and highpowered
amplified music in many denominations. These trends, coupled with a
prevailing increase in sanctuary size and the desire for more congregational interaction,
have demanded sophisticated sound reinforcement systems and carefully configured
room acoustic design strategies to strike a balance among divergent sonic criteria. Digital
surround sound, the new standard in movie theater entertainment, incorporates the
environmental acoustic character as part of the movie sound track, which should not be
colored by the theater space. This requires very low reverberance, low background noise
levels from mechanical equipment, and exceptional sound isolation from adjacent
theaters. Unintelligible announcements, the bane of transportation hubs, have been the
focus of many recent acoustical studies, affirming the need to consider room geometry,
size, and material selection as they play as great a role as the actual announcement system
itself in the success of these spaces.
Many meaningful advances in acoustic knowledge were made in the 20th century. The
application and integration of this information within architectural design leaves much
room for advancement. Alvar Aalto’s famous acoustical ray tracing diagrams for the
lecture room of the Viipuri Public Library (1933–35) in Viipuri, Finland, represent
acoustical thinking in the earliest phases of design. Developing sophisticated methods to
assimilate newer acoustical knowledge as part of the architectural design process is the
work at hand in the 21st century.
ABUJA, FEDERAL CAPITAL COMPLEX OF NIGERIA
Designed by Kenzo Tange; completed 1981
In 1976 the Nigerian state authorities believed that a new federal capital city would
facilitate the creation of a “federal character” and thus resolve the problem of nepotism
and relieve ethnic tensions among the 250 cultural groups that constitute the Nigerian
nation. Abuja and its architecture, it was believed, would also remove the colonial
identity that the erstwhile capital city of Lagos was thought to bestow on the Nigerian
people.
As a result, the role of Lagos as the federal capital of Nigeria has been in question
from 1960, when Nigeria became independent, to 9 August 1975, when General Murutala
Mohammed set up an eight-member Committee on the Location of the Federal Capital of
Nigeria. The task of the committee was to review the multiple roles of Lagos as the
federal capital of Nigeria, the capital of the state of Lagos, and the economic capital of
the country.
The committee concluded that a new federal capital would improve Nigeria’s national
security, enhance Nigerian interior development, encourage the decentralization of
economic infrastructures from Lagos, and enhance the development of an indigenous
Nigerian building culture and industry. Finally, the new capital would emphasize
Nigeria’s emergence from the civil war of 1967–70 as a more united, stable, and
confident country. Nigerian lawmakers who shared the opinions of the committee
justified the idea of developing a new federal capital by suggesting that there existed a
fundamental need for a place where all Nigerians could come together on an equal basis
to help foster national unity. Moreover, advocates of a new federal capital city raised the
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 16
problems of overcrowding and lack of land for future expansion at Lagos as well as the
existence of severe social inequality in the colonial cities of Nigeria. As a result, Abuja
was conceived as a place that symbolized Nigeria’s autonomy from British colonization,
urban segregation, and a federal character that all Nigerians could share in regardless of
ethnic heritage. According to the committee and the International Planning Association
(IPA), the new capitol would provide “a balanced development focus for the nation” (see
The Mas ter Plan for Abuja, 1979). They chose Japanese modernist Kenzo Tange, a protégé of Le Corbusier, as
the principal architect for the city plan.
The federal government of Nigeria produced a schedule for implementing the
committee’s recommendations on 4 February 1976. Decree No. 6 established for Nigeria
a Federal Capital Territory—an African version of the District of Columbia—a neutral
ground where a Nigerian federal character would be developed for the good of all
Nigerians. The government took an 8,000-square-kilometer parcel (more than twice the
size of the state of Lagos) out of three minority states. Abuja is located on the Gwagwa
Plains in the middle of Nigeria; its high elevation and numerous hills contribute to a yearround
pleasant climate, one of the major attractions that influenced the committee to
select the site.
Abuja was conceived as a city for three million people to be developed in 20 years,
and its master plan symbolized the themes of democracy and Nigerian unity.
Construction began at Abuja in 1981 under the leadership of President Shehu Shagari
(who was later deposed), who was anxious to move from Lagos to the new Federal
Capital Territory.
The Nigerian authorities of state insisted that Aso Hill must be the most prominent
element within the Federal Capital Territory. Aso Hill is a huge granite outcrop (1,300
feet high) that dominates the landscape of Abuja and its vicinity visually and physically,
giving the city a natural east-west axis. Moreover, creating the image of a democratic
landscape that emblemizes the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (patterned
after the United States’ checks-and-balances system of government) was also an integral
part of the Abuja urban design scheme. As a result, a democratic shrine called the Three
Arms Zone was created at the foot of Aso Hill, making it the focal point of the city and
the locus of power of the federal government of Nigeria. Abuja’s Three Arms Zone is one
kilometer in diameter, and the buildings of the National Assembly, the Presidential
Palace, and the Supreme Court are located within it. From Aso Hill in the east end of the
city, one moves through the ceremonial Abuja National Mall, which is also patterned
after that of Washington, D.C. However, the axial view of the mall is flanked by high-rise
federal office buildings on both sides, terminating first at the quintuple towers of the
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and finally at the National Stadium in the west
of the city.
Although the Abuja master plan also aspires to position the city as a major pan-
African commercial, financial, and political center, it is dominated by a rhetoric of
Nigerian unity, national identity, and democracy. As a result, it is characterized by
unresolved tensions between its nationalist themes, the intentions of the emergent
Nigerian intelligentsia who inherited political power from Britain, and the intentions of
the architect. First, Tange’s fundamental concept for Abuja’s master plan resembles the
plan for Tokyo. One could argue that Tange’s plan to incorporate the Japanese
modernism of Tokyo represented an attempt to meet the needs of Nigerian national
identity; but concerns remained as to whether the architect’s uniform design for the
monumental federal buildings reflected the interests of the emergent Nigerian elite who
inherited political power from Britain, or whether the new structure contributed to the
erasure of certain ethnically based social boundaries. The insistence of the federal
government of Nigeria that Aso Hill be the most prominent object in the Federal Capital
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 18
Territory suggests that it was adopting an ancient “pagan” ritual site (Aso Hill) as a
means of reinventing a Nigerian “federal character,” something quite different from the
version of modernity that Tange envisioned. Advocates of the Aso Hill complex
envisioned it as a sign of stability, nationality, and cultural myth making in the vibrant,
new capital city.
Military dictators interpreted Abuja’s master plan as a document that required the
isolation of the Three Arms Zone (as a shrine to power) from the rest of the city to make
it inaccessible for public gathering. The river that runs down the foot of Aso Hill forms a
moat between the central part of the city and the Zone. This moat can be crossed only by
bridge, and the bridge is designed to be easily barricaded in time of civil disturbances.
Hence, marching to the shrine of power, as is the case in most democratic societies, has
been neutralized by the manner in which the master plan was interpreted and
implemented. Any march in the city will stop at the national mall in the central district.
This outcome was not by accident but by the careful intentions of the military dictators
who built Abuja and who deliberately chose to ignore existing traditional urban examples
in Nigeria. The ideology that privileges a landscape that can forge national unity in
Nigeria will face several practical challenges with the national assembly and the civilian
president, who took over power on 29 May 1999 after 15 years of continuous military
dictatorship.
In 1976 the Nigerian state authorities believed that a new federal capital city would
facilitate the creation of a “federal character” and thus resolve the problem of nepotism
and relieve ethnic tensions among the 250 cultural groups that constitute the Nigerian
nation. Abuja and its architecture, it was believed, would also remove the colonial
identity that the erstwhile capital city of Lagos was thought to bestow on the Nigerian
people.
As a result, the role of Lagos as the federal capital of Nigeria has been in question
from 1960, when Nigeria became independent, to 9 August 1975, when General Murutala
Mohammed set up an eight-member Committee on the Location of the Federal Capital of
Nigeria. The task of the committee was to review the multiple roles of Lagos as the
federal capital of Nigeria, the capital of the state of Lagos, and the economic capital of
the country.
The committee concluded that a new federal capital would improve Nigeria’s national
security, enhance Nigerian interior development, encourage the decentralization of
economic infrastructures from Lagos, and enhance the development of an indigenous
Nigerian building culture and industry. Finally, the new capital would emphasize
Nigeria’s emergence from the civil war of 1967–70 as a more united, stable, and
confident country. Nigerian lawmakers who shared the opinions of the committee
justified the idea of developing a new federal capital by suggesting that there existed a
fundamental need for a place where all Nigerians could come together on an equal basis
to help foster national unity. Moreover, advocates of a new federal capital city raised the
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 16
problems of overcrowding and lack of land for future expansion at Lagos as well as the
existence of severe social inequality in the colonial cities of Nigeria. As a result, Abuja
was conceived as a place that symbolized Nigeria’s autonomy from British colonization,
urban segregation, and a federal character that all Nigerians could share in regardless of
ethnic heritage. According to the committee and the International Planning Association
(IPA), the new capitol would provide “a balanced development focus for the nation” (see
The Mas ter Plan for Abuja, 1979). They chose Japanese modernist Kenzo Tange, a protégé of Le Corbusier, as
the principal architect for the city plan.
The federal government of Nigeria produced a schedule for implementing the
committee’s recommendations on 4 February 1976. Decree No. 6 established for Nigeria
a Federal Capital Territory—an African version of the District of Columbia—a neutral
ground where a Nigerian federal character would be developed for the good of all
Nigerians. The government took an 8,000-square-kilometer parcel (more than twice the
size of the state of Lagos) out of three minority states. Abuja is located on the Gwagwa
Plains in the middle of Nigeria; its high elevation and numerous hills contribute to a yearround
pleasant climate, one of the major attractions that influenced the committee to
select the site.
Abuja was conceived as a city for three million people to be developed in 20 years,
and its master plan symbolized the themes of democracy and Nigerian unity.
Construction began at Abuja in 1981 under the leadership of President Shehu Shagari
(who was later deposed), who was anxious to move from Lagos to the new Federal
Capital Territory.
The Nigerian authorities of state insisted that Aso Hill must be the most prominent
element within the Federal Capital Territory. Aso Hill is a huge granite outcrop (1,300
feet high) that dominates the landscape of Abuja and its vicinity visually and physically,
giving the city a natural east-west axis. Moreover, creating the image of a democratic
landscape that emblemizes the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (patterned
after the United States’ checks-and-balances system of government) was also an integral
part of the Abuja urban design scheme. As a result, a democratic shrine called the Three
Arms Zone was created at the foot of Aso Hill, making it the focal point of the city and
the locus of power of the federal government of Nigeria. Abuja’s Three Arms Zone is one
kilometer in diameter, and the buildings of the National Assembly, the Presidential
Palace, and the Supreme Court are located within it. From Aso Hill in the east end of the
city, one moves through the ceremonial Abuja National Mall, which is also patterned
after that of Washington, D.C. However, the axial view of the mall is flanked by high-rise
federal office buildings on both sides, terminating first at the quintuple towers of the
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and finally at the National Stadium in the west
of the city.
Although the Abuja master plan also aspires to position the city as a major pan-
African commercial, financial, and political center, it is dominated by a rhetoric of
Nigerian unity, national identity, and democracy. As a result, it is characterized by
unresolved tensions between its nationalist themes, the intentions of the emergent
Nigerian intelligentsia who inherited political power from Britain, and the intentions of
the architect. First, Tange’s fundamental concept for Abuja’s master plan resembles the
plan for Tokyo. One could argue that Tange’s plan to incorporate the Japanese
modernism of Tokyo represented an attempt to meet the needs of Nigerian national
identity; but concerns remained as to whether the architect’s uniform design for the
monumental federal buildings reflected the interests of the emergent Nigerian elite who
inherited political power from Britain, or whether the new structure contributed to the
erasure of certain ethnically based social boundaries. The insistence of the federal
government of Nigeria that Aso Hill be the most prominent object in the Federal Capital
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 18
Territory suggests that it was adopting an ancient “pagan” ritual site (Aso Hill) as a
means of reinventing a Nigerian “federal character,” something quite different from the
version of modernity that Tange envisioned. Advocates of the Aso Hill complex
envisioned it as a sign of stability, nationality, and cultural myth making in the vibrant,
new capital city.
Military dictators interpreted Abuja’s master plan as a document that required the
isolation of the Three Arms Zone (as a shrine to power) from the rest of the city to make
it inaccessible for public gathering. The river that runs down the foot of Aso Hill forms a
moat between the central part of the city and the Zone. This moat can be crossed only by
bridge, and the bridge is designed to be easily barricaded in time of civil disturbances.
Hence, marching to the shrine of power, as is the case in most democratic societies, has
been neutralized by the manner in which the master plan was interpreted and
implemented. Any march in the city will stop at the national mall in the central district.
This outcome was not by accident but by the careful intentions of the military dictators
who built Abuja and who deliberately chose to ignore existing traditional urban examples
in Nigeria. The ideology that privileges a landscape that can forge national unity in
Nigeria will face several practical challenges with the national assembly and the civilian
president, who took over power on 29 May 1999 after 15 years of continuous military
dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)